博碩士論文 994308018 詳細資訊




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:4 、訪客IP:3.209.80.87
姓名 許雅婷(Ya-ting Hsu)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 財務金融學系在職專班
論文名稱 本國壽險業內部管理制度與經營績效之探討
(The Investigation of Internal Management System and Business Performance in Domestic Life Insurance Industry)
相關論文
★ 企業購併宣告對股東財富效果之影響-以台灣金融業為例★ 金融科技對台灣金融業之影響-以線上貸款為例
★ 銀行授信違約風險-財務比率評分之預警效果★ 所得稅制優化修正與兩稅合一廢除之影響
★ 區塊鏈技術應用於金融科技公司企業資金電子調撥系統實作與驗證★ 房屋貸款者風險特性與個人星座關係之研析-以個案銀行分行房貸業務為例
★ 金融科技浪潮下銀行分行經營績效之探討-以個案銀行為例★ 中國A股正式納入MSCI指數之異常報酬探討
★ 企業信用管理政策之個案研究★ 生技公司與醫美診所聯合經營商業模式探討與財務分析-以某公開發行公司為例
★ 經濟供需模型評價死亡率債券★ 個人稅與市場流動性對公司債信用價差的影響
★ 最高價、最低價、開盤價及收盤價之買賣價差估計模型探討★ 興櫃與承銷價格間折價幅度對投資人意願及績效之探討
★ 應用景氣燈號於投資國內股票型共同基金之實證研究★ 工會與公司債長短期之探討
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) 本文以台灣壽險業為研究對象,研究公司制度、公司治理與經營績效是否有顯著相關性,並進一步探討其與公司經營績效程度是否有顯著相關,並同時檢驗2007年至2008年金融風暴期間與2009年至2011年風暴後之恢復期,檢驗於恢復期間,台灣壽險業在經營績效是否已有所提升,並探討公司制度、公司治理變數於不同期間對經營績效影響是否相同。本研究發現公司制度對保費收入皆有正面效果,金融風暴期間與其後恢復期的公司治理變數顯著項目與經營績效不同,金融風暴期間公司治理對其當年度經營績效有顯著影響,也與期間的受損程度有顯著影響,董監事報酬與經營績效呈現負相關,表示不論是在一般時期或是系統性風險下的事件發生時,金融業的公司治理機制會對企業經營表現具有攸關性。
摘要(英) Through multi-regression model, this study analyzes the relationship between internal corporate system, corporate governance and business performance using data from life insurance companies in Taiwan. In addition, this study also investigates the recovery period of 2009-2011 after the financial tsunami of 2007-2008, examines whether there is significant difference in firm performance in the mentioned recovery period, and furthermore, investigates whether changes in company system and corporate governance could have the same influences on the business performance in different periods.
The empirical findings suggest that the corporate system has significant influence on the premium revenues. The corporate governance and business performance differ significantly during and after the period of financial crisis. During the period of financial crisis, corporate governance plays an important role in business performance, and also in the extent of loss. As a conclusion, the corporate governance mechanisms are decisive to business performance, regardless of business cycles.
關鍵字(中) ★ 金融風暴
★ 壽險業
★ 管理制度
★ 經營績效
★ 公司治理
關鍵字(英) ★ financial crisis
★ life insurance industry
★ management system
★ business performance
★ corporate governance
論文目次 中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
表次 v
圖次 vi
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與方法 2
第三節 研究架構與流程 3
第二章 文獻回顧 5
第一節 金融風暴 5
第二節 公司治理 7
第三節 公司制度 10
第三章 台灣壽險業概況分析 11
第一節 人壽保險之沿革 11
第二節 人壽保險之定義與壽險業家數統計 13
第三節 從業人員數、資本額概況與行銷通路 15
第四節 保費收入與市占率 17
第五節 ROA(資產報酬率)與ROE(股東權益報酬率) 19
第四章 研究方法 21
第一節 研究對象與資料來源 21
第二節 建立研究假說 23
第三節 研究變數定義 24
第四節 實證模型 29
第五章 實證結果與分析 31
第一節 T檢定 31
第二節 公司制度的影響 33
第三節 敘述統計量 35
第四節 實證結果 37
第六章 結論 42
結論 42
參考文獻 44
參考文獻 1.何里仁,2003,公司治理之資訊透明度與績效評核關聯性之研究,私立逢甲大學會計與財稅研究所未出版碩士論文。
2.何幸芳,2003,獨立董監事對公司價值與盈餘資訊內涵影響之研究,私立輔仁大學金融研究所未出版之碩士論文。
3.李建然、廖秀梅、廖益興,2003,股權結構、董事獨立性與企業經營績效之研究,會計理論與實務研討會。
4.林晏仲,2004,「股權結構、員工紅利及董監酬勞與公司績效關聯性之研究-以台灣上市電子公司為例」,政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。
5.張雅琳,「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碩士論文,民國 93 年。
6.陳迪,2003,董事會、監察人特性與公司績效關聯之再探討,國立政治大學會計硏究所碩士論文。
7.葉銀華與邱顯比,「資本結構、股權結構與公司價值關聯性之實證研究:代理成本理論」,台大管理論叢,民國 85 年。
8.劉連煜,2003,健全獨立董監事與公司治理之法制研究-公司自治、外部監控與政府規制之交錯,月旦法學雜誌,第94 期,135-136。
9.賴佑昀,2006,人壽保險業教育訓練與銷售績效之相關性研究-以某人壽保險公司為例。國立政治大學風險管理與保險研究所未出版碩士論文,台北市。
10.鐘友健,2003,壽險業務員行銷績效及教育訓練相關性之研究,台中:逢甲大學保險學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
11.Andres, P. D., V. Azofra, and F. Lopez. 2005. Corporate boards in OECD countries: Size, composition, functioning and effectiveness. Corporate Government: An International Review 13 (March): 197-210.
12.Bacon, J., 1973,Corporate directorshi ppractices: membership and committees of the board, New York: The Conference Board.
13.Baek, J.S., Kang, J.K., Park, K.S., 2004,Corporate governance and firm value: evidence from the Korean financial crisis, Journal of Financial Economics 71,265-313.
14.Bhagat, S. and Black, B.S., 1996, Do independent directors matter? working paper. center for law and economic studies, Columbia University, New York, NY.
15.Brick, I., Palmon, O., Wald, J., 2002. CEO compensation, director compensation, and firm performance: evidence of cronyism. Working Paper. Rutgers University, New Brunswick.
16.Claessens, S., S. Djankov, J. Fan, and L. H. P. Lang. 2002. Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. Journal of Finance 57, 2741-2771.
17.Core, J. E., R. W. Holthausen, and D. F. Larcker., 1999. Corporate Governance, Chief Executive Officer Compensation, and Firm Performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 51: 371-406.
18.Cornett, M.M., McNutt, .J.J., Tehranian, H., 2010,The financial crisis, internal corporate governance, and the performance of publicly-traded U.S. bank holding companies, Working paper.
19.Demsetz, H. (1983), "The Structure of Corporate Ownership and the Theory of the Firm", Journal of Law and Economics, 26:1: 375-390.
20.Devos, E., A. K. Prevost, and J. Puthenpurackal. 2008. Are interlocked directors effective monitors? Working Paper.
21.Donaldson, L., Davis, J. H. 1991. Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management 16, 49-64.
22.Donaldson, L., Davis, J. H. 1994. Boards and company performance-research challenges the conventional wisdom. Corporate Governance: An International Review 2, 151-160.
23.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.
24.Fama, E.F. and Jensen, M.C., 1983, Separation of ownership and control, Journal of Low and Economics 26, 301-326.
25.Fama, E.F., 1980, Agency problems and the theory of the firm, Journal of Political Economy 88, 288-307.
26.Haldane, A.G.,2009, Rethinking the financial network, Bank of England 20. Hill, C. W. L., & Snell, S. A. 1989. Effects of ownership structure and control on corporate productivity. Academy of Management Journal 32, 25-46.
27.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.
28.Hill, C. W. L., and S. A. Snell, 1989, “Effects of Ownership Structure and Control on Corporate Productivity,” Academy of Management Journal 32, 25-46.
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.Hwang, Byound-Hyoun, and Seoyound Kim, 2009, It pays to have friends, Journal of Financial Economics 93, 138–158.
31.Jensen, M.C. and Ruback, R.S., 1983, The market for corporate control: the scientific evidence, Journal of Financial Economics 11,5-50.
32.Jensen, M.C., 1993, The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control systems, The Journal of Finance 48, 831-880.
33.Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior,agency costs, and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305-360.
34.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.
35.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.
36.La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., 1999, Corporate ownership around the world, Journal of Finance 54, 471-518.
37.Lemmon, M.L., Lins, K.V., 2003, Ownership structure, corporate governance, and firm value: evidence from the east Asian financial crisis, Journal of Finance 4, 1445-1468.
38.Lipton, M. and J. Lorsch, 1992. A modest proposal for improved corporate governance . Business Lawyer 48:59-77.
39.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.
40.Martin, J.D.,2009, A primer on the role of securitization in the credit market crisis of 2007, Baylor University.
41.Oswald, S. L. and Jahera Jr., “The Influence of Ownership on Performance: An Empirical Study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.12, 1991, pp.218-228.
42.Rajan, G.R., 2006, Has finance made the world riskier?, European Financial Management 12, 499-533.
43.Singh, M., Wallace N. Davidson III, 2003, Agency costs, ownership structure and corporate governance mechanisms, Journal of Banking and Finance 27, 793-816.
44.Thomsen, S., Pedersen, T. and Kvist, H., 2006, Blockholder ownership: effects on firm value in market and control based governance systems, Journal of Corporate Finance 12, 246–269.
45.Yermack (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), 185-211.
46.Yermack (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), 185-211.
47.Zahra, S. A. and Pearce, J. A. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management 15, 291-334.
指導教授 黃泓人(Hong-ren Huang) 審核日期 2012-7-9
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明