微型公司創櫃板掛牌價與公司治理之研究

The Relationship between IPO prices of GISA companies and corporate governance

林琦珍(Lin Qi Zhen)；邱安安(Qiu An An)；黃劭彥(Huang Shao yan)；李允泉(Li Yun Quan)

創櫃板 ； 公司治理 ； GISA ； Corporate governance

會計與公司治理

12卷2期（2017 / 12 / 01）

19 - 36

繁體中文

在知識經濟發展快速的時代下，創新是現今推動世界經濟發展中最重要的驅動引擎之一，台灣櫃買中心為因應這股風潮，於是特別建置「創櫃板」，本研究目的為瞭解登錄於「創櫃板」之公司，其登錄時掛牌價與公司治理之關聯性，包含董事會規模，經理人特性，股權結構，推薦單位，過去實證文獻有關公司治理與股價之研究，大多集中上市櫃公司之公司治與股價表現之影響由於「創櫃板」係屬於國內資本市場新起之秀，因此尚未有針對登入於「創櫃板」之公司，其公司治理相關之研究與探討。研究結果顯示，（1）董事會規模組成構面部分與掛牌價格之關係，並未具顯著影響性。（2）經理人特性組成構面部分與掛牌價格之關係，並未具顯著影響性，（3）股權結構組成構面部分與掛牌價格之關係，董事持股比例具顯著負相關；經理人持股比例未具顯著影響性；法人持股比例具顯著正相關。（4）推薦單位組成構面部分與掛牌價格之關係，是否有推薦單位並未具顯著影響性。

In the era of rapid growth in intellectual economy, innovation is one of the main driving forces for economic growth. As a response to this trend, Taiwan Exchange established GISA to create an innovative environment for assisting the start-up companies. This research aims to investigate the correlation between IPO prices of these GISA companies and the effectiveness of their corporate governance including the board size, manager characteristics, ownership structure and recommended units. The past Empirical research on corporate governance and share price, most of the focus on the impact of corporate governance and stock performance of listed in Taiwan. Therefore has not targeted to sign in the GISA the company and its corporate governance related to the research and discussion. The results show that the board size has no significant relationship with IPO price. The association between manager characteristics and IPO price has no significant relationship. The ownership structure has the negative correlation with IPO price and managerial ownership has no significant correlation with IPO price. The directorial ownership has negative correlation with IPO price. The institutional stockholder has positive correlation with IPO price and recommended units have no significant correlation with IPO price.

1. 陳明園、石雅慧(2004)。高階經理人薪酬─代理理論與競賽理論之實證研究。台大管理論叢，15(1)，131-166。
   連結：
2. Chen, G.,Firth, M.,Gao, D. N.,Rui, O. M.(2006).Ownership structure, corporate governance, and fraud: Evidence from China.Journal of Corporate Finance,12,424-448.
3. Dalton, D. R.,Daily, C. M.,Ellstrand, A. E.,Johnson, J. L.(1998).Meta-analytic reviews of ard composition, leadership structure,and financial performance.Strategic Managemnt Journal,19,269-290.
4. Dechow, P. M.,Sloan, R. G.,Sweeney, A. P.(1996).Causes and consequences of earnings manipulation: An analysis of firms subject to enforcement actions by the SEC.Contemporary Accounting Research,13,1-36.
5. Donaldson, L.,Davis, J.(1991).Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns.Australian journal of Management,49-65.
6. Jensen, M. C.(1993).The modern industrial revolution,ex it, and the failure of internal control systems.Journal of Finance,3,831-881.
7. Jensen, M. C.,Ruback, R. S.(1983).Market for Corporate Control-Empirical Evidence.Journal of Financial Economics,1(5),5-50.
8. Kiel, G. C.,Nicholson, G. J.(2003).Board composition and corporate perfrmance: How the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance.Corporate Governance,11,189-205.
9. Mousal, G. A.,Desoky, A. M.(2012).The association betwwen internal governance mechanisms and corporate value: evidence from Bahrain.Aisan Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance,8,67-91.
10. Pound, J.(1988).Proxy Contests and The Efficiency of Shareholder Oversight.Journal of Financial Economics,20,237-265.
11. Singh, M.,Davidson, W. N.(2003).Agency costs, ownership structure and corporate governance mechanisms.Journal of Banking and Finance,27,793-816.
12. 沈中華、黃博怡(2006)。台灣中小企業產業別信用風險模型。中小企業發展季刊，1，1-34。