臺灣銀行業財務績效、內部人持股及董監事薪酬重要影響因素研析

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：9

、訪客IP：18.116.63.174

姓名

毛傳志(Chuan-Chih Mao) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

產業經濟研究所

論文名稱

臺灣銀行業財務績效、內部人持股及董監事薪酬重要影響因素研析
(The Important Factor Analysis for Taiwan Banking Industry about the Financial Performance、Insider Shareholding and the Remuneration of the Directors and Supervisors)

相關論文

★ 論企業重整運作機制---兼論公司重整治理及新資金取得	★ 評析我國證券交易法內線交易之規範—以美國立法例為借鏡
★ 不動產投資信託之研究－以投資人保護為中心	★ 婚姻制度之過去、現在及未來-以兩岸為研討對象
★ 論我國公司治理規範-兼論公司內部稽核制度完善	★ 論銀行保證制度之研究
★ 非常規交易稅制問題之研究	★ 中國銀行產業分析—兼論台資銀行西進策略
★ 網路購物標價錯誤法律效果之研究	★ 股東表決權－論公開發行公司董事設質股票之表決權限制
★ 特種貨物及勞務稅對區域房市價格之影響--以桃園縣為例	★ 土壤液化公告對區域房價影響之研究 -以板橋及新莊為例
★ 論我國消費者債務清理機制的更新與新設-以個人重整程序為核心	★ 網路數位化商品之消費者保護-以郵購買賣為核心
★ 論公司股份回籠與內線交易	★ 內線交易的法律與經濟分析

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)

臺灣銀行業財務績效、內部人持股及董監事薪
酬重要影響因素研析
摘要
本論文主要目的在針對影響銀行業公司治理成效的三項重要因素進行研析，並探討其相互間的關聯性，包括了對銀行財務績效(ROA、ROE)之主要影響因素，內部人持股比例以及董監事薪酬之重要影響因素進行實證探討，分列於三個章節，其中二、三章在探討內部人持股比例與財務績效間之相互關連性，第四章在探討董監薪酬與財務績效及內部人間的關聯性，摘要如后:
第二章「銀行財務績效(ROA、ROE)的主要影響因素」:在探討存在內部性問題的前提之下，探討內部人持股比例與銀行經營績效是否存在顯著的關聯性。基於內部訊息及薪酬制度，二者間存在著高度複雜的關聯性，經過文獻探討，認為財務績效與內部人持股比例二者之間存在著內生性關係，追蹤型資料二階段最小平方法迴歸模型(two stage least squares for panel data model )來進行計量經濟分析，發現銀行業內部人持股與財務績效ROA二者關係是呈倒S型的關聯性。
這顯示金融監督管理委員會應基於「利益掠奪假說」及「利益收斂假說」並存於銀行業，將其列為法制與管理的基本要旨，亦即基於經營績效會隨著內部持股人之持股比例變動而變動的觀點，在訂定相關金融法規時，將經營權與內部所有權做某程度的規範。
第三章「內部人持股比例重要影響因素實證研究」:參考過去的文獻，應變數多儘對單一績效指標進行探討。然而，為避免單一財務指標產生的不完備，本章以財務績效指標(roa、roe)為解釋變數，以實證方式探討其對內部人持股比例是否會產生不同實證結果，藉以觀察二變數間的相互關聯性。結果發現其關聯性因此而不同。
此外，本研究以國內銀行業作為研究對象，採用不同的董監事會規模、衡量股權結構的變數（包含內部人持股以及法人機構持股比例）與不同的財務績效衡量（ROA & ROE）來探討各種可能的關聯性。
經實證結果顯示，內部人持股比例受財務績效影響顯著，二者間具有內生性，且相互影響。此外，當持股比例超過50%時，財務績效表現越優良的情形之下，內部人持股多傾向於調節持股。因為在可取得主導地位時，多持股以增加風險，不如高檔時調節，等低檔時再承接。此外，台灣銀行業的內部人持股比例，並不受各種董監事酬金所影響。
第四章「銀行業董監事薪酬重要影響因素之實證研究」:
主要在探討上市櫃銀行業董監事薪酬的重要影響因素，將董監事薪酬結構區分為非誘因性薪酬(董監事報酬與董監事業務執行費)與誘因性薪酬(董事酬勞與紅利)及董監總薪酬三類再加以研析將總樣本區分為金融海嘯前後、金控與非金控所屬銀行以及公股色彩銀行、民營銀行六個子樣本，分別探討其薪酬給付情形。即便法律規定須在年報中說明董監事薪酬與經營績效之關聯，但總樣本及子樣本關於銀行之薪酬結構，均未曾顯著的將財務績效反映於薪酬高低水準之上。惟金融海嘯以後，就營業利益相較於同業平均水準而言，表現越佳者，其董監事總酬金與誘因性薪酬越高。此外風險指標(BIS)與薪酬亦無顯著之關聯性。
銀行財務績效與內部人持股比例之間存在著相互影響的關係，但薪酬發放與財務績效則是脫鉤的，足見薪酬委員會成立至今，其效果不彰，有待監理機關修法改善。其他影響因素如董監薪酬會將同業的營業利益間相對績效好壞納入參考。此外，非誘因性薪酬通常會受同業經營相對績效影響，比如財務績效與銀行平均水準之間的差(配適值)呈顯著的正相關。董監事薪酬似乎亦非激勵銀行財務績效的萬靈丹，但內部人持股以及銀行與同業經營績效間的差額相對高低卻是影響董監酬勞的一項利器。上述特性與一般產業有所不同。
歸納上述研究結果，就本文影響公司治理的三項主要因素中內部人持股比例(股權結構)才是問題的核心， 2007年為杜防「肥貓」產生，金管會認為董監事支付薪酬應考量經營績效及風險。當時認為，此舉或許可以收立竿見影之效，但此時，經過實證研究，似有改善空間，但對於內部人持股比例進行研析監理似乎才是正本清源之道。

圖1-1 財務績效、內部人持股比例以及董監事薪酬相互間之關聯性

摘要(英)

The Important Factor Analysis for Taiwan Banking Industry about the Financial Performance、Insider Shareholding and the Remuneration of the Directors and Supervisors

Abstract
The thesis was focus on the important factors that influence the performance of the corporate governance about the banking industry in Taiwan. It analyzes about the main factors of financial performance (ROA, ROE) 、remuneration of directors and supervisors and insider (supervisors 、boards and managers , etc) shareholding .
The thesis covered three topics which were summarized as below:
In chapter 2 analyses the main factors which affect the financial performance (ROA, ROE) of the banking industry. According to the published literature, that there is an endogenous relationship between the financial performance and insiders ownership, based on the remuneration system and the internal information mechanism. So as to use the two stage least squares for panel data model to analyze the relationship between the proportion of internal shareholders shareholding and the financial performace ROA and ROE. As a result , the analysis find that the relationships of the proportion the proportion of internal shareholders shareholding internal shareholders shareholding between 25%-100% are showed as inverted S-type.
Apperantly, the conflict of interest hypothesis and the interest convergence hypothesis coexist in the banking industry, the Financial Supervisory Commission should pay attention to the result of the analysis to control the portion of insider shareholding when manage the banking sector and design the mechanism to determinine the relevant financial regulations.
Chapter3 concerns the empirical research of the important factors analysis of the proportion of insider shareholding :
In order to avoid a single financial indicator is incomplete to show to real condition. In this study, focus on the domestic banking sector as research subjects using different variables to measure the equity structure so as to analyze the relationship with ROA and ROE.
The empirical results show that the relationship between the proportion of insider ownership and financial performance, with endogenous. When the financial performance is excellent, the insider will decline the insider ownership stake because they have gotten the dominant position , to keep more shares will gain nothing but increase the higher risk ,so the insiders will adjust the ratio of portion. They should increace the portion of insider ownership when the financial performance decreased to the lower condition.By the way, the proportion of insider ownership is not affected by remuneration of board of directors and supervisors.
The remuneration analysis of board of directors and supervisors were classified into three types, they are non-incentive、incentive and total remuneration of board and directors and supervisors.
The total sample is divided into before and after the financial crisis, a financial holding company and non-financial holding company banks , government holding shares banks, private share holding banks ,etc .There are six sub-samples, to explore their remuneration payments situation respectively.The paper found that there is not any relationship between the financial performance and remuneration of board.
According to the regulation that the bank should disclosure the relationship between the remuneration of board and financial performance in the annual report, but the empirical analysis found the remuneration of banking industry without any significant relationship with financial performance. But after the tsunami , the empirical analysis find that the higher deviation of operating interest with the average level of operation interest of the banking industry, the higher incentive remuneration of directors and directors than before will happened.By the way,there is not any significant correlation between the risk indicator (BIS) and the remuneration either.
To summarize the results above, the three main factors that affect corporate governance in the thesis, the insider ownership structure is the core of the problem. Keep fat cats from happening generation, the FSC think the remuneration to directors and supervisors should connect the performance and risk in 2007.The way can solve the「Fat Cat」problem immediately. But to manage the insider ownership structure is more important way to solve the agency problem.

關鍵字(中)

★ 內部人
★ 董監事薪酬
★ 財務績效
★ 資產報酬率
★ 淨值報酬率

關鍵字(英)

★ insider
★ remuneration of Board and Supervisors
★ Financial Performance indicator
★ ROA
★ ROE

論文目次

目錄
中文摘要..............................................................................................................i
英文摘要.............................................................................................................iii
圖目錄................................................................................................................ix
表目錄.................................................................................................................x
一、緒論..............................................................................................................1
1-1研究動機與目的...........................................................................................2
1-2研究方法與範圍...........................................................................................4
二、銀行經營績效重要影響因素之探討：以追蹤資料型二階段最小平方法為例(The Study of The Financial Perfonmance of Banking Industry By Two Stage Least Squares Regression of Panel Data Model)............................................................6
2.1緒論.............................................................................................................6
2.2文獻探討與假說設定....................................................................................7
2-3研究方法與實證模型設計...........................................................................19
2-4實證結果分析.............................................................................................29
2-5結論與建議................................................................................................44
三、內部人持股比例重要影響因素實證研究──以追蹤資料型二階段最小平方法為例(Two Stage Least Squares Regression for Panel Data)......................................59
3-1緒論...........................................................................................................60
3-2相關文獻探討.............................................................................................62
3-3模型與研究方法.........................................................................................67
3-4實證結果：................................................................................................71
3-5結論...........................................................................................................78
參考文獻.............................................................................................................81
四、銀行業董監事薪酬重要影響因素之研究：viii

追蹤資料型(panel data)迴歸模型分析為例.........................................................101
4-1摘要.........................................................................................................101
4-2緒論.........................................................................................................101
4-3文獻探討與假說建構................................................................................104
4-4研究方法與模型設定................................................................................116
4-5實證結果:.................................................................................................123
4-6結論與未來研究建議................................................................................134
參考文獻..........................................................................................................136
1.中文參考文獻.............................................................................................136
2.英文參考文獻.............................................................................................137
3.參考之網站.................................................................................................140
五、結論與未來研究建………..............................................................................149
5-1研究結論..................................................................................................149
5-2研究限制與後續研究建議.........................................................................152

參考文獻

參考文獻
1. 中文參考文獻
1. 王大為(2003)，公司治理相關要素與公司績效關聯性之研究-臺灣上市公司為例-淡江大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文,頁23-52。
2. 朱珊慧(2010)，薪酬委員會相關法律問題之研究，東吳大學法律學系碩士論文，頁43-55。
3. 何幸芳(2002)，獨立董監事對公司價值與盈餘資訊內涵影響之研究，輔仁大學金融研究所碩士論文。
4. 宋致皓(2006)，董監酬勞與公司治理關聯性之研究，國立政治大學會計學系碩士論文，頁47-85。
5. 李春安、吳欽杉、葉麗玉(2003)，「所有權結構與公司非法行為關係之研究-以臺灣股票上市公司為例」，證劵市場發展季刊，頁54-77。
6. 李嵩茂、王俊傑(2011)，英國金融監理總署（FSA）之「英國及全球之監理改革」年度國際研討會報告，行政院金融監督管理委員會。
7. 李馨蘋、莊宗憲(2007)，「公司治理機制與公司績效之實證研究」，東吳經紀商學學報第57期。
8. 李馨蘋與何喜將(2005)，「公司治理機制與銀行風險承擔之實證研究」，第二屆信用風險與財務工程研討會，臺灣財務工程學會與臺灣大學管理學院合辦。。
9. 李懿洋(2010)，「從公司治理看薪酬法制」，中正大學碩士論文174-214。
10. 沈中華、林昆立(2008)，「公司治理對基本財務資訊與股票報酬關係的影響：內生性轉換模型之應用」，管理評論，第27卷第2期1-27。
11. 李馨蘋與何喜將(2005)，「公司治理機制與銀行風險承擔之實證研究」，第二屆信用風險與財務工程研討會，臺灣財務工程學會與臺灣大學管理學院合辦。
12. 林灼榮.鄒季博.蕭莉芃(2007)，「台灣IC設計產業公司治理、技術效率與利潤結構之攸關性研究」，台灣管理學刊，第7卷第2期187-208
13. 林灼榮.鄒季博.蕭莉芃(2007)，「台灣IC設計產業公司治理、技術效率與利潤結構之攸關性研究」，台灣管理學刊，第7卷第2期187-208
14. 林欣美、郭麗華與蘇迺惠(2008)，「國際化程度、董事會結構、精練法人監督對盈餘管理之影響:以台灣資訊電子業為例」，台大管理論叢，第19卷第1期157-186
15. 林穎芬、洪晨桓、陳佳成(2012)，「臺灣上市公司董事薪酬影響因子之研究」，臺大管理論叢第23卷第1期 175-208。
16. 柯承恩(1999)，「公司監理與資訊透明的重要性－亞洲金融危機的啟示」，會計研究月刊，第173期，25-51。
17. 柯承恩(2000)，「我國公司治理體系之問題與改進建議」，會計研究月刊，第173期，75-81。
18. 財務管理-新觀念與本土化，謝劍平，智勝文化，2008年2月四版,頁211-241。
19. 張雅林(2004)，「我國企業獨立董事機制與經營績效之關聯性研究」，大葉大學會計資訊研究所未出版碩士論文。
20. 郭大維，「論董事報酬決定機制之建構-從最高法院九十八年度台上字第九三五號民事判決談起」，月旦法學雜誌，第198期，2011年11月，頁191-212。
21. 單驥、王弓(2004)，「科技產業聚落之發展:矽谷.新竹與上海」，國立中央大學出版157-186。
22. 傅鍾仁、歐進士、張寶光(2011),「我國企業經營者薪酬與績效指標之關聯性」，管理學報1073-1096。
23. 黃怡芳(2006)，「企業盈餘分配與公司治理關聯性之研究」，東吳大學會計系碩士論文23-55。
24. 黃崇輝（2004)，「公司治理與經營績效關聯性之研究－以台南地區上市、上櫃及公開發行公司為實證」，國立成功大學管理學院碩士論。
25. 楊雅惠、許嘉棟(2014),「金融問題與金融危機之因應,台灣金融體制之變遷綜觀」，金融研訓院,第九章頁3-20。
26. 楊雅惠(2014)，「金融體系在產業發展中之探討」，于宗先院士公共政策研討會，5月2日。
27. 楊雅惠(2013)，「面對國際金融監理潮流」，台灣銀行家，1月號，頁18-21。
28. 楊雅惠(2013)，「亞洲金融重鎮之競爭」，亞洲金融季刊，國立台北大學，10月。
29. 廖秀梅、李建然、吳祥華(2006)，「董事會結構特性與公司績效關係之研究－兼論台灣家族企業因素的影響」，東吳經濟商學學報第54期，頁117-160。
30. 蔡昌憲(2012)，「評我國強制設置薪酬委員會之立法政策—從經濟分析及美國金融改革法談起」，中研院法學期刊，第11期，頁1-36。
31. 蕭瓊枝(2006)，「我國獨立董監制度及董先酬勞對公司經營績效影響之研究」，輔仁大學會計學系碩士論文，35-55。
32. 賴怡洵、陳家彬與何加政(2008)，「台灣地區銀行進入企業董監事會之決定因素：代理成本與放款者利益衝突假說」，管理學報，第25卷第1期，頁1-30
2. 英文參考文獻
1. Armen A.Alchain & Harold Demesetz, Production,Information Cost,and Economic Organization,and Onership Structure,3 J.FIN.Econ.Rev.777-795305(1976)
2. Alkhafaji, A. F., 1990, Effective board of directors： an overview, Industrial Management and Data System, 90, 18-26.
3. Agrawal, A. and C. R. Knoeber (1996) ,“Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control AgencyProblems between Managers and Shareholders.”Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 3,pp.377-397.
4. Andres, P. D., V. Azofra, and F. Lopez（2005) , “Corporate Boards in OECD Countries: Size, Composition,Functioning and Effectiveness.”Corporate Government, 13, No.2, pp.197-210.
5. Becher I. D. A., Campbell T. L., and Melissa B. F., 2005, Incentive compensation for bank director：The impact of deregulation, Journal of Business, 78(5).
6. Bhagat, S. and Black B.,(1999) ,The uncertain relationship between board composition and firm performance,The Business Lawyer, 54(3), 921-963.
7. Brink I. E., O. Palmon, and J.K. Wal, 2003,Board compensation structure and firm performance, working papper.
8. Bacon, J.（1973), Corporate Directorship Practices: Membership and Committees of The Board, NewYork: The Conference Board.Bradley, M., G. Jarrell, and E. H. Kim（1984),“On the Existence of an Optimal Capital Structure:Theory and Evidence.”Journal of Finance, 39, pp.857-878.
9. Barnhart, S. W. and S. Rosenstein（1998),“Board Composition, Managerial Ownership and Firm Performance: An Empirical Analysis.” , 33, pp.1-16.
10. Bathala, C. T.,K. P. Moon, and R. P. Rao（1994),“Managerial Ownership, Debt Policy and The Impact of Institutional Holdings: An Agency Perspective.”Financial Management, 23, pp.38-50.
11. Chan, S. H., J. D. Martin, and J. W. Kensinger（1990),“Corporate Research and Development Expenditures and Share Value?”Journal of Financial Economics, 26, pp.255-276.
12. Cho, M. H.（1998),“Ownership Structure, Investment, and The Corporate Value: An Empirical Analysis.”Journal of Financial Economics, 47, pp.103-121.
13. Crutchley,C. E.,M. R. H. Jensen, J. S. Jahera Jr., and J. E. Raymond（1999),“Agency Problems and The Simultaneity of Decision Making: The Role of Institutional Ownership.”International Review of Financial Analysis, 8, pp.177-197.
14. Crutchley, C. E. and R. S. Hansen（1989),“A Test of the Agency Theory of Managerial Ownership,Corporate Leverage and Corporate Dividends.”Financial Management, 18, pp.36-46.
15. Chen, C. R. and T. L. Steiner（1999),“Managerial Ownership and Agency Conflicts: A NonlinearSimultaneous Equation Analysis of Managerial Ownership, Risk Taking, Debt Policy, and DividendPolicy.”The Financial Review, 34, pp.119-136.
16. Chaganti, R. S., V. Mahajan and S. Sharma, 1985, Corporate board size, composition, and corporate failures in the retailing industry, Journal of Management Studies, 22, 400-417.
17. Demsetz, H. and B. Villalonga（2001),“Ownership Structure and Corporate Performance.”Journal of Corporate Finance, 7, pp.209-233.
18. Demsetz, H. and K. Lehn（1985),“The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences.”Journal of Political Economy, 93, pp.1155-1177.
19. Eakins, S. G., S. R. Stansell, and P. E. Wertheim（1998),“Institutional Portfolio Composition: An Examination of The Prudent Investment Hypothesis.”Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance,38, pp.93-109.
20. Eisenberg, T., S. Sundgren, and M. T. Wells（1998),“Larger Board Size and Decreasing Firm Value in Small Firms.”Journal of Financial Economics, 48, pp.35-54.
21. Eisenberg, T., Sundgren S., and Wells M. T. 1998, Large board size and decreasing firm value in small firms, Journal of Financial Economics, 48, 35-54.
22. Fich E. M., and Shivdasani A.2005,The Impact of stock-option compensation for outside director on firm value, The journal of Business, 78(6), 2229.
23. Fan, P. H. and T. J.Wong（2002),“Corporate Ownership Structure and the Information of Accounting Earnings in East Asia.”Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33, pp.401-425.
24. Goldsmith, A.H., Veum, J.R., Dartity Jr., W. 2000, Working Hard for the Money? Efficiency Wages and Worker Effort, Journal of economic psychology, 22, 351-385.
25. Granger, C. and Newbold, P.（1974). Spurious regression in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics, 2:111-120
26. Hermalin, B. E. and M.Weisbach（1987),“The Determinants of Board Composition.”RAND Journal of Economic, 19, pp.589-606.
27. Hermalin, B. E. and M. Weisbach（1991),“The Effects of Board Composition and Direct Incentives on Firm Performance.”Financial Management, 20, pp.101-112.
28. Hermalin, B. E. and M. Weisbach（2003),“Boards of Directors as an Endogenously Determined Institution:A Survey of the Economic Literature.”Economic Policy Review, 9, pp.7-26.
29. Hudson, C., J. Jahera, and W. Lloyd（1992),“Further Evidence on the Relationship Between Ownership and Performance.”The Financial Review, 27, pp.227-239.
30. Jensen, M. C., 1993, The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control system, Journal of Finance, 148, 831-880.
31. Jensen, M., and W. Meckling,.1976, Theory of the firm： managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
32. Morck, R., Shleifer A. and Vishny R.W., 1988, Management ownership and market valuation：an empirical analysis, Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293-315.
33. Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling（1976),“Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure.”Journal of Financial Economics, 3, pp.305-360.
34. Jensen,M. C. and R. S. Ruback（1983),“Market for Corporate Control: Empirical Evidence.”Journal of Financial Economics, 1, pp.5-50.
35. Jensen, G. R., D. P. Solberg, and T. S. Zorn（1992),“Simultaneous Determination of Insider Ownership, Debt, and Dividend Policies.”Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 27, pp.247-263.
36. Jensen. M. C.（1993),“The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems.”The Journal of Finance, 48, No.3, pp.831-880.
37. Kiel, G. C. and G. J.Nicholson（2003),“Board Compositiona and Corporate Performance: How the Australian Experience Informs Contrasting Theories of Corporate Governance.”Corporate Governance,11, pp.189-205.
38. Kula, V.（2005),“The Impact of the Roles, Structure and Process of Boards on Firm Performance:Evidence from Turkey.”Corporate Governance, 13, No.2, pp.265-276.
39. Lipton, M. and J. Lorsch（1992),“A Modest Proposal Improved Corporate Governance.”Business Lawyer, 48, pp.59-77.
40. Mak, Y. T. and Y. Li（2001),“Determinants of Corporate Ownership and Board Structure: Evidence from Singapore.”Journal of Corporate Finance, 7, pp.235-256.
41. McConnell, J. J. and H. Servaes（1990),“Additional Evidence on Equity Ownership and Corporate Value.”Journal of Financial Economics, 27, pp.595-612.
42. Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R. W. Vishny（1988),“Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis.”Journal of Financial Economics, 20, pp.293-315.
43. Nelson, C. R. and C. Plosser, 1982, Trends and random walks in macro-economic time series: someevidence and implications, Journal of Monetary Economics 10, 139–162
44. Oswald, S. L. and Jahera Jr.（1991), “The Influence of Ownership on Performance: An Empirical Study.” Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp.218-228.
45. Pound, J.（1988),“Proxy Contests and the Efficiency of Shareholder Oversight.”Journal of Financial Economics, 20, pp.237-265.
46. Pearce J. A., and Zahra S. A. 1992,board composition from a strategic contingency perspective, Journal of Management Studies, 29, 411-438.
47. Roberta Romano, 1993, Foundations of corporate law – interdisciplinary reader in law, Oxford University press.
48. Ryan, H. E. Jr., R. A. III Wiggins.2004. Who is in whose pocket? Director compensation, board independence, and barriers to effective monitoring, Journal of Financial Economics, 73,497-524.
49. Ryan H. E., and Roy A. W. 2003, Who is in whose pocket? Director compenstation board independence, and barriers to effective monitoring, Working papper.
50. Simpson, W. G., and A. E. Gleason., 1999, Board structure, ownership, and financial distress in banking firms, International Review of Economics and Finance, 8, 281-292.
51. Shleifer, A., and R. W. Vishny. 1997. A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance 52(2),737-783.
52. Shleifer, A. and R.W. Vishny（1986),“Large Shareholders and Corporate Control.”Journal of Political Economy, 94, pp.461-488.
53. Titman, S. and R. Wessels（1988),“The Determinants of Capital Structure Choice.”Journal of Finance, 43, pp.1-19.
54. Vance, S.（1995),“Inside or Outside Directors: Is There Really a Difference.”Across The Board, pp. 15-17.
55. Yermack, D.（1996), “Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors.”Journal of Financial Economics, 40, pp.185-211
3. 參考之網站
1. 「OECD公司治理原則OECD Principles of Corporate Governance」，首次發佈於1999年6月並於2004年4月修正，網址：www.oecd.org。
2. 台灣證券交易所網站: http://www.twse.com.tw
3. OECD網站：www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724參看。
4. 金融穩定委員會網站:http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications
5. 金融監督管理委員會網址: http://law.fsc.gov.tw
6. 巴塞爾銀行監理委員會網址：www.bis.org/publ/bcbs85.htm
7. 維基百科網站 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki

指導教授

鄭有為、楊雅惠

審核日期

2014-11-10

推文