本研究的主旨在探討台灣證卷交易市場之上市公司辦理現金增資時採用不同承銷配售方式下各種資訊內涵差異，研究樣本包括民國八十四年至民國八十六年間，曾在台灣證卷交易市場宣告辦理現金增資之 278 家公司，其中又區分為 201 家採公開申購配售方式及 77 家採詢價圈購配售方式之現金增資公司樣本。本研究鑑於民國 84 年新版承銷配售制度施行以來，現金增資採行詢價圈購配售方式之公司股價出現特定人套利現象，甚至引發立法院於民國 86 年底，提出修正法案欲將詢價圈購提撥比率之但書規定廢除事件，故本研究目標將著重於探討公開申購配售與詢價圈購兩種不同承銷配售方式來現金增資之公司間其財務屬性及其對股價之影響是否有差異，以檢驗現行的詢價圈購制度是否有缺失。 實證結果顯示：採兩種不同承銷配售方式現金增資之公司，其財務變數並無顯著差異，顯示公司的財務特質並不影響其承銷配售方式的選擇。經由股價反應的驗證則發現採公開申購配售及詢價圈購承銷配售方式之現金增資之公司，其發行宣告首次見報時對股價異常報酬均有顯著正面的影響。但兩者對股價異常報酬之影響於統計上卻發現有顯著差異。至於在首日申購（圈購）日時之股價異常報酬反應，採公開申購配售者為顯著正股價異常報酬反應，採詢價圈購者股價異常報酬則為顯著負反應，因此兩者在首日申購日時對股價之反應有顯著差異，採公開申購配售公司之股價異常報酬反應明顯優於採詢價圈購配售公司。而於發行日時之價格異常報酬反應，採公開申購配售公司並不顯著，採詢價圈購配售方式公司卻有正向股價異常報酬反應，兩種承銷配售方式於發行日時顯示顯著的股價異常報酬反應差異。 兩種承銷配售方式為公司以現金增資向股東或投資大眾取得資金的途徑，其最終目的均相同，因此不同配售方式對股價異常報酬之影響應不會有太大差異，但本研究卻發現在首次宣告日、首日申購日及發行日時三種不同事件日下，兩種配售方式之股價異常報酬反應卻出現顯著差異的情形。由於此一差異與公司的財務特質無關，所以顯示詢價圈購配售方式可能存有缺失，造成特定人可藉由現行制度的漏洞來進行套利或取得比以往更多的新股，因此對於無法進行套利或取得新股的股東而言，現行的詢價圈購制度並不公平，確實有改善之必要。 / The study is based on a sample, consisting of 278firms, of the announcements of SEO(seasoned equity offerings) in Taiwan stock market during the period from Jan. 1996 to Dec. 1997, to detect whether the current circling system in TW is not proper. There are two major SEO underwriting procedures in TW: by offer=for-sales and by circling. The paper focuses on two types of firms which adapt different SEO underwriting. By comparing the both firms' financial characteristics and stock price responses, we know if the existing system is fair. The evidence shows that 89% financial ratios (in the research) of firms, adapting different underwriting procedures, don't have statistically significant positive abcdrmal returns for both underwriting procedures and the reaction levels for both are different. During the circling procedure, circling firms' stock price response is significantly negative but is significantly positive for offer-for- sales firms'. It's very clear that the latter firms have the better stock price performance than the former. During the days of offerings, circling firms' stock price response is significant positive but is not significant negative for offer-for sales firms'. In the research, we can be sure that these two SEO underwriting procedures are significantly different in all of three event days. Since the different market responses are not associated with firms' financial characteristics, we now can be sure that current circling system exist some problems. The system may provide some big stockholders having chances to arbitrage and to get more newissuing shares then they should have. To the other stockholders who can't engage in arbitraging and get new issuing shares, the existing circling system is unfair.