Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/30513
|
| Title: | 生物科技公司之投資與評價-以P生技公司為例 |
| Authors: | 陳慧玲 |
| Contributors: | 陳錦烽
陳慧玲 |
| Keywords: | 生技產業
公司評價
風險調整淨現值
折現率
Biotechnology Industry
Evaluation
rNPV
Discount Rate |
| Date: | 2004 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-12 12:18:32 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近年來，生物技術的快速進步，逐漸被公認為是繼資訊產業之後最具發展潛力的產業。生技產業不同於傳統的製造業或電子產業，前者之進入障礙高、產品研發時程長及研發投入成本高。雖然生技產品開發成功後，投資報酬率高、產品的生命週期長，但由於其研發過程較長，具有相當高的不確定性，加上研發的失敗率高，致使生技產業成為投資風險極高的產業。
生技產業屬於知識密集的知識型產業，其主要價值來自於研發創新的無形資產，而難以傳統的評價方法及標的來估算。因此，探討如何評估生技公司的價值，是本研究之主要目的。
本研究範圍以「生技醫藥產業」為研究重點，生技產業的應用範圍包括醫藥開發、醫療器材、診斷試劑、農業生技、健康食品及生技服務業等領域。醫藥品的開發是生物技術最早應用的領域，目前全球生技產業中，也以生技醫藥領域的市場最大，是目前發展較為成熟且成功的領域。
但因生技醫藥公司之投資的評估考量與傳統評價模式有差異，生技醫藥公司之營運，通常需要先投入數年的研發，開發出具有市場潛力的產品或技術、並取得專利後，再透過授權或合作方式，向有意承接之單位或藥廠收取前期金(up-front payment)或研究經費(research fund)，以及收取各階段的里程金(milestone payment)，待產品成功上市後，生技醫藥公司再依銷售金額，分配到一定比率的授權金。上述的收入或獲利過程，往往長達4到7年，而其收入結構因合作模式的差別而有不同的組合變化。如果依一般公認的會計原則認列損益，將造成公司某一年有一大筆收入，但接下來幾年收入可能都掛零的現象。不但無法反映生技公司的真正營運狀況，亦可能造成投資人或主管單位的誤解，這正是生技公司價值無法依傳統評價模式進行評估的原因。
然而，究竟應該如何對一生技公司進行評價？本研究使用目前最佳的生技公司評價方法：風險調整淨現值法(rNPV)，並以一個案公司為題，探索生技醫藥產業的投資與評價過程。此法的評估結果，對生技公司的現有價值，即使仍在R&D的早期階段，仍能運用於生技公司投資、授權、取得等交易之需要。
關鍵字：生技產業、公司評價、風險調整淨現值、折現率
Due to the rapid growth of the biotechnology industry, it is now considered the hottest industry after the information technology industry. Unlike the traditional production industry (the labor intensive) or the electronic industry, the biotechnology requires higher R&D costs, and usually the life span of its product lasts longer, which leads to a certain barrier in this particular field. Although the return of investment tends to be profitable if the product succeeds, yet the lengthy R&D process still makes the business highly risky.
The innovation of intangible assets is the main value of biotechnology; in other words, this is a knowledge-intensive industry, and it is hard to measure the potential risks and returns through traditional evaluation models. Hence, the main purpose of this study is to evaluate how a biotechnology company is worth.
This study will be mainly focus on “Bio-Pharmaceutical”, which includes New Drugs, Medical Devices and Instruments, Diagnostic Reagents and Platforms, Agricultural Biotech, Health Care Products, and Contract Services. A large number of biotechnology companies have viewed pharmaceuticals as their target market since 1997. Cleary, the Bio-Pharmaceutical is regarded as the mainstream of this industry.
Owing to the different models of evaluation as mentioned earlier, biotechnology industry is different from the traditional ones. Biotech companies usually need to go through a long-range research process before developing a success product or technique, and they will usually authorize the selling rights to a partner in order to demand the up-front payment, research funds, and the follow up milestone payments. If the product hits the market, the companies will be paid with a certain ratio royalty. The process generally takes about 4 to 7 years, and the revenue varies depending on the partnership. It is possible for a company to have a huge gain in one particular year and then a deficit for the coming years if the financial condition is viewed from the general accepted accounting principles. Not only does it not reflect the real situation of a biotech company, but also misleads investors and regulatory authorities. This is why the value of a biotech company needs to be reconsidered in different ways, not the traditional ones.
How, then, can we put a price tag on biotechnology? The best solution is to evaluate a biotechnology by estimating its risk-adjusted net present value (rNPV). To illustrate the rNPV method, the study has created a hypothetical scenario. Through the case study, we have arrived at a realistic value of a bio-company even at early R&D stages. Using the rNPV, researchers and potential investors can price the bio-company that they are considering selling, investing in or acquiring.
Keywords：Biotechnology Industry、Evaluation、rNPV、Discount Rate
壹.序論
貳.生技產業之現況
參.生技公司之投資評估
肆.生技公司的評價
伍.個案公司簡介及評價過程
陸.結論 |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
1、丁錫鏞博士主編,2004。台灣的生物技術與生技產業發展政策，嵐德出版社。
2、工研院, 2002。工研院會計論壇3,工研院
3、台灣健保局、衛生署統計,2003。
4、牟敦剛博士編撰,2002。生物科技N世纪，牟博士工作室出版。
5、吳啟銘,2002。企業評價-個案實證分析，智勝文化事業有限公司。
6、林衛理、鄭惠蓉, 2002，生物科技公司無形資產價值評估，萬國法律，第123期。
7、政治大學商學院會計學系, 2000。智慧資本之評價與管理，政治大學商學院會計學系。
8、洪德生、孫智麗, 2001。生物科技人力供需問題研究，財團法人台灣經濟研究院。
9、孫智麗, 2001。台灣生物技術產業發展現況與策略，財團法人台灣經濟研究院。
10、孫智麗主編, 2002。2002年台灣生技產業實況，財團法人台灣經濟研究院。
11、孫智麗主編, 2004。2004年台灣生技產業實況，財團法人台灣經濟研究院。
12、財團法人台灣經濟研究院, 2004。台灣經濟研究月刊2月號，財團法人台灣經濟研究院。
13、馬秀如、劉正田、俞洪昭、諶家蘭, 2000。資訊軟體業無形資產鑑價制度之研究，台北：台灣證券交易所。
14、湯古清、郭美慧,2002。生物技術產業之投資及技術評估分析，台北：財團法人生物技術開發中心。
15、經濟部工業局編輯, 2003。生技事業智慧財產之融資及保證作業，台北：經濟部工業局。
16、經濟部工業局編輯, 2003。生技產業白皮書2003，台北：經濟部工業局。
17、經濟部工業局編輯, 2003。規劃完善之生技服務業發展體系，台北：經濟部工業局。
18、廖美智, 2002。生物技術產業結構及經營模式分析，台北：財團法人生物技術開發中心。
二、英文部分
1. Ernst & Young, (2003), Borders-The Global Biotechnology Report.
2. Ernst & Young, (2003), Resilience-Americas Biotechnology Report.
3. Kneller Robert, (1999),“University-Industry Cooperation in Biomedical R & D in Japan and the United States: Implications for Biomedical Industries”, 410-438, MIT Press Cambridge, MA 1999.
4. Nature Publishing Group, (2001), Stewart, J. J., Allison, P. N., and Johnson, R. S., “Putting a price on biotechnology” Nature biotechnology.
5. Palepu, K. G., P. M. Healy and V. L. Bernard, (2004),Business Analysis and Valuation, 3rd Ed., Mason, OH, USA: South-Western College Publishing.
6. US-Hepatitis B foundation, 2004, American Liver Foundation, Asian Liver Center at Stanford University.
7. Yahoo! Finance: http://finance.yahoo.com |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)
91932312
93 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0091932312 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [經營管理碩士學程EMBA] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 396 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
