English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113318/144297 (79%)
Visitors : 51065291      Online Users : 1001
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 140.119/139139
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/139139


    Title: 《揭弊者保護法》草案與股票市場反應:來自台灣資本市場的證據
    The Draft of Whistleblower Protection Act and Stock Market Reaction: Evidence from Taiwan’s Capital Market
    Authors: 劉芳妤
    Yu, Liu Fang
    Contributors: 戚務君
    Chi, Wuchun
    劉芳妤
    Liu Fang Yu
    Keywords: 揭弊者保護法
    事件研究法
    公司治理
    經營團隊
    Whistleblower Protection Act
    Event study
    Corporate governance
    Management team
    Date: 2022
    Issue Date: 2022-03-01 16:38:22 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 利用2017年至2019年一系列與台灣《揭弊者保護法》草案的相關事件日,本文檢視該草案的市場反應。實證結果顯示,整體而言,股票市場對《揭弊者保護法》持正面看法。進一步的分析顯示,公司治理制度較佳、經營團隊異質性較高或經營團隊能力較好的企業,相關事件日的異常報酬率愈高。前述的實證結果隱含,資本市場對不同企業關於《揭弊者保護法》實際遵循與落實的預期差異,可以解釋相關事件日的股價行為。
    This study examines the stock market reaction to the draft of Whistleblower Protection Act. Specifically, I observe the abnormal return (AR) on series event days between 2017 and 2019 which are related to the draft of Whistleblower Protection Act. The empirical results show that the average AR on these event days is significantly positive, indicating that market investors have a positive view of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Further analysis shows that companies with better corporate governance, higher management team heterogeneity, and better managerial ability result in higher AR on the draft-related event days. In other words, it shows that investors have more confidence in the compliance and implementation of Whistleblower Protection for such companies.
    Reference: 沈中華與李建然,2000,事件研究法:財務與會計實證研究必備,台北市:華泰文化(一版)。
    李建然、廖秀梅與蔡佳育,2016,上市櫃公司自願設置審計委員會及審計委員會品質之決定因素,當代會計,第17卷第1期,頁1−34。
    林美鳳、金成隆與林良楓,2009,股權結構、會計保守性與信用評等關係之研究,臺大管理論叢,第20卷第1期,頁289−329。
    林嬋娟、戚務君與謝安軒,2022,台灣上市(櫃)公司審計委員會調查報告,2020/2021公司治理雙年報,第2卷第1期,頁41−120。
    馬秀如、徐佳筠與蕭寧君,2020,會計師碰上法遵:保密或吹哨?會計研究月刊,第415期,頁93−98。
    許恩得與王敬皓,2012,公司治理、供應商關係與盈餘品質,東海管理評論,第14卷第1期,頁179−205。
    陳芊妤,2021,以比較法觀點論私部門吹哨者保護與通報機制之建構,國立政治大學法律學系碩士論文。
    陳麗如、彭金隆與王儷玲,2010,台灣保險業公司治理結構對風險決策行為的影響,管理評論,第29卷第4期,頁1−18。
    戚務君,2020,審計研究導讀,台中市:滄海書局(一版)。
    張瑞當、方俊儒與曾玉琦,2007,核心代理問題與盈餘管理:董事會結構與外部監督機制之探討,管理學報,第24卷第1期,頁17−39。
    彭火樹、陳美惠與洪瓊瑋,2006,金融控股公司法制定過程對金融業之股市反應及其與公司特質關聯性之研究,證券市場發展季刊,第18卷第3期,頁117−146。
    葉銀華,2017,引進完整之吹哨者制度,會計研究月刊,第380期,頁16−20。
    葉銀華,2018,臺灣吹哨者制度的最新發展與建議,會計研究月刊,第387期,頁14−19。
    劉若蘭、許永聲與劉力維,2014,在不同生命週期下董事會組成特性對公司經營績效之影響,會計評論,第58期,頁133−165。
    戴怡蕙,2017a,股份控制權和盈餘分配權的偏離程度會影響以績效為基準的考核制度誘因效果嗎?會計評論,第65期,頁1−43。
    戴怡蕙,2017b,控制股東的股權偏離程度與公司績效:持股率與類別的調節效果,會計審計論叢,第7卷第2期,頁85−115。
    薛敏正、邱彥毅與邱詩婷,2017,公司治理評鑑與盈餘品質,會計審計論叢,第7卷第2期,頁57−83。
    薛敏正、葉淑玲、邱彥毅與江璧岑,2018,公司治理評鑑與證券報酬,中華會計學刊,第14卷第2期,頁261−289。
    Ali, A., and S. Kallapur. 2001. Securities price consequences of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and related events. The Accounting Review 76 (3): 431−460.
    Aobdia, D., C.-J. Lin, and R. Petacchi. 2015. Capital market consequences of audit partner quality. The Accounting Review 90 (6): 2143-2176.
    Bantel, K. A., and S. E. Jackson. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal 10 (S1): 107−124.
    Ball, R., and P. Brown. 1968. An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers. Journal of Accounting Research 6 (2): 159−178.
    Baloria, V. P., C. A. Marquardt, and C. I. Wiedman. 2017. A lobbying approach to evaluating the Whistleblower Provisions of the Dodd‐Frank Reform Act of 2010. Contemporary Accounting Research 34 (3): 1305−1339.
    Berger, P. G., and H. Lee. 2022. Did the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provision deter accounting fraud? Journal of Accounting Research (Forthcoming).
    Bowen, R. M., A. C. Call, and S. Rajgopal. 2010. Whistle-blowing: Target firm characteristics and economic consequences. The Accounting Review 85 (4): 1239−1271.
    Call, A. C., G. S. Martin, N. Y. Sharp, and J. H. Wilde. 2018. Whistleblowers and outcomes of financial misrepresentation enforcement actions. Journal of Accounting Research 56 (1): 123−171.
    Carpenter, M. A., M. A. Geletkanycz, and W. G. Sanders. 2004. Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of management 30 (6): 749−778.
    Cascino, S., and J. Gassen. 2015. What drives the comparability effect of mandatory IFRS adoption? Review of Accounting Studies 20 (1): 242−282.
    Claessens, S., S. Djankov, and L. H. Lang. 2000. The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. Journal of Financial Economics 58 (1-2): 81−112.
    Claessens, S., S. Djankov, J. P. Fan, and L. H. Lang. 2002. Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. The Journal of Finance 57 (6): 2741−2771.
    Claessens, S., S. Djankov, and L. Klapper. 2003. Resolution of corporate distress in East Asia. Journal of Empirical Finance 10 (1): 199−216.
    Dechow, M., and C. Schrand. 2004. Earnings Quality. New York: The Research Foundation of CFA Institute.
    Department of Justice (DOJ). 2020. Fraud Statistics—Overview. Available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1354316/download
    Demerjian, P. R., B. Lev, and S. E. McVay. 2012. Quantifying managerial ability: A new measure and validity tests. Management Science 58 (7): 1229−1248.
    Demerjian, P. R., B. Lev, M. F. Lewis, and S. E. McVay. 2013. Managerial ability and earnings quality. The Accounting Review 88 (2): 463−498.
    Dey, A., J. Heese, and G. Pérez-Cavazos. 2021. Cash-for-information whistleblower programs: Effects on whistleblowing and consequences for whistleblowers. Journal of Accounting Research 59 (5): 1689−1740.
    Du, J., and Y. Dai. 2005. Ultimate corporate ownership structures and capital structures: Evidence from East Asian economies. Corporate Governance: An International Review 13 (1): 60−71.
    Dye, R. A. 1990. Mandatory versus voluntary disclosures: The cases of financial and real externalities. The Accounting Review 65 (1): 1-24.
    Dyck, A., A. Morse, and L. Zingales. 2010. Who blows the whistle on corporate fraud? The Journal of Finance 65 (6): 2213−2253.
    El-Gazzar, S. M. 1993. Stock market effects of the closeness to debt covenant restrictions resulting from capitalization of leases. The Accounting Review 68 (2): 258−272.
    Espahbodi, H., P. Espahbodi, Z. Rezaee, and H. Tehranian 2002. Stock price reaction and value relevance of recognition versus disclosure: The case of stock-based compensation, Journal of Accounting and Economics 33 (3): 343−373.
    Fama, E. F., L. Fisher, M. Jensen, and R. Roll. 1969. The adjustment of stock prices to new information. International Economic Review 10 (1): 1−21.
    Fan, J. P., and T. J. Wong. 2002. Corporate ownership structure and the informativeness of accounting earnings in East Asia. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33 (3): 401−425.
    Finkelstein, S. 1992. Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management journal 35 (3): 505−538.
    Glaum, M., P. Schmidt, D. L. Street, and S. Vogel 2013. Compliance with IFRS 3-and IAS 36-required disclosures across 17 European countries: company-and country-level determinants. Accounting and Business Research 43 (3): 163−204.
    Hambrick, D. C., and P. A. Mason 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review 9 (2): 193−206.
    Heese, J., R. Krishnan, and H. Ramasubramanian. 2021. The Department of Justice as a gatekeeper in whistleblower-initiated corporate fraud enforcement: Drivers and consequences. Journal of Accounting and Economics 71 (1): 101357.
    Heese, J., and G. Pérez-Cavazos. 2021. The effect of retaliation costs on employee whistleblowing. Journal of Accounting and Economics 71 (2-3): 101385.
    Hoffman, L. R., and N. R. Maier. 1961. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62 (2): 401.
    Hossain, M. and B. R. Marks. 2005. Information content of mandatory quarterly foreign sales data of U.S. multinational companies under SFAS 131 Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 14 (2): 105-120.
    Hutton, A. P., A. J. Marcus, and H. Tehranian. 2009. Opaque financial reports, r2, and crash risk. Journal of Financial Economics 94 (1): 67-86.
    Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes.
    Jehn, K. A., G. B. Northcraft, and M. A. Neale. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (4): 741−763.
    Keck, S. L. 1997. Top management team structure: Differential effects by environmental context. Organization Science 8 (2): 143−156.
    Kim, S., and A. Klein. 2017. Did the 1999 NYSE and NASDAQ listing standard changes on audit committee composition benefit investors? The Accounting Review 92 (6): 187−212.
    La Porta, R., F. Lopez‐de‐Silanes, and A. Shleifer. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance 54 (2): 471−517.
    La Porta, R., F. Lopez‐de‐Silanes, and A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny. 2002. Investor protection and corporate valuation. The Journal of Finance 57 (3): 1147−1170.
    Lemmon, M. L., and K. V. Lins. 2003. Ownership structure, corporate governance, and firm value: Evidence from the East Asian financial crisis. The Journal of Finance 58 (4): 1445−1468.
    Lins, K. V. 2003. Equity ownership and firm value in emerging markets. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 38 (1): 159−184.
    Miceli, M. P., and J. P. Near. 1993. Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implications for companies and employees. Journal of Business Ethics 12 (8): 628−652.
    Miceli, M. P., and J. P. Near. 1995. Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 679−708.
    Moberly, R. E. 2007. Unfulfilled expectations: An empirical analysis of why Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowers rarely win. William and Mary Law Review 49 (1): 65.
    Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R. W. Vishny. 1988. Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis, Journal of Financial Economics 20 (1-2): 293−315.
    Ozili, P. K. 2016. Fraud detection, conservatism and political economy of whistle-blowing. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 5 (3): 17−24.
    Rainsbury, E. A., M. E. Bradbury, and S. F. Cahan. 2008. Firm characteristics and audit committees complying with “best practice” membership guidelines. Accounting and Business Research 38 (5): 393-408.
    Salatka, W. K. 1996. The relationship among accounting choices prior to mandatory accounting rules, information disclosure, and timing of adoption of mandatory rules. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 13 (2): 91-101.
    Schipper, K., and R. Thompson. 1983. The impact of merger-related regulations on the shareholders of acquiring firms. Journal of Accounting Research 21 (1): 184−221.
    Schippers, M. C., D. N. Den Hartog, and P. L. Koopman. 2007. Reflexivity in teams: A measure and correlates. Applied Psychology 56 (2): 189−211.
    Shivdasani, A., and I. Stefanescu. 2010. How do pensions affect corporate capital structure decisions? The Review of Financial Studies 23 (3): 1287−1323.
    Shleifer, A., and R. W. Vishny. 1997. A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance 52 (2): 737−783.
    Srinidhi, B. N., S. He, and M. Firth. 2014. The effect of governance on specialist auditor choice and audit fees in US family firms. The Accounting Review 89 (6): 2297−2329.
    Stubben, S. R., and K. T. Welch. 2020. Evidence on the use and efficacy of internal whistleblowing systems. Journal of Accounting Research 58 (2): 473−518.
    Su, L., X. Zhao, and G. Zhou. 2016. Auditor tenure and stock price idiosyncratic volatility: The moderating role of industry specialization. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 35 (2):147-166.
    Sun, J., S. F. Cahan, and D. Emanuel. 2009. Compensation committee governance quality, chief executive officer stock option grants, and future firm performance. Journal of Banking & Finance 33 (8): 1507-1519.
    Van Knippenberg, D., and M. C. Schippers. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology 58 (1): 515−541.
    Verriest, A., A. Gaeremynck, and D. B. Thornton. 2013. The impact of corporate governance on IFRS adoption choices. European Accounting Review 22 (1): 39−77.
    Webber, S., and D. S. Archambeault. 2015. Whistleblowing: Not so simple for accountants. The CPA Journal 85 (8): 62.
    Wilde, J. 2017. The deterrence effect of employee whistleblowing allegations on. firms’ financial misreporting and tax aggressiveness. The Accounting Review 92 (5): 247−280.
    Yeh, Y. H., T. S. Lee, , and T. Woidtke. 2001. Family control and corporate governance: Evidence from Taiwan. International Review of Finance 2 (1‐2): 21−48.
    Zhang, D. 2019. Top management team characteristics and financial reporting quality. The Accounting Review 94 (5): 349−375.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    會計學系
    108353013
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108353013
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202200329
    Appears in Collections:[會計學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    301301.pdf1956KbAdobe PDF20View/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 Copyright Announcement
    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。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    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。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback