Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/34055
|
| Title: | 創新能力對台灣及美國生技產業公司財務績效的影響
The impact of innovation on firm`s financial performance of biotechnology industry in Taiwan and in US |
| Authors: | 唐惠萍
Tang, Hui-Ping |
| Contributors: | 顏錫銘
Yen, Simon H.
唐惠萍
Tang, Hui-Ping |
| Keywords: | 生技產業
創新
經營績效
Biotechnology
Innovation
Performance |
| Date: | 2006 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-17 19:16:55 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究主要目的是驗證台灣生技公司的創新能力對公司績效有無正
面顯著影響，並且與美國市場的結果做比較。希望藉由證明創新能力能對
公司績效有貢獻並能增加有利的投資機會使投資人對此新興產業的公司
更有信心願意投入更多資金，以解決生技公司普遍研發經費和資金不足的
困擾。關於公司績效的衡量指標，我們選取了與市場價值相關的績效指標
Tobin’s q 和以會計帳面盈餘為基礎的績效指標資產報酬率(ROA)；創新能
力則以公司的研發密集度和專利數目作為衡量的代理變數。雖然過去有很
多研究發現企業的創新能力對公司績效有顯著的正面影響，但是關於台灣
市場的相關研究卻很少。本研究針對台灣生技產業探討此結論是否同樣成
立，並與世界生技產業領導地位美國的結果做比較。
研究結果發現：美國生技公司對於研發活動的投入明顯高於台灣的公
司，但是在研究期間台灣生技公司有逐年增加對研發活動之投入的趨勢。
整體來說，創新能力對於公司與市場價值相關的績效指標Tobin’s q 的
影響在美國與台灣市場皆顯著正相關。而研發密集度對於公司以會計盈餘
為基礎的績效指標之影響只在美國是顯著負相關，在台灣的影響不顯著。
專利對於公司會計盈餘為基礎的績效在台灣與美國皆為顯著正相關。
此外，因為每個國家及產業的現況、產業發展的階段、相關的法規不
盡相同，而使得創新能力對公司財務績效的影響效果也有所差異。
雖然對創新的投入可能暫時會對會計盈餘有負面影響，但是創新能力
卻能為公司帶來更多有利的投資機會及提昇公司與市場價值相關的財務
績效。因此台灣投資人不應該短視近利，要對有良好創新能力的公司有信
心進而願意投資更多資金，如此公司募得足夠資金去提升其創新能力後，
將能在市場上更有競爭力轉而回報給投資人更好的報酬。
另一方面政府也應更積極改進和簡化對於這個新興產業和無形資產相
關的法令規章。在健全且有效率的法規環境保護之下，公司將能更順利發
展其創新能力，並能更有效率的將研發結果商品化及上市。如此，台灣生
技產業的競爭力將能逐漸提升。
The purpose of this study is to prove that firm’s innovation ability has a significantly
positive effect on firm’s performance in Taiwan biotechnology and compare the
results to those in US biotechnology industry. Through this study, we want to show
investors that firm’s innovation ability can contribute to firm’s financial performance
and increase profitable investment opportunities. Then investors can be more
confident that firm’s innovation ability can contribute to financial performance and
bring more profitable investment opportunities. Therefore, investors would be willing
to invest more capital in this industry and firms can have enough capital to do R&D
and develop innovation abilities. Tobin’s q and ROA are used to represent the
market-based performance and accounting-based performance respectively. As for the
innovation, we adopt R&D intensity and the number of patents as the proxy variables.
Although previous studies prove that innovation has a positive effect on firm’s
performance, fewer of them focus on such relationship in Taiwan biotechnology
industry. This study fills the gap by providing empirical results to examine if this
relationship is held in biotechnology industry in Taiwan.
The empirical results show that US biotechnology firms place significantly more
emphasis on R&D investment than Taiwan firms do but Taiwan firms tend to invest
more and more in R&D during the research period. As a whole, innovation has a
significant and positive effect on Tobin’s q in Taiwan and in US, and patent also has
significant and positive effect on Tobin’s q in both regions. However, R&D intensity
is negatively related to ROA only significant in US. Patent is significantly positive
related to ROA in Taiwan and in US.
In addition, the impacts of innovation on firm’s performance vary in different
countries and industries because of different development stages, degree of
competition and related regulations and so on. |
| Reference: | 1. 生物技術產業年鑑2006，民國95 年，經濟部出版
2. 林順陽，民國94 年，製藥產業研發支出、非財務性指標與公司績
效之關聯－以原料藥產業為例，國立中正大學會計資訊科技研究
所碩士論文
3. 高文惠，民國93 年，台灣醫療生技實驗室相關法規管理制度之探
討，「跨領域科技管理研習班」國內受訓心得報告
4. 黃德舜，1998，企業財務分析－企業價值的創造與評估，華泰出
版
5. 陳俊瑋，民國93 年，台灣生物科技產業研發績效評估之研究，國
立中山大學國際高階經營碩士學程碩士在職專班碩士論文
6. 郭宏男，探討智慧資本與傳統產業經營績效之關聯性研究，第五
屆兩岸產業發展與經營管理研討會
7. 楊旻翰，民國89 年，台灣生技產業前景及各國發展模式分析，國
立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
124
English Reference
1. Archibugi, Daniele and Mario Pianta, 1996, Measuring technological through
patents and innovation surveys, Technovation 16(9), 451- 468.
2. Ashton, W. Bradford and Rajat K. Sen, 1998, Using Patent Information in
Technology Business Planning-Ⅰ, Research Technology Management, 42-46
3. Bae, Sung C. and Dongnyoung Kim, 2003, The Effect of R&D Investments on
Market Value of Firms Evidence from the U.S., Germany, and Japan,
Multinational Business Review 11(3).
4. Bharadwaj, Anandhi S. and Sundar G. Bharadwaj and Benn R. Konsynski, 1999,
Information Technology Effects on Firm Performance a Measured by Tobin`s q,
Management Science 45, 1008-1024.
5. Boer, Peter F., 1994, Linking R&D to growth and shareholder value, Research &
Technology Management May-June, 16-22.
6. Bowen, Howard R., 1997, Investment in Learning: The Individual and Social
Value of American Higher Education. Baltimore, MD. Johns Hopkins University
Press.
7. Chan, Han S. and John D. Martin and John W. Kensinger, 1990, Corporate
research and development expenditures and share value, Journal of Financial
Economics 26 August, 255-276.
8. Chang, Joseph, 2001, Innovation drives competition in specialty chemicals
industry, Chemical Market Reporter 260(17).
9. Chauvin, Kevin W. and Mark Hirschey, 1993, Advertising, R&D expenditures and
the market value of the firm, Financial Management 22, 128-140.
10. Chung, Kee H. and Peter Wright and Charlie Charoenwong, 1998, Investment
opportunities and market reaction to capital expenditure decisions, Journal of
Banking and Finance 22, 41-60.
125
11. Cockburn, Iain and Zvi Griliches, 1998, Industry Effects and Appropriability
Measures in the Stock Market`s Valuation of R&D and Patents, The American
Economic Review 78(2), 419- 423.
12. Erickson, G.ary and Jacobson Robert, 1992, Gaining comparative advantage
through discretionary experience: The returns to R&D and advertising,
Management Science 38(9), 1264-1279.
13. Gerald, Gay D. and Jouahn Nam,1998, The underinvestment problem and
corporate derivatives use, Financial Management 27(4), 53-69.
14. Grant, Robert M.,1995, Contemporary strategy analysis: Concepts, technologies,
applications, Boston, MA: Blackwell Business.
15. Hall, Bronwyn H., 1993,The stock market’s valuation of R&D investment during
the 1980’s, American Economic Review 83, 259-264.
16. Hall, Linda A. and Sharmistha Bagchi-Sen, 2002, A study of R&D, innovation,
and business performance in the Canadian biotechnology industry, Technovation
22, 231-244.
17. Henderson, Rebecca, Adam, Jaffe and Manuel, Trajtenberg, 1998, Universities as
a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting,
1965–1988, The Review of Economics and Statistics 80,119–127.
18. Hitt, Michael A., Ireland R. Duane, Robert E. Hoskisson, 1995, Strategic
management: competitiveness and globalization, New York: West publication Inc.
19. Hitt, Michael A., Robert E. Hoskisson, Hicheon Kim, 1997, International
diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified
firms, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 767-798.
20. Huselid, Mark ,Susan E. Jackson, Randall S. Schuler, 1997, Technological and
strategic human resource management effectiveness as determinants of firm
performance, Academy of Management Journal 40(2),171-188.
126
21. Jonathan P O`Brien, 2003, The capital structure implications of pursuing a strategy
of innovation, Strategic Management Journal 24(5).
22. Keats, Barbara W.and Hitt A. Michael, 1988, A Causal Model of Linkages among
Environmental Dimensions, Macro Organizational Characteristics, and
Performance, Academy of Management Journal 31(3), 570-598.
23. Lee, Jooh and Shim Eunsup, 2001, Moderating effects of R&D on corporate
growth in U.S. and Japanese hi-tech industries: An empirical study, The Journal of
High Technology Management Research 6(2), 179-191.
24. Long, William F. and David J.Ravenscraft, 1993, LBO’s debt and R&D intensity,
Strategic Management Journal 14, 119-135.
25. Luís Cabral, 1995,Sunk Costs, Firm Size and Firm Growth, The Journal of
Industrial Economics 43(2), 161-172.
26. McConnell, John J. and Henri Servaes, 1995, Equity ownership and the two faces
of debt, Journal of Financial Economics 39, 131-157.
27. Megna, Pamela and Mark Klock,1993, The impact of intangible capital on Tobin’s
q in the semiconductor industry, The American Economic Review 83(2).
28. Megna, Pamela and Klock Mark, 2000, Measuring and valuing intangible capital
in the wireless communications industry, The Quarterly Review of Economics and
Finance 40, 519-532
29. Porter, E. Michael, 1980, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing
Industries and Competitors, New York, NY: Free Press
30. Rolf, Banz W., 1981, The relationship between return and market value of
common stocks, Journal of Financial Economics 9, 3-18.
31. Reisch,Marc S., and Alexander H. Tullo, 2006, 2006 Year in Review－Calm
weather and fairly stable energy prices contributed to solid industry profits,
Chemical& Engineering News, 84(51), 30-35.
127
32. Szewczyk, H.Samuel, George P. Tsetsekos, Zaher Zantout, 1996, The valuation of
corporate R&D expenditures: evidence from investment opportunities and free
cash flow, Financial Management 25, 105-110.
33. Sveikauskas, Leo, 1986, The contribution Of R&D to productivity growth,
Monthly Labor Review 108, 6-21.
34. Tassey, Gregory, 1983, Competitive strategies and performance in
technology-based industries, Journal of Economic Business 35, 21-40.
35. Tsai, Shih-Chuan, 2001, Valuation of R&D and Advertising Expenditures, Journal
of Contemporary Accounting 2(1).
36. Watanabe, Chihiro , Kakoto T., Akira N., Takashi T., Charla G.B., November 2000,
Technology spillover as complement for high-level R&D intensity in
pharmaceutical industry, Technovation 22,245-258.
37. Wolff, George, 2001, The Biotech Investor’s Bible, John Wiely & Sons, Inc.
38. Zvi Griliches, 1990, Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators：A survey, Journal of
Economic Literature 28(4), 1661-1707. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
財務管理研究所
93357009
95 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093357009 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [財務管理學系] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
