生技產業為我國未來六大明星產業之一，除政府成立生技創投基金，民間企業也陸續加入這波生技投資行列，如永豐餘集團旗下的上智生技創投，與潤泰集團旗下的鑽石生技投資。以籌資來源而言，又分為借款融資關係(負債端)的外部資金，以及股東投資關係(權益端)的自有資金兩種，對於公司經營各有優缺點，亦應取得平衡。唯目前多數為權益端的資金投入，尤其以該產業中風險最高的新藥研發公司為例，仍普遍高達95%以上的股東權益比率。顯示其籌資來源有限，且難以吸引負債端的投資者參與。而這樣的資金來源比例，除不符合企業融資順位理論於公司成長階段的籌資策略與負債權益比率，權益端資金多以短期獲得高利潤為目的，以資金性質亦不適合占資產達95%以上之比例。 以目前負債端籌資管道，新藥研發公司多數利用台灣中小企業信用保證基金直保部或經濟部促進產業創新或研究發展貸款計畫專案申請，唯融資額度上限遠不足以支付藥物開發費用，且非一般負債端直接經由銀行評估取得融資之方式。綜觀國際業態，單一全新藥物開發至上市平均需約USD8億元(約NTD240億元)不等，而台灣公司的研發策略多數為分段發展或老藥新用(藥物重新定位)策略，但仍有高度資金需求。唯銀行、負債端投資者普遍缺乏投入該產業的意願，主要顧慮為具冗長的產品研發週期業態、高度不確定性的產品上市審查、長期臨床試驗伴隨的高額成本。此外，對於資金專注研發之新藥研發公司，亦面臨擔保品不足之問題。而實務上，負債端資金提供者如銀行，對於複雜的生技領域與新藥研發公司業態不甚了解，為降低融資意願的另一主因。 故本研究旨在建立一套適用於新藥研發公司之一般性價值評估方式，解決此雙方認知差異問題，以增加更多元的籌資管道。其中，本文參考其他國家評估方法，選擇其中針對技術型公司、發展久遠的韓國技術信用保證基金KOTEC評估模式，導入台灣微脂體、基亞生物科技、賽德醫藥科技3間新藥研發公司個案作一評估。並於最後研究結論，經由分析比較個案公司間歷年經營狀況，得出公司整體與個別質、量性指標項目量化的相對分數，以台灣微脂體分數157分最高，基亞生技次之。本研究亦參考個案評估狀況，得出該類公司較佳的一般性經營策略結論，發現公司創立早期可先以開發週期短、風險較低的老藥新用開發以代替副業產生短期營收的效用，同時累積本業開發經驗，待時機成熟再轉入全新藥物開發為一攻守兼具的經營模式，以供新藥研發公司參考。此外，本研究屬於探索性研究，僅於評估新藥研發公司分數階段，尚未轉換為公司融資評等。該部分尚待具一定案源量後，以統計模型將評估分數與還款違約率關聯性做一分析，方能計算融資評等。而建立內部評等模型、資訊系統對台灣銀行規模而言，為一額外高昂成本，亦建議可效法韓國由政府主導為可行方式之一。 / The biotechnology industry is one of the six future stars of the industries in Taiwan. The government established Biotechnology Venture Capital (BVC), and the more and more private companies joined the procession of biotech investments, such as the two famous biotech funds, Taiwan Global BioFund (TGB) and Diamond BioFund Inc.. According to sources of funding, we can divided them into two groups: one is the loan of external funds (liability side), and the other is the shareholder investment of internal funds (equity side), both of them have different advantages and disadvantages for the company, and the company should strike a balance between these advantages and disadvantages. However, the majority of the funds are invested from the equity side, especially the new drug development companies, which are the highest risk types in the industry, and most of their equity ratio is higher than 95 %. This information indicates the limited sources of funding, and the difficulty to attract liability side’s investors to participate. That proportion of funding sources doesn’t comply with the company’s financing strategy and debt to equity ratio in the growth stage of the enterprise life cycle in the pecking order theory, and equity side’s funds are not suitable for accounting for more than 95% of assets in balance sheet because most of them want to get high profits in the short-term. Currently, major new drug development companies usually apply for loans from the Direct Guarantee Dept. of the Small & Medium Enterprise Credit Guarantee Fund of Taiwan (Taiwan SMEG) or the Promote Industrial Innovation or R&D Loan Program of Industrial Development Bureau in Taiwan, but the amount of loan is insufficient to cover the costs for the new drug development, and this method is not a general way to obtain liability side’s financing from the bank’s direct evaluation. In the international situation, the progress from development to sale of a single new drug spends about US $800 million (about NT $24 billion) on average. Despite Taiwan's R&D strategies only cover the sectional development progress or the policy of the new usage of old drugs (drug repositioning), there is still a high degree of capital requirement. However, in the present, banks and other liability side’s investors still lack the will to invest in the new drug development companies. These investors concern about several major problems, including the lengthy product development cycle, high uncertainty of the product examination and approval, the high cost of long-term clinical trials in this industry. In addition, these companies are also faced with the problem of lacking collateral, because they invest much money in new drug R&D. On the other hand, liability side’s investors, such as banks, don’t understand the complex field of new drug development companies' business models, and this situation becomes another reason for reducing the financing will. Therefore, we should establish a general evaluation method applicable to new drug development companies, to solve the problem of cognitive differences between liability side’s investors and the borrowers, and expand the funding sources of these companies. This article refers to the actual evaluation method in other countries, chooses the most suitable and well developed evaluation model --- Korea Technology Finance Corporation (KOTEC)’s evaluation method for the technology-based company, and utilizes the method to evaluate three cases of the new drug development companies in Taiwan, including Taiwan Liposome Co., Medigen Biotechnology Crop., and CytoPharm, Inc.. In conclusion of the study, by analyzing and comparing the three companies’ operating situations in recent years, we can get relative quantified scores from the companies’ overall and individual qualitative, quantitative indicators, and the result is that Taiwan Liposome Co. gets the highest score, 157 points, then Medigen Biotechnology Crop. gets the middle one. This study also refers the case situations, to find a better general business strategy for such companies. We find that new drug development company in the early stage can focus on new usage development of old drugs ,which has advantages of short development cycle and lower risk, to replace the sideline that generates short-term revenue, and accumulate the experience of drug development. When the time is ripe, it can transfer to new drug development. This way is the general suggestion of both offensive and defensive business model for new drug development companies. In addition, this study is an exploratory research, which only focuses on the evaluation stage, and has not converted the result into a corporate financing credit rating. To calculate financing credit ratings, we require a lot of historical cases data to establish a statistical analysis model, and link evaluation scores with repayment default rates. The establishment of an internal rating model or information system incurs high additional costs for the size of the banks in Taiwan, so the recommended one of the possible ways is that we can follow the example led by the South Korea Government.

新經濟體系的來臨，以技術為基礎的新創科技公司如雨後春筍般的出現，這些新創科技公司的價值已非過去龐大的有形資產，取而代之的是無形資產，如專利權、商標權、著作權、授權契約或公司的研發團隊等，然而傳統的財務報表係儘反映公司過去的財務狀況和經營成果，對於自行研發而非外購的智慧財產權，卻無法認列在財務報表上，使得公司的價值被嚴重低估，有潛力的公司無法獲得所需資金而功敗垂成，十分可惜。 本研究係以實際經營管理的觀點切入，探討以智慧財產權做為融資擔保標的時所會遭遇到的困難為何？再經由所得知的實際困難找出智慧財產權融資所需營運機制和可行之營運模式。 由於智慧財產權融資大部份的風險都處於資金供給方，因此融資可行與否大致上都決定於資金供給者必須在那些條件具備的情況下才願意接受以智慧財產權做擔保的融資模式，因此本研究主要探討的問題從資金供給者的角度出發，主要研究的資金供給對象為國內銀行和創業投資公司。 透過次級文獻蒐集、集體焦點訪談、個別訪談和郵寄問卷等方法得到主要發現如下： 一、國外智慧財產權融資尚在起步階段，且西方國家與東方國家有關智慧財產權的營運模式皆不盡相同。 二、國內缺乏智慧財產權融資實際個案，雖然有關智慧財產權融資擔保有其基本法源可茲適用，但相關配套法規欠缺。 三、國內創業投資公司多以整體性評估新創科技公司，除少數新創科技公司（如生物科技公司）外，智慧財產並非單一關鍵性考量因素。 四、智慧財產權融資模式對創業投資公司有其間接性影響，其中有關鑑價機制和技術交易市場為創業投資公司所關切重點。 五、國內傳統銀行以利差為主要獲利來源之營運特性使智慧財產權融資高風險之融資形式不易為銀行所接受。 六、銀行本身缺乏智慧財產權鑑價能力和管理能力，此為銀行承做智慧財產權融資首要解決之務。 七、銀行傾向以政府保證的方式來進行智慧財產權融資，以降低本身所承擔風險。 八、以目前整體的環境而言，智慧財產權融資在智慧財產權觀念上、鑑價機制、管理能力、交易市場和法令規範等方面有著許多實行上的困難有待解決。 由以上可知智慧財產權融資以目前各方面的環境而言具有高風險性，其可行性的營運模式建議分為短期和長期來看： 一、初期營運模式： 1、初期政府可用保證基金的形式來分散資金供給者的風險。 2、初期可先透過國外的鑑價機制和交易市場來進行。 二、遠期營運模式： 建立具有國際化的鑑價機構和交易市場，根據「契約自由化」原則，只要交易雙方對於契約內容達成一致性的決議，則交易即可完成，以促進自由市場高流動性的運作。 關鍵字：智慧財產權融資、新創科技公司、創業投資公司、銀行、鑑價機制、技術交易市場、信用保證基金、關鍵要素。 / By the coming of the new economy, high-tech start-ups are mushrooming like bamboo shoots after a spring rain. The value of high-tech start-ups does not base on hard assets, but of their principal assets. The principal assets contain both the intangible assets and intellectual property right (IPR), such as patent, trademark, copyright, license contract as well as R&D team. However, traditional financial statements record only the past financial profile and operating results of companies. They've invested large amount of money on R&D, and therefore, to obtain the IPR. But the right obtained can not be shown on the financial statements. As a result, a large number of high-tech start-ups are underestimated, and unfortunately, most of the potential high-tech start-ups were not able to survive due to the inability to find the fund needed. From the view of the practical operating management, this study discusses problems that should be confronted when operating the financing IPR. Moreover, according to the problems found, the study anticipates by offering the operating mechanism and feasible business models for financing IPR. As we know, the majority of risk lies in the fund suppliers when financing IPR, so mostly the feasibility of financing IPR depends on fund suppliers that will receive IPR as collateral under a certain number requirements possessed. Thus, the study will then offer suggestions mainly in terms of fund suppliers, and the focus will be on domestic banks and venture capitalists. Based on the literature review, group focus interview, individuall interview, posted survey and so on are conducted for the study. Some of insights are derived as bellow: 1. For overseas countries, the financing IPR is just at the beginning period. There are differences in the business models of financing IPR between western countries and eastern countries. 2. There are few real cases about financing IPR in Taiwan although there are some basic laws to apply for financing IPR. Nevertheless, more related regulations are needed. 3. Most of the venture capitalists evaluate high-tech start-ups in an overall way. Hence, excluding a small numbers of high-tech start-ups such as bio-tech companies, IPR is not the only key evaluation factor. 4. The model of financing IPR has an indirect influence to venture capitalists. They emphasize more on the valuation mechanism and the technology marketplace. 5. The profit of traditional banks in Taiwan comes from the interest. From the conservative operating system, these banks are hard to accept the financing IPR that is with high risk. 6. The domestic banks are in short of the IPR valuation and IPR management capabilities. Thus, these problems should first be solved, and then the financing IPR will be able to be taken into action. 7. The domestic banks are in favor of reducing risk by getting guarantee from the government. 8. In terms of the whole financial environment in Taiwan, there are lots of difficulties in the concepts of IPR, valuation mechanism, management capability, technology marketplace, laws and decrees and so forth to be confronted. Above all, financing IPR has high risk in Taiwan at the moment. Therefore, this paper recommends that feasible business models of financing IPR should be divided as follow: 1. Short-run business model: (1) Diversify the risk of the fund suppliers from the guarantee fund offered by the government. (2) Finance IPR by foreign valuation mechanism and technology marketplace. 2. Long-run business model: First, more efforts should be put to set up our own international valuation institutions and technology marketplace. Second, the financing IPR should be taken by contract liberalization principle in compliance with the mechanism of the free market. When both sides agree to the contract, then the deal will be done. By doing so,the IPR financing will be highly promoted at the same time. Key words: Financing IPR, High-tech Start-ups, Venture Capitalists, Domestic Banks, Valuation Mechanism, Technology Marketplace, Credit Guarantee Fund, Key factors.