English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 94586/125118 (76%)
Visitors : 30537966      Online Users : 150
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 商學院 > 會計學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/133411
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133411


    Title: 董事候選人提名制與公司績效及盈餘管理之關聯性
    Director Candidates Nomination System, Firm Performance and Earnings Management
    Authors: 陳昭如
    Chen, Chao-Ru
    Contributors: 陳宇紳
    陳昭如
    Chen, Chao-Ru
    Keywords: 董事候選人提名制
    公司績效
    盈餘管理
    Director candidates nomination system
    Firm performance
    Earnings management
    Date: 2020
    Issue Date: 2021-01-04 10:46:44 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究探討實施董事候選人提名制的公司,其股東所選出的董事是否較能為公司創造價值並有效監督公司。
    公司可能利用資訊不對稱的優勢提名對自身有益的董事候選人,而董事候選人提名制的實施可提升股東權利及資訊透明度,幫助股東選出更適任的董事。
    本研究以Tobin’s Q、股票報酬率及資產報酬率(Return on Assets,ROA)衡量公司績效,以裁決性應計數衡量董事的監督功能。研究結果指出公司實施董事候選人提名制與Tobin’s Q及股票報酬率呈顯著正相關,與裁決性應計數呈顯著負相關。實證結果支持本研究假說,說明實施董事候選人提名制的公司較未實施董事候選人提名制的公司有更佳之公司績效以及抑制盈餘管理之效果。本研究假設採用董事候選人提名制能讓股東選出更為適任的董事,因此進一步測試公司採用董事候選人提名制與其董事會特性之關聯性。研究結果指出採用董事候選人提名制的公司,其董事會具較高的外部董事比例,且董事兼任上市櫃公司家數較高,說明實施董事候選人提名制的公司,其董事獨立性較高且能力較佳。
    綜合上述,實證結果顯示公司實施董事候選人提名制能幫助其股東選出較能提供公司專業資源並有效監督公司營運之董事,以提升公司績效。
    This study aims to investigate whether the implementation of candidates nomination system helps shareholders select board candidates who can enhance the firm value and better perform their monitoring role.
    There is information asymmetry arising between managers and investors, and firms may take advantage of it to self serve their own interests. Specifically, firms may not disclose nominees of directors until the shareholders’ meeting in an attempt to garner enough votes to support their nominees. Candidates nomination system helps increase information transparency, helping shareholders select more competent directors. The competent directors can lower agency costs and enhance firm performance through their advisory and monitoring roles. Along this logic, I hypothesize that firms adopting candidates nomination system tend to have higher firm performance and lower earnings management.
    To conduct my test, I use Tobin’s Q, stock returns and ROA to measure the firm performance, and discretionary accruals to proxy for earnings management. My analyses indicate that the implementation of candidates nomination system is positively associated with Tobin’s Q and stock returns, and negatively associated with discretionary accruals. In addition, I examine the relationship between board characteristics and the adoption of candidates nomination system. The empirical evidence shows that, on average, firms adopting candidates nomination system tend to have a board with more outside directors and busy directors.
    Altogether, my findings suggest that firms with candidates nomination system help shareholders select more competent directors who increase firm value and lower agency costs through their advisory and monitoring roles, thus increase firm performance.
    Reference: 工商時報,2005.6.30,談企業併購法制的精進方向—最新修正公司法對 併購的影響(下)(10版)。
    曲華威,2018,從公司治理邁向股東參與—2018年電子投票百分百暨公 司價值提升論壇紀要,集保雙月刊,第238期(6月):47-68。
    李啟華、楊炎杰與鄭國枝,2016,營運資金管理與裁決性應計數之估計,臺大管理論叢,第二十六卷,第3期:63-92。
    林志煌,2017,董事提名制與公司價值關聯之研究,國立臺灣大學管理學院財務金融學系碩士論文。
    金融監督管理委員會,2020,公司治理3.0- 永續發展藍圖。
    張元、沈中華與李卿企,2011,員工認股選擇權與公司績效—反事實分析架構之應用,經濟論文叢刊,第三十九卷,第3期:325-372。
    張貴盛,2012,股東會電子投票與公司治理議題論述,證券暨期貨月刊,第三十卷,第4期:22-31。
    曾宛如、黃銘傑、陳薇、尹廣容、謝丹瑜、江永楨、賴盈孜與王蕙琦,2015,董事會提名委員會制度之建置暨股東提案權機制之現狀與改善之研析,臺灣集中保管結算所委託研究報告。
    聯合晚報,2017.2.15,明年上市櫃股東會 全面電子投票(B3版)。
    Aanu, O. S., I. F. Odianonsen, and O. I. Foyeke. 2014. Effectiveness of audit committee and firm financial performance in Nigeria: an empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Auditing: Research and Practice 2014 (July): 1-11.
    Bathala, C. T., and R. P. Rao. 1995. The determinants of board composition: an agency theory perspective. Managerial and Decision Economics 16 (January-February): 59-69.
    Bebchuk, L. A. 2003. The case for shareholder access to the ballot. The Business Lawyer 59 (November): 43-66.
    Bennouri, M., T. Chtioui, H. Nagati, and M. Nekhili. 2018. Female board directorship and firm performance: what really matters? Journal of Banking and Finance 88 (March): 267-291.
    Cashman, G. D., S. L. Gillan, and C. Jun. 2012. Going overboard? on busy directors and firm value. Journal of Banking and Finance 36 (December): 3248-3259.
    Cheng, C. S. A., D. Collins, and H. H. Huang. 2006. Shareholder rights, financial disclosure and the cost of equity capital. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 27 (September): 175-204.
    Chi, J. 2005. Understanding the endogeneity between firm value and shareholder rights. Financial Management 34 (December): 65-76.
    Conyon, M. J., and S. I. Peck. 1998. Board control, remuneration committees, and top management compensation. Academy of Management Journal 41 (April): 146-157.
    Dass, N., O. Kini, V. Nanda, B. Onal, and J. Wang. 2014. Board expertise: do directors from related industries help bridge the information gap? The Review of Financial Studies 27 (May): 1533-1592.
    Defond, M. L., R. N. Hann, and X. Hu. 2005. Does the market value financial expertise on audit committees of boards of directors? Journal of Accounting Research 43 (May): 153-193.
    Diamond, D. W., and R. E. Verrecchia. 1991. Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital. The Journal of Finance 46 (September): 1325-1359.
    Dowen, R. J. 1995. Board of director quality and firm performance. International Journal of the Economics of Business 2: 123-132.
    Fama, E. F. 1980. Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy 88 (April): 288-307.
    Fama, E. F., and M. C. Jensen. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics 26 (June): 301-325.
    Fama, E. F., and M. C. Jensen. 1983. Agency problems and residual claims. The Journal of Law and Economics 26 (June): 327-349.
    Ferris, S. P., M. Jagannathan, and A. C. Pritchard. 2003. Too busy to mind the business? monitoring by directors with multiple board appointments. The Journal of Finance 58 (June): 1087-1111.
    Fich, E. M., and A. Shivdasani. 2006. Are busy boards effective monitors? The Journal of Finance 61 (April): 689-724.
    Garcia-Meca, E., and C. J. Palacio. 2018. Board composition and firm reputation: the role of business experts, support specialists and community influentials. Business Research Quarterly 21 (April-June): 111-123.
    Gompers, P., J. Ishii, and A. Metrick. 2003. Corporate governance and equity prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (February): 107-156.
    Hauser, R. 2018. Busy directors and firm performance: evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics 128 (April): 16-37.
    Hillman, A. J., A. A. Cannella Jr., and R. L. Paetzold. 2000. The resource dependence role of corporate directors: strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies 37 (March): 235-256.
    Hillman, A. J., and T. Dalziel. 2003. Boards of Directors and firm performance: integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review 28 (July): 383-396.
    Hribar, P., and D. W. Collins. 2002. Errors in estimating accruals: Implications for empirical research. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (December): 105-134.
    Huang, S., and G. Hilary. 2018. Zombie board: board tenure and firm performance. Journal of Accounting Research 56 (September): 1285-1329.
    Huang, P., and Y. Zhang. 2012. Does enhanced disclosure really reduce agency costs? evidence from the diversion of corporate resources. The Accounting Review 87 (January): 199-229.
    Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (October): 305-360.
    Jensen, M. C. 1986. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review 76 (May): 323-329.
    Johl, S. K., S. Kaur, and B. J. Cooper. 2015. Board characteristics and firm performance: evidence from Malaysian public listed firms. Journal of Economics, Business and Management 3 (February): 239-243.
    Jones, J. J. 1991. Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of Accounting Research 29 (Autumn): 193-228.
    Kesner, I. F. 1987. Directors’ stock ownership and organizational performance: an investigation of Fortune 500 companies. Journal of Management 13 (September): 499-507.
    Lewellen, W., C. Loderer, K. Martin, and G. Blum. 1992. Executive compensation and the performance of the firm. Managerial and Decision Economics 13 (January-February): 65-74.
    Luckerath-Rovers, M. 2013. Women on boards and firm performance. Journal of Management and Governance 17 (May): 491-509.
    Mallin, C., and A. Melis. 2012. Shareholder rights, shareholder voting, and corporate performance. Journal of Management and Governance 16 (May): 171-176.
    Park, Y. W., and H. H. Shin. 2004. Board composition and earnings management in Canada. Journal of Corporate Finance 10 (June): 431-457.
    Peasnell, K. V., P. F. Pope, and S. Young. 2005. Board monitoring and earnings management: do outside directors influence abnormal accruals? Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 32 (September): 1311-1346.
    Pucheta-Martinez, M. C., and I. Gallego-Alvarez. 2019. Do board characteristics drive firm performance? an international perspective. Review of Managerial Science (February): 1-47.
    Rindova, V. P. 1999. What corporate boards have to do with strategy: a cognitive perspective. Journal of Management Studies 36 (December): 953-975.
    Rosenstein, S., and J. G. Wyatt. 1990. Outside directors, board independence, and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics 26 (August): 175-191.
    Rossi, F., and M. A. Harjoto. 2020. Corporate non‑financial disclosure, firm value, risk, and agency costs: evidence from Italian listed companies. Review of Managerial Science 14 (October): 1149-1181.
    Schooley, D. K., and L. D. Barney Jr. 1994. Using dividend policy and managerial ownership to reduce agency costs. The Journal of Financial Research 17 (Fall): 363-373.
    Shivdasani, A., and D. Yermack. 1999. CEO involvement in the selection of new board members: an empirical analysis. The Journal of Finance 54 (October): 1829-1853.
    Thomas, R. S., and J. F. Cotter. 2007. Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: shareholder support, board response, and market reaction. Journal of Corporate Finance 13 (February): 368-391.
    Wang, C., F. Xie, and M. Zhu. 2015. Industry expertise of independent directors and board monitoring. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 50 (October): 929-962.
    Yermack, D. 2006. Board members and company value. Financial Markets and Portfolio Management 20 (March): 33-47.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    會計學系
    107353003
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107353003
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202001835
    Appears in Collections:[會計學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    300301.pdf1989KbAdobe PDF15View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback