IPO承銷新制對市場波動性、效率性及流動性之影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：20

、訪客IP：3.144.16.254

姓名

王慧鈴(Hui-Ling Wang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

財務金融學系在職專班

論文名稱

IPO承銷新制對市場波動性、效率性及流動性之影響

相關論文

★ 上市公司財務主管異動宣告對股價報酬與企業經營績效之影響	★ 國內綜合證券商轉投資海外子公司內部控制實務探討
★ 探討影響本益比之各項變數－IC設計產業之實證研究	★ 避險基金交易策略在台灣市場獲利性之研究
★ 財富管理業務與顧客行為之研究－以本國銀行業為例	★ 購併活動與資訊揭露—以公開收購為例
★ 臺灣證券期貨市場後台作業整合模式之研究	★ 道瓊指數、日經225指數、美國及日本10年期公債利率與日圓匯率之相互關係
★ 銀行投資公債業務之探討分析	★ 所得稅法新制對債券流通市場之影響
★ 私募基金入主國內銀行之認購價格實證研究-以凱雷入主大眾銀行為例	★ 虛擬銀行之可行性分析－以HSBC為例
★ 台灣中小企業融資、客群經營模式與經營策略問題之探討-以C銀行為例	★ 美元兌新台幣匯率與台灣股市關聯性之理論探討與實證分析
★ 動態投資組合保險策略之應用— 以紐約證券交易所發行之ETFs為實證	★ 公司治理品質的變數 —對營建股股票價值之影響

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

摘要
本次金管會推行承銷新制之四大目標，主在改善IPO股票承銷價格訂定合理化、掛牌後價格之穩定度、承銷商配售自主性及發揮承銷商專業功能與自律機制，希冀改善以往承銷制度的缺失，並與國際接軌，朝多元化、效率化及彈性化之原則邁進。新制的重大突破內容有IPO完全採新股承銷、廢除承銷價慣用計算公式、開放掛牌首五個營業日無漲跌幅限制、引進安定操作機制、券商分級制度、取消券商自行認購及配售方式自由化。新制改革亦配合上市(櫃)制度及上市(櫃)後管理制度改革，期能提升IPO市場整體品質。然新制自94年初施實至今，約一年多的時間裡，觀察IPO資本市場的變化，由初期的冷清轉為現今的熱絡，其優缺好壞各方說法不一，因此逐引發本論文研究的動機。
本論文針對新制實施前後，對IPO市場績效差異進行研究，並從IPO股票市場的報酬變動性（volatility）、效率性（efficient）以及流動性（liquidity）三構面來探討新制IPO市場績效是否較舊制為佳，及達到主管機關期望的目標。實證結果顯示新制實施後IPOs股價之波動性及流動性較舊制為差，而效率性則呈現反應不足的現象，新制改革下並未使IPOs市場績效表現更佳。
實際觀察新制IPO資本市場情況，申請公司量少質優，帶動興櫃市場成交的熱絡，並且再度創造出投資人對IPO市場的參與熱潮，再者，承銷商專業及配售能力得以發揮，且確實執行安定操作措施，有效穩定IPOs股價。由此觀之，新制實施後已逐漸達成主管機關的預期效益，整體來說，若能在承銷時程縮短、承銷價格合理化等方面再予改進，並且落時監理機制，新制改革的效果應給予正面肯定的。

摘要(英)

Abstract
The FSC plans to achieve four main goals by implementing the new underwriting regulation. The four goals are (1) making the underwriting price more reasonable (2) increasing the stability of price of a listing stock (3) increasing the underwriter’s independence in distribution stocks. The FSC hopes that this reform can improve the underwriting mechanism and make the underwriting regulation close to international standards, more effective and flexible. The important reforms are (1) only newly issued stocks can be underwritten in IPO (2) abolishing past formula in calculating the underwriting price (3) deregulating the price limit during the first five days after listing (4) introducing stabilization activities (5) underwriters classification system (6) forbidding underwriters to subscribe. And this underwriting reform cooperates with listing system and listing management system to improve the quality of the IPO market. The new underwriting regulation has been practiced for more than one year since 2005. The IPO market becomes more active. However some people support the reform, but some others do not. Therefore this paper studies the effectiveness of the new regulations.
This paper compares the IPO market performance between new underwriting regulation and old underwriting regulation. This paper investigates three respects to check if the FSC attains the goals by implementing new regulation. The three respects are volatility, efficiency and liquidity. The results suggest that the volatility and liquidity of IPO market in new regulation is worse than those in old regulation. The reforming can not make the IPO market efficient. Therefore in according to this study, the new regulations do not improve the performance of the IPO market.
Observing the IPO capital market, I find that because the number of sample companies is small and the quality of those companies is good, the trading of the emerging stock market is more active and it makes the investors more interested in IPO market. Moreover, the underwriters can reveal their specialty and ability. It stabilizes the stock price by practicing stabilization activities. Therefore the new underwriting regulation is closer to achieve the expected effect. If it can improves in the term of underwriting and the reasonableness of underwriting price, and implement management mechanism, people will give positive thinking to the new underwriting regulation.

論文目次

目錄
中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………….………………Ⅰ
英文摘要…………………………………………………………...………………………………..………Ⅱ
謝辭……………………………………………………………………………………...…Ⅲ
目錄……………………………………………………………………………………………………………Ⅳ
表目錄…………………………………………………………………………………………………………Ⅴ
圖目錄……………………………………………………………………………………………………...…Ⅵ
第一章緒論…………………………………………………………………………………1
第一節研究背景與動機…………………………………………………………1
第二節研究目的……………………………………………………………………..4
第三節研究流程……………………………………………………………………..4
第四節研究架構……………………………………………………………………..5
第二章我國初次上市(櫃)股票承銷制度分析及新、舊制度比較…………………………6
第一節我國承銷制度沿革…………………………………………………………..6
第二節新制修正內容…………………………………………………………..……7
第三章理論與文獻探討………………………………………………………………...…17
第一節初次上市相關文獻…………………………………………………………17
第二節股價漲跌幅限制相關文獻…………………………………………………26
第四章研究方法……………………………………………………………...……………31
第一節研究期間及樣本選擇………………………………………………………31
第二節研究方法……………………………………………………………………32
第五章實證結果…………………………………………………………………...………36
第一節波動性分析…………………………………………………………………36
第二節效率性分析…………………………………………………………………40
第三節流動性分析…………………………………………………………………42
第六章結論與建議…………………………………………………………………...……44
第一節結論…………………………………………………………………………44
第二節建議…………………………………………………………………………45
第三節對後續研究者建議…………………………………………………………51
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………………52
附錄………………………………………………………………………………………56

參考文獻

參考文獻
中文部份：
1.周行一、呂東英主持，國內現行承銷制度檢討與改善方案，中華民國公司組織研究發展協會，2002年7月。
2.證券暨期貨月刊第二十二卷第七期
3.證券櫃檯月刊第103期、第102期、第104期、第115期
4.王齡梓，我國有價證券承銷制度及承銷配售方式之研究—以上市(櫃)前承銷配售制度為中心，國立台北大學法學系研究所碩士班論文，2004年6月。
5.朱博湧，「漲跌限幅對台灣股價報酬之影響」，Asia Pacific J. of Management, 1990, vol 7, pp141-152。
6.李廣進，台灣地區新上市股票短期投資報酬率之研究，臺灣大學商學研究所碩士論文，1980。
7.李又剛，「股價漲跌限幅措施下的我國股市與美、日、港三國股市之比較」，台北市銀行月刊，第20 卷第1 期，民國82 年。
8.吳學基，「限制漲跌幅度影響後續股價之實證研究-以台灣證券市場為例」，政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，民國75 年6 月。
9.吳壽山、周賓凰，「衡量漲跌幅限制對股票報酬與風險之影響」，證券市場發展季刊，第八卷第一期，民國85 年1 月。
10.柯百玲，台灣新上市股票短期報酬之研究，政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，1989。
11.柯瓊鳳、沈大白，「股價漲跌幅度限制對股價波動及交易量之影響─實驗分析法」，證券暨金融市場之理論與實務，民國84 年7 月。
12.洪日爛，台灣股票市場新上市股票投資報酬率與市場效率性之研究，政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，1979。
13.徐修一，資訊不對稱下新上巿公司折價發行股票之訊息測試，台灣科技大學管理技術研究所碩士論文，1997。
14.張財豪，新上市股票與現金增資折價程度關聯性之研究，政治大學企業管理研究所，1998。
15.張慎，台灣新上市股票超額報酬及其影響因素之實證研究，政治大學會計研究所碩士論文，1994。
16.陳秀亮，新上市股票價格行為探討，中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文，1986。
17.陳添裕，「漲跌限幅對報酬率、波動性及交易量影響之研究－台灣實證分析」，東海大學管理研究所碩士論文，民國88 年6 月。
18.黃威翰，承銷制度變革對台灣初級市場的影響，國立政治大學國際貿易學研究所碩士班論文，2005年6月。
19.楊家溱，新上市股票異常報酬探討與不同承銷配售方式之選擇，交通大學經營管理研究所，2000。
20.劉玉珍、周行一、潘景靜，「台灣股市價格限制與交易行為」，中國財務學刊，第四卷第二期，民國85 年10 月。
21.羅贊興，我國新上市公司股票短期報酬率之研究，淡江大學金融研究所碩士論文，1989。
英文部份：
1. Allen, Franklin and Gerald R. Faulhaber, “Signaling by Underpricing in the IPO Market,” Journal of Financial Economics, 1989, pp.303-323.
2. Baron, David P., “A Model of the Demand for Investment Banking Advising and Distribution Services for New Issues,” Journal of Finance,37, 1982, pp.955-976.
3. Beatty, Randolph P. and Ray R. Ritter, “Investment Banking, Reputation,and the Underpricing of Initial Public Offerings,” Journal of Financial Economics, 15, 1986, pp.213-232.
4. .Booth, James R and Chua, Lena, “Ownership dispersion, costly information, and IPO underpricing,” Journal of Financial Economics,41(2), Jun 1996, pp. 291-310.
5. Booth, James R. and Richard L. Smith, “Capital Raising, Underwriting and Certification Hypothesis,” Journal of Financial Economics, 15, 1986,pp.261-281.
6. Chou, P. H., and S. Chib, 1995, “Estimating the optimal hedge ratio under price limits: A Bayesian approach using Gibbs Sampler”, Working paper, National Central University.
7. Chalk, Andrew J. and Peavy, John W., III, “Initial Public Offerings: Daily Returns, Offe ring Types and the Price Effect,” Financial Analysts Journal,43(5), Sep/Oct 1987, pp. 65-69.
8. Chua, Lena, “A reexamination of the costs of firm commitment and best efforts IPOs,” The Financial Review, 30(2), May 1995, pp.337-365.
9. Coursey, D. L., and E. A. Dyl, 1990, “Price limits, Trading suspensions and the Adjustment of Price to new information”, Review of Future Markets, Vol. 9,pp.342-360.
10. Dawson, Steven M., Reiner and Norbert, “Raising Capital with Initial Public Share Issues in Germany,” Management International Review,28(1), 1988, pp. 64-72.
11. De Bondt, Werner F. M., Thaler, Richard and Bernstein, Peter L., “Does the Stock Market Overreact?/Discussion,” The Journa l of Finance, 40(3),Jul 1985, pp.793-808
12. Dubofsky, David A, and John C. Groth, 1984,” Exchange listing and stock liquidity”, Journal of Financial Research, Vol. VII, No. 4, 291-302.
13. George, Thomas J., and Chuan-Yang Hwang, 1995, “Transitory price changes and price limit rules：Evidence from the Tokyo Stock Exchange”, Journal of financial and quantitative analysis 30, pp.313-327.
14. Hanley, Kathleen Weiss, Kumar, A Arun and Seguin, Paul J , “Price stabilization in the market for new issues,” Journal of Financial Economics, 34(2), Oct 1993, pp. 177-197.
15. Ibbotson, R. G. and J. F. Jaffe, “Hot Issue Market,” Journal of Finance, 30,1975, pp.235-275.
16. Kroszner Randall S. and Rajan Raghuram G., “Is the Glass-Steagall Act Justified? A Study of the U.S. Experience with Universal Banking before 1933,” American Economic Review, 84, 1994, pp.810-832.
17. Khoury, Sarkis J. and Gerald L. Jones, 1983, “Daily price limit on futures contracts：Nature, Impact, and Justification”, RMF 3, pp.22-36.
18. Kim, Kenneth K. and S. Ghon Rhee, 1996, “Price limit performance：Evidence form the Tokyo Stock Exchange”, Journal of finance, forth coming.
19. Kim, Oliver and Robert E. Verrecchia., 1991, “Trading volume and price reactions to public announcements” Journal of accounting research 29, pp.302-321.
20. Lee, S. B. and K. J. Kim, 1995, “The effect of price limits on stock price volatility:empirical evidence in Korea”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 22,pp.257-267.
21. Lee, Charles M.C. and Mark J. Ready and Paul J. Seguin, 1994, “Volume, Volatility,and New York Stock Exchange Trading halts”, Journal of finance 49, pp.183-214.
22. Lee, Sang-Bin and Seok-Chung Jee, 1996, ”Price limits and stock market efficiency”, Journal of business and accounting 23, pp.585-601
23. Lehmann, Bruce N.,1989, ”Commentary：Volatility, price resolution and the effectiveness of price limit”, Journal of financial services research 3,pp.205-209.
24. Leland, Hayne E, and David H. Pyle, “Information Asymmetries,Financial Structure, and Financial Intermediation,” Journal of Finance, 32,1977, pp. 371-387.
25. Mauer, David C. and Senbet, Lemma W., “The Effect of the Secondary Market on the Pricing of Initial Public Offerings: Theory and Evidence,”Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 27(1), Mar 1992,pp.55-79.
26. McDonald, J. G.; Fisher, A. K., “New-Issue Stock Price Behavior,” The Journal of Finance, 27(1), Mar 1972, pp.97.
27. McGuinness, Paul, “The market valuation of initial public offerings in Hong Kong,” Applied Financial Economics, 3(3), Sep 1993, pp. 267-281.
28. Muscarella, C. and M. R. Vetsuypens, “A Simple Test of Baron's Model of IPO Underpricing,” Journal of Financial Economics, 24, 1989,pp.125-135.
29. Ma, C., R. Rao, and R. S. Sears, “Volatility, price resolution and the effectiveness of price limit’, Journal of financial services research 3,pp.165-200.
30. Miller, Merton H.,1989, “Commentary ：Volatility, price resolution and the effectiveness of price limit”, Journal of financial services research 3,pp.201-203.
31. Oren, M. E.; Williams, A. C., “On Competitive Bidding,” Operations Research, 23(6), November/December 1975, pp. 1072.
32. Paul Gompers and Josh Lerner “Conflict of Interest in the Issuance of Public Securities: Evidence From Venture Capital,” Journal of Law and Economics, April 1999, pp.1-29.
33. Ritter, Jay R., “The ‘hot issue’ market of 1980,” Journal of Business, 57,1984,pp.215-240.
34. Ritter, Jay R., 1987, “The cost of going public,” Journal of Financial Economics, 19, 1987, pp. 269-281.
35. Rock, Kevin, “Why New Issues Are Underpriced,” Journal of Financial Economics, 15(1,2), Jan/Feb 1986, pp.187-212.
36. Ruth Seow Kuan Tan, Li Li Eng and Andrew Khoo, “The Effects of Offering Method and Trading Location on the Pricing of IPOs in Singapore,” Applied Financial Economics, 1999, pp.491-499.
37. Ruud, Judith S , “Underwriter price support and the IPO underpricing puzzle,” Journal of Financial Economics, 34(2), Oct 1993, pp. 135-151.
38. Stoll, H., “The Pricing of Security Dealer Service: An empirical Study of NASDAQ Stocks,” Journal of Financial, 33, pp.1153-1172.
39. Titman, Sheridan and Brett Trueman, “Information Quality and the Valuation of New Issues,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 8, 1986,pp.159-172.

指導教授

周冠男(Robin K. Chou)

審核日期

2006-7-17

推文