Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/94687
|
| Title: | 敵意併購目標公司經營效率之研究 |
| Authors: | 林芊芊 |
| Contributors: | 林良楓
林芊芊 |
| Keywords: | 敵意併購
善意併購
資料包絡分析法
hostile takeovers
friendly takeovers
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) |
| Date: | 2008 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-05-09 11:28:48 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 雖然國內論文對企業併購的研究不在少數，範圍涵蓋併購的動機、類型、績效、策略與法律等，但針對敵意併購的研究則甚少，且研究大多著重於目標公司反接管策略的探討，鮮少對敵意併購後的績效進行討論。因此，本研究欲藉由資料包絡分析法，衡量我國敵意併購目標公司於併購發生後的經營效率變動的情況，及探討國內企業敵意併購之動機。
本研究以1986年至2001年台灣的併購活動為研究對象，實證發現主併者在選擇善意或敵意併購目標時有所差異；主併者選擇在善意併購目標公司時，對於目標公司之經營績效並無特別偏好；但在選擇敵意併購目標公司時，則以經營效率不佳者為對象，並透過敵意併購改善其經營效率；此外，敵意併購目標公司在替換掉管理能力不佳的管理者後，其效率進步的程度大於善意併購目標公司。因此，本研究樣本顯示台灣敵意併購支持懲戒式接管的動機假設。
Many scholars did researches on merger and acquisition (M&A) before, and the research scope involved motives, types, performance, strategies and laws of M&A; however, few of them mentioned hostile takeovers. Besides, most of hostile takeovers researches focus on anti-takeovers defenses of target companies, only a few researches discussed about post-takeover performance after hostile takeovers. This research attempts to measure the efficiency change of target companies after hostile takeovers, and discuss the motives of hostile takeovers in Taiwanese enterprises.
The sample year includes Taiwan from 1986 to 2001. The research findings reveal that in the samples of friendly takeovers, there were no specific preference for choosing the targets companies. On the other hand, in the samples of hostile takeovers cases, the research findings denote that most of the target companies were underperformance, which triggers the takeover action. Moreover, the result demonstrates that hostile takeovers present better performance improvement than friendly takeovers do. The findings support hostile takeovers disciplinary motives implication in Taiwan. |
| Reference: | 中文部分
王文宇，2000，企業併購法總評，月旦法學，第83期（4月）：70-85。
王泰允，1991，企業併購實用，遠流出版。
朱德芳，2006，效率、併購與公司治理-以敵意併購法為核心，中原財經法學，第17期：194-259。
李文瑞，2002，以資料包絡分析法評估我國紡織纖維業之經營績效，國立成功大學工業管理科學研究所在職專班碩士論文。
紀月娥，2007，敵意併購相關法律問題研究，國立政治大學碩士論文。
莊喬安，2007，敵意併購風起，會計研究月刊，第254期（1月）：28-33。
陳榮圳，2001，企業併購之研究，私立東吳大學法律研究所論文。
張朝棟，1994，企業跨國併購法律規範之研究，東吳法研所碩士論文。
游聲裕，1999，我國電腦及週邊產業企業經營績效剖析，國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
黃金成，2001，科學園區資源投入產出效率和產業引進策略之研究-以DEA和AHP方法分析，國立成功大學國際企業研究所碩士論文。
黃暄仁，2000，利用包絡分析法決標竿目標與標竿夥伴：以全球32大鋼鐵廠為例，國立成功大學國際企業研究所碩士論文。
黃雅惠，2007，從國內併購案例探討併購之法制，國立台灣大學在職專班財務金融學組碩士論文。
黃銘傑，2006，我國公司法制關於敵意併購與防禦錯失規範之現狀與未來，月旦法學，第129期（2月）：134-160。
楊佳璋，1996，我國企業敵意接管機能法制與攻防策略之研究，國立成功大學企管學系碩士論文。
楊勝淵，2000，台灣企業購併實質效益之研究，國立成功大學國際貿易學系碩士論文。
楊佳璋、張子，2001，經營權爭霸：企業敵意併購攻防戰，商周出版。
顏旭良，1998，台灣高科技產業經營績效評估與其資源配置特性之關係研究-以新竹科學工業園區為例，國立成功大學企業管理學研究所碩士論文。
英文部分
Amihud, Y., and B. Lev. 1981. Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers. The Bell Journal of Economics 12:605-617.
Banker, R. D., A. Charnes, and W. W. Cooper. 1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30: 1078-1092.
Bhattacharyya, A., C.A.K. Lovell, and P. Sahay. 1997. The impact of liberalization on the product efficiency of Indian banks. European Journal of Operational Research 98:332-345.
Bhide, A. 1989. The causes and consequences of hostile takeovers. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 2: 36-58.
Boussofiane, A., R.G. Dyson, and E. Thanassoulis. Applied data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 52:1-15.
Charnes A., W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research2:429-444.
Chatterjee, S. 1986. Types of synergy and economic value: the impact of acquisitions on merging and rival firms. Strategic Management Journal 7:119-139.
Conyon, M.J., S. Girma, S. Thompson, and P.W. Wright. 2001. Do hostile mergers destroy jobs? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 45:427-440.
Cosh, A., and P. Guest. 2001. The long-run performance of hostile takeovers: U.K. evidence. Working paper, Cambridge University.
Day, D.L., A.Y. Lewin, and H. Li. 1995. Strategic leaders or strategic groups: A longitudinal data envelopment analysis of the U.S. brewing industry. European Journal of Operational Research 80: 619-638.
Dodd, P. 1980. Merger proposals, management discretion and stockholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics 8:105-137.
Farrel, M.J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 120: 253-281.
Frank, J., and C. Mayer. 1996. Hostile takeover and the correction of managerial failure. Journal of Financial Economics 40:163-181.
Healy, P., K. Palepu, and R. Ruback. 1997. Which takeovers are profitable? Strategic or financial? Sloan Management Review38:45-57.
Higson, C., and J. Elliott. 1998. Post-takeover returns: The UK evidence. Journal of Empirical Finance 5 :27-46.
Jensen, M.C., and R.S. Ruback. 1983. The market for corporate: The science evidence. Journal of Financial Economics 11: 5-50.
Kitching, J. 1967. Why do mergers miscarry? Harvard Business Review 45:84-101.
Lang, L., R. Stulz, and R. Walkling. 1989. Managerial performance, tobin’s Q, and the gains from successful tender offers. Journal of Financial Economics 43,301-339.
Levy, H., and M. Sarnat. 1970. Diversification, portfolio analysis and the uneasy case for conglomerate mergers. The Journal of Finance 25:795-802.
Lewellen, W. G., 1971. A pure financial rationale for the conglomerate merger. The Journal of Finance 26:521-537.
Manne, H. 1965. Mergers and the market for corporate control. Journal of Political Economy:693-706.
Mandelker, G. 1974. Risk and return: The case of merging firms. Journal of Financial Economics 1:303-335.
Martin, J., and J. McConnell.1991.Corporate performance, corporate takeovers and management turnover. Journal of Finance 2:671-687.
Morck, R., A. Schleifer, and R. Vishny. 1987. Characteristics of hostile and friendly takeover targets. Working paper, Cambridge University.
Morck, R., A. Schleifer, and R. Vishny. 1988. Alternative mechanism for corporate control. Working paper, Cambridge University.
Mueller, D. C. 1969. A theory of conglomerate mergers. The Quarterly Journal of Economics:643-659.
Powell, R. G. 1997. Modeling takeover likelihood. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 24:1009-1030.
Roll, R. 1986. The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. The Journal of Business59:197-216.
Schnitzer, M. 1994. Hostile versus friendly takeovers. Economica63: 37-55.
Schwert, W. 2000. Hostility in takeovers: In the eyes of the beholder? Journal of Finance 6 (December):2599-2640.
Seth, A. 1990. Value Creation in Acquisitions: A Re-Examination of Performance Issues. Strategic Management Journal 11:99-115.
Shelton, L. M. 1988. Strategic business fits and corporate acquisition: Empirical evidence. Strategic Management Journal 9:279-287
Singh, H., and C. A. Montgomery. 1987. Corporate acquisition strategies and economic performance. Strategic Management Journal 18:337-386.
Thomas, H. M. 1997. Discussion of modeling takeover likelihood. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 24:1031-1035.
Thore, S., g. Kozmetsky, and F. Phillips. 1994. DEA of the financial statements data: The U.S. computer Industry. The Journal of Productivity Analysis 5:229-248.
Trautwein, F. 1990. Merger motives and merger prescriptions. Strategic Management Journal 11:283-295. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
會計學系
95353004 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095353004 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [會計學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
