本篇論文應用Rubin (1973)、Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983、1985a,b)所發展的配對方法(Matching Method)探討兩個議題，其一是評估企業從事社會責任行為是否可以改善績效，另一則是探討銀行加入金控後對其績效的影響。 / 針對第一個議題，我們將FTSE All-share 指數中被收錄於英國FTSE 社會責任指數的成份股定義為社會責任企業，未被收錄者定義為非社會責任企業，應用配對方法，根據特性變數是否相近為依據進行樣本配對。實證結果發現，不論使用配對前或是配對後的樣本進行分析，皆找不到社會責任企業的平均績效優於非社會責任企業的證據；相反地，部分的證據顯示社會責任企業的財務績效相對較低，因此我們的分析結果傾向支持焦點移轉假說，社會責任行為對財務績效的影響效果為負。 / 另外，我們以遠見雜誌於2006 年公佈的企業社會責任調查為基礎，將衡量企業社會責任績效的三個層面－社區參與、環境保護與財務透明，透過投資組合分析與迴歸分析來評估公司承擔社會責任與財務績效之間的關聯性。實證結果發現，第一，平均來說，公司的社會責任評分愈高，在評比結果公佈後的股票報酬愈低，兩者之間呈現負向關係；第二，公司在不同層面的社會責任行為對於股價報酬的影響具有差異性；第三、透過公司的長期財務資料發現，社會責任評分高的公司其長期平均會計績效相對較佳，但長期平均的股票報酬相對較低，表示社會責任型公司不一定是一個好的投資標的；最後，我們找不到支持社會責任行為可以做為公司績效保險的證據。本文使用各別層面的評比指標，更廣泛地評估社會責任行為對財務績效的影響，改進既有文獻中僅使用單一指標的不足之處。 / 就第二個議題而言，同樣地應用配對方法，根據銀行的特性變數是否相近為依據進行樣本篩選，利用台灣上市上櫃的銀行在2002 年第1 季至2006 年第2季的資料，我們發現在樣本配對前，平均來說，金控銀行在15 個CAMEL 績效指標的表現上皆相對較佳；樣本配對後，金控銀行除了在費用比率之外，其他的評比指標仍相對優於獨立銀行；不論使用配對前或配對後的樣本做分析，皆未出現金控銀行績效顯著較差的證據，因此，我們的實證結果偏向支持綜效假設，銀行加入金控對績效的影響效果為正向。 / 我們的研究架構與方案評估與政策衝擊分析文獻中的方法相一致，而貢獻則在於我們考慮樣本之間特性變數的差異性，進而以樣本配對的方式修正這個差異性，將有效降低既有文獻中在檢驗上述兩個議題上的選擇偏誤問題。 / In this thesis, we apply several matching methods, develop by Rubin (1973)、Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983, 1985a,b), on examing the effects of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on firm financial performance (CSR-effect) and on evaluating the effects of banks being subordinated to FHC on CAMEL indicators (join-FHC effect). / For the former application, two competing hypotheses, social impact hypothesis and shift of focus hypothesis, are proposed, where the former suggests that CSR has a positive relation with performance and the latter are opposite. To ensure the CSR-effect is not contaminated by other factors or the sample is randomly drawn, we employ four matching methods, Nearest, Caliper, Mahala and Mahala Caliper to match the characteristics of the firms with CSR (CSR-firms) and without CSR (NonCSR-firms) to get rid of sample selection bias. Although the four methods yield slightly different results, to our surprised, firms engaging in CSR activities obtain lower values on the return on assets, return on equity, return on sales and earnings per share. Therefore, CSR at the very least does not improve the firm performance, supporting the shift of focus hypothesis. Engaging in CSR activities lead to more pain than gain, at least in the short run. / On the CSR topic, using a set of disaggregated social performance indicators for community participation, environmental protection and fiancail transparency from the Global Views Monthly, we examine the relationship between CSR and financial performance of TSE listing companies. Our main results show that first, scores on composite social performance indicators are negatively related to stock returns and this relationship cannot be rationalized by multi-factor models for explaining the cross-sectional variation in stock returns. Second, the effects of three disaggregated social performance indicators on stock returns are differenct among industries. Third, aggregated social performance indicator is positively related to long-term accounting performance but negatively related to long-term market performance, and thus implies that good companies are good in books, but not good investments. Finally, firms with high CSR ratings do no exhibit smaller decline of their financial performance during stagnations and thus not support the view that CSR is insurance of financial performance. / The second application, two hypotheses, synergy hypothesis and specialization advantage hypothesis, are raised too, where the former suggests that FHC-banks performer better and the latter are contrary. Above four matching methods are still used to fix the characteristics of two groups of banks in order to correct for sample selection bias. Based on after-matching samples, most of our empirical results suggest that FHC-banks, on average, outperform independent banks on most of indicators on capital adequacy, asset quality, earning ability and liquidity but not on management ability and being FHC-banks at the very least does not deteriorate the performance of banks, making our conclusion favors the synergy hypothesis and against specialization advantage hypothesis in Taiwan. / Our framework is identical to many applications of matching method such as Persson (2001), Hutchison (2004), Glick, Guo and Hutchison (2006), and are also parallel to standard medical and biological research.

有鑑於全球愈來愈重視企業營運對社區造成的社會、環境和經濟影響，企業的利害關係人除了重視企業的財務績效之外，也愈來愈關心企業是否有善盡其「社會公民」的責任與角色。企業責任報告之目的就是在傳統的財務報表之外，進一步揭露企業的營業活動對於社會及環境所造成的影響。為了使資本市場能更有效地運作，公司管理當局應該要揭露範圍更廣、透明度更高、並有助於投資決策的攸關性資訊，因此，發布社會責任報告的企業有日益增多的趨勢。本研究之目的即在探討三個與企業責任報告有關的議題：(1) 企業的公司治理結構之良窳與管理當局企業責任報告揭露決策的關係；(2) 企業揭露社會責任報告之決策是否會產生股價溢酬；(3)企業社會責任報告揭露決策對企業的事前權益資金成本的影響。在控制樣本的自我選擇偏誤之後，本研究的主要發現有二：第一、公司治理結構愈好的企業愈傾向於揭露企業責任報告，而且也愈可能以專節的形式在該報告中揭露公司治理資訊；第二、從有無揭露企業責任報告的角度來看，本研究發現有揭露的公司均有較高 (低) 的股價 (資金成本)。其次，從揭露的內容做進一步分析之後，本研究發現「環境績效」、「社會績效」與「公司治理」三大類內容的揭露決策均具有價格溢酬。至於「企業承諾」則對公司股價並無顯著影響。最後，企業責任報告揭露程度較高之企業會有較顯著的價格溢酬以及較低的資金成本。 / In light of the increasing emphasis on companies’ social, environmental and economic impacts on the communities, stakeholders are more concerned about whether firms appropriately assume their responsibility as a social citizen. To fulfill stakeholders’ demand of such non-financial information, many companies have recently begun to voluntarily issue the corporate responsibility reports (CRR) as a means to disclose their social, environmental and economic performance and their commitment to do business responsibly. This study intends to answer the following three key questions related to the CRR disclosure: (a) Will companies with stronger corporate governance be more willing to issue CRR? (b) Will the voluntary disclosure of CRR leads to stock price premium? (c) Will companies making voluntary disclosure of CRR have lower ex ante cost of capital? After controlling for the self-selection bias, the empirical results reveal several important findings. First, the stronger the companies’ coporate governance, the more likely the management will issue CRR. Particularly, these companies tend to disclose their comporate governance policy and procedures in a separate section in the CRR. Second, companies disclosing CRR experience significantly higher (lower) stock prices (cost of capital). A further examination shows that three out of four major components reported in the CRR (i.e., environmental performance, social performance, and corporate governance) give rise to significant price premium. The disclosure of business commitment, however, seems to bear little or no information content embedded in the stock price. Finally, companies disclosing more information in their CRR have higher price premium and lower cost of capital than those disclosing less information. The implications of these findings are discussed.

本文以2003到2006年美國上市之不動產投資信託（REITs）的資產稅賦遞延交換做研究，並用資產出售交易作為比較，觀察稅賦遞延交換對股票報酬和股利的影響，研究結果發現稅賦遞延交換對於股票報酬有負的宣告效果，然而出售資產的交易有正的且顯著的宣告效果，由於美國REITs基於稅法規定，作為免稅體，每年要以股利的形式分配百分之九十的盈餘給股東，稅賦遞延交換並不能像資產出售交易一樣帶來現金流入，因此對於未來股東的股利所得有所影響，股東對於股票報酬沒有正向的反應，但是股東會考慮稅賦遞延交換會帶來資產重配置的效率，再加上REITs通常會支付比規定還要多的股利，因此稅賦遞延交換的對於股票報酬的負影響會因此而減弱，進一步針對交易方式還有REITs股利分配進行研究，研究的結果支持稅賦遞延交換後的股利比起直接出售交易後所發放的股利還要少。本文除了研究股東對於交易宣告的反應之外，也綜觀不同資產交易方式的現金流量和REITs股利的關連性，藉此瞭解影響REITs選擇交易方式的內涵因素，以及對股票報酬和股利的影響。 / This research examines the tax deferred exchanges made by public U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) over 2003-2006 as well as the transactions of sell-off. The purpose of this study attempts to explore the effects of tax deferred exchange on stock returns and dividend distribution. Result of this study shows that announcement effect of tax deferred exchange is negative in stock value. On the contrary, the relationship between sell-offs and stock value is significantly positive. The reason to explain the difference on announcement effect between two types of property transaction is the specific taxable earning distribution restriction on REITs. U.S REITs have to pay out 90 % of taxable earnings in the form of dividends to their shareholders to exempt from tax. As a result, tax deferred exchange doesn’t bring cash inflow contributing to dividend increase and then shareholders react a lower stock return on tax deferred exchange than on sell-offs. However, the negative effect is weakened by the efficiency of asset reallocation and the regular dividend distribution over tax law restriction. In the analysis of dividend payment, the result of dividend examination supports the hypothesis that tax deferred exchange without cash inflow make dividend fewer than sell-offs. This study may be of importance in explaining the reaction of shareholders on tax deferred exchange of REITs’ property, as well as in providing shareholders with a better understanding of the relationship between cash flow and dividend distribution in order to clarify the cause that affect REITs to utilize different types of transaction and the factors that affect stock return and dividend.