Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/135924
|
| Title: | 經理人股權獎酬對企業風險之影響
The Impact of Executive Stock Ownership on Enterprise Risk |
| Authors: | 鐘元斌
Chung, Yuan-Bin |
| Contributors: | 翁嘉祥
Weng, Chia-Hsiang
鐘元斌
Chung, Yuan-Bin |
| Keywords: | 經理人股權獎酬
企業風險
系統性風險
產業創新條例
Executive Stock Option
Enterprise Risk
Systematic Risk
Innovation Act |
| Date: | 2021 |
| Issue Date: | 2021-07-01 17:19:02 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究以2008年至2019年上市櫃員工認股權發行資料做為樣本，分析認股權憑證發行對企業風險之影響。過去文獻有風險偏好及趨避之衝突觀點，實證結果發現，認股權證有助於解決代理問題，發行權證數量越高，將鼓勵經理人選擇系統性風險(Beta值)較高之決策，但經理人具有風險規避的本質，應同時消除非系統性風險，在以PSM模型消除權證特性影響後，其結果仍維持一致。此外，亦加入經理人持股變數，以衡量整體財富對風險之影響，實證結果顯示，經理人持股越高之公司，在發行員工認股權後，總體風險呈現下降趨勢，顯示經理人對於公司之投資決策更保守，反映尾端風險可能對財富造成侵蝕，呈現經理人風險趨避狀態。
本研究同時發現，產業創新條例19-1條提供租稅誘因，鼓勵企業採用股權獎酬工具，課稅時間點延緩至實際出售，且可採出售價格與取得價格孰低做為課稅依據，但緩課具有500萬額度上限，獎酬金額超過500萬額度仍需回歸正常課稅，使其實值效力降低，進而導致該租稅誘因無法對經理人的風險偏好及決策行為造成影響。
This study is to investigate the effect of executive incentives on company risk by using employee stock options issued by Taiwan-listed companies from 2008 to 2019. As a result of our study, the stock option is a helpful tool to solve agency problems. If the company issued more options, company profit would be in line with the managers. These will encourage managers to choose strategies that have higher systematic risk (Beta). However, since managers are risk aversion in nature, managers tend to maintain or lower total risk, meanwhile, they tend to eliminate unsystematic risk. The result holds the same when we use PSM Model to eliminate the effect of stock option character. Besides, we also add the manager holding effect in our empirical model, in order to evaluate total wealth impact on enterprise risk. Mangers would be afraid of downside risk, which results in risk aversion behaviors.
Innovation Act Art.19-1 provides tax incentives to encourage the company to adopt more employee compensation plans. We also take tax benefits provided by Industry Innovation Act Art.19-1 into consideration, in order to evaluate its impact on company risk. Based on the empirical results, tax incentives can’t change managers’ risk tendency and decision behavior. The main reason is it has 5,000 thousand limitations. The stock option which value exceeds the limit would be taxed in normal, which weakens its real impacts. |
| Reference: | 中文部分
陳雪如、黃邵彥、邱安安、劉俊麟等人(2011), 員工分紅費用化對薪酬制度影響之研究。中華管理評論國際學報，14(4)，1-25
經濟部工業局(2019)。「產業創新條例」第19條之1實施檢討報告，未出版。
資誠會計事務所(2009)。股份基礎給付議題 產學面對面。資誠通訊, 226, 40-43
英文部分
Agrawl, A., & Knoeber, C. R. (1996), Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders, The Journal of Finance and Quantitative Analysis, 31(3), 377-397
Amihud, Y., & Lev, B. (1981) Risk Reduction as a Managerial Motive for Conglomerate Mergers, The Bell Journal of Economics, 12(2), 605-617
Armstrong C. S., & Vashishtha R. (2012), Executive stock options, differential risk-taking incentives, and firm value, Journal of Financial Economics, 104, 70-88
Babenko, I., & Tserlukevich, Y. (2009) Analyzing the Tax Benefits from Employee Stock Options, The Journal of Finance, 64(4), 1791-1825
Baker, T., Collins, D., & Reitenga, A. (2003), Stock Option Compensation and Earnings Management Incentives, Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 18(4), 557-582
Black, B. S., Kim, W., & Jang, H. (2006), Does Corporate Governance Affect Firm Value? Evidence From Korea, Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 22(2), 366-413
Bryan, S., Lee-Seok, H., & Steven B. L. (1999), CEO Stock Option Awards: An Empirical Analysis and Synthesis of the Economic Determinants, SSRN Electronic Journal
Chen., Y. R., & Ma, Y. (2011), Revisiting the risk-taking effect of executive stock options on firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 650-648
Core, J., & Guay, W. (2002), Estimating the value of stock option portfolios and their sensitivities to price and volatility. Journal of Accounting Research, 40, 613-630
Defusco, R. A., Johnson, R. R., & Zorn, T. (1990), The Effect of Executive Stock Option Plans on Stockholders and Bondholders, The Journal of Finance, 45(2), 617-627
Devers, C. E., Mcnamara, G., & Wiseman M. R. (2008), Moving Closer to the Action: Examining Compensation Design Effects on Firm Risk, Organization Science, 19(4), 548-566
Destuch, Y., Keil, T., & Laamanen,T. (2010) A Dual Agency View of Board Compensation: The Joint Effects of Outside Director and CEO Stock Options on Firm Risk, Strategic Management Journal, 32, 212-227
Dong, Z., Wang, C., & Xie F. (2010), Do executive options induce excessive risk taking, Journal of Banking & Finance, 34, 2518-2529
Firth, M., Peter, M.Y.F., & Oliver, M. R. (2007). How ownership and corporate governance influence chief executive pay in China’s listed firms, Journal of Business Research, 60, 776-785
Garvey, G. (1997) Marketable Incentive Contracts and Capital Structure Relevance, The Journal of Finance, 52(1), 353-378
Gaver, J., & Gaver, K. M. (1993) Additional evidence of the association between the investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend and compensation policies, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 16, 125-160
Harvey H., & John, J. (2003), The Theory and Practice of Corporate Finance: The Data, SSRN Electronic Journal
Henderson, V. (2005). The impact of the market portfolio on the valuation, incentive and opportunity of executive stock options, Quantitative Finance, 5(1), 35-47
Huddart, S. (1998), Tax Planning and the Exercise of Employee Stock Options, Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(2), 203-216
James, S. A., Rebel, A. C., & James. W. L. (2000), Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, The Journal of Finance, 56(1), 81-106
Jenson, M., & Mecking W. H. (1976), Theory of The Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360
Khan, R., Dharwadkar, R., & Brandes, P. (2005). Institutional ownership and CEO compensation: a longitudinal examination, Journal of Business Research, 58, 1078-1088
Litner, J. (1965), The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(1), 13-37
Markowitz, H. (1952), Portfolio Selection, The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91
Martin, G. P., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Wiseman R. M. (2013). Executive stock options as mixed gambles: revisiting the Behavioral Agency Model, Academy of Management Journal, 2, 451-472
Meulbroek, L. K. (2001) The Efficiency of Equity-Linked compensation: Understanding the Full Cost of Awarding Executive Stock Options, Financial Management, 30(2), 5-44
Rajgopal, S., & Shevlin, T. (2002) Emperical evidence on the relation between stock option compensation and risk taking, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33(2), 145-171
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983) The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects, Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55
Ross, S. A. (2004) Compensation, Incentives, and Duality of Risk Aversion and Riskiness, The Journal of Finance, 59(1), 207-225
Samuel J., Belda-Ruiz R., & Sanchez-Marian G. (2014) Executive stock options, gender diversity in the top management team, and firm risk taking, Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 451-463
Sanders, W. G., & Hambrick D. C. (2007) Swinging for the Fences: The effects of CEO Stock Options on Company Risk Taking and Performance, The Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1055-1078
Sawers, K., Wright, A., & Zamora, V. (2011), Does Greater Risk-Bearing in Stock Option Compensation Reduce the Influence of Problem Framing on Managerial Risk-Taking Behavior, Behavioral Research In Accounting, 23(1), 185-201
Sharpe, W. F. (1964), Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions of Risk, The Journal of Finance, 19(3), 425-442
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1986) Large Shareholders and Corporate Control, Journal of Political Economy, 94(3)-1, 461-488
Tian, Y. S. (2004). Too much of a good incentive? The case of executive stock options, Journal of Banking & Finance, 28, 1225-1245
Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., & Awasthi V. (1996), Impact of Corporate Insider, Blockholder, and Institutional Ownership on Firm Risk Taking, The Academy of Management Journal, 2, 441-463
Wiseman, R. W., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1998), A Behavioral Agency Model of Managerial Risk Taking, Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 133-153 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
會計學系
108353110 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108353110 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202100593 |
| Appears in Collections: | [會計學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 311001.pdf | 865Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
