本文主要為評價兩個結構型債券，第一個債券是連動多個資產報酬率的股權式連結債券，第二個債券是具有每日計息且息滿可以提前到期的利率連動式債券。評價股權連動式債權時，本文利用最小值選擇權的特性，推導出股權連動式債券價格的封閉解，再推求出該債券的理論價格。評價利率連動債券，本文利用Hull & White利率三元樹建構利率期間結構，並且試著提出路徑函數，記錄債券的計息情況，透過利用條件機率概念所求出來的路徑函數，可以合適地表達每日落入區間的利息，以及提前到期(Target Redemption)的新奇選擇權的概念。 　　利用評價的過程中，發現了連動多資產績效最差報酬率的債券，理論價格就發行成本為低，券商有較大的利潤空間，而利率連動債券則由於計息區間範圍過大，以致理論價格偏高，券商獲利微薄。

結構型商品興起的時空背景，最主要的因素為股市陷於空頭市場。當景氣復甦緩慢，利率維持低檔，而閒置資金浮濫之際，投資人亟需資金運用之出口，而新金融商品因為其產品特性，遂取代傳統的投資模式，成為投資人趨之所騖的投資工具。結構型商品的吸引力存在於其契約的彈性，經由財務工程的專業設計能力，可針對市場行情與投資人屬性量身訂作契約。 　　本文針對在目前在國內較少見的兩種結構型商品評價與分析：其一為信用連動債券，利用Hull&White利率三元樹並加上信用價差所隱含的違約機率的概念來作為此商品評價的方法。其二為股權連結式目標贖回保本債券，此商品隱含了極小值選擇權及目標贖回選擇權，為一路徑相依的選擇擇權。本文利用多資產蒙地卡羅模擬法來評價此商品。最後對這兩種商品進行敏感度分析，並提出這些商品的優缺點。

本研究以「我國司法判決之敘事分析初探―目標可贖回遠期契約(TRF)爭議為例」，聚焦於法庭活動之司法敘事，透過對民事判決書之文本分析，探討原告及被告如何就爭議事件進行對己有利之敘事策略與方式，以及法官如何於判決書中就其認定之法律事實與因果推論撰寫判決。 本研究發現，基於「舉證責任分配原則」及「訴訟書狀撰寫規定」，原告、被告及法官之司法敘事應可區分為「故事」及「論述」二者。其中常見「夾敘夾議」文體，係為認定「法律事實」所作之論述，但常忽略提出具有連貫性且符合邏輯推論之法律事實。 而當法律爭訟發生時，雙方當事人需將自己認定之事實分以「故事」及「論述」讓法官有興趣聽、聽得懂並相信所說為實，如此才能贏得訴訟。因而「敘事」對當事人之攻防與判決書的事實建構益顯重要，司法敘事策略與方式及其意義與價值於焉產生。 / The purpose of this study is to conduct an exploratory analysis on the narratives in Taiwan’s judicial judgments by using examples of dispute cases on Target Redemption Forwards (TRF). Analyses are conducted on texts of civil judgments in order to understand how plaintiffs and defendants respectively develop their strategies and methodologies of narratives for winning cases, and how judges narrate the legal facts that they affirm as causes and consequences in their verdicts. It was discovered in the study that, based on the "principles of distribution of the burden of proof" and the "regulations on the drafting of litigation pleadings," judicial narratives made by plaintiffs, defendants and judges can be classified into two parts, namely "story" and "discourse." A frequently used form of writing, "narration interspersed with comments," is normally made for the purpose to affirm "legal facts." When a legal dispute takes place, the parties concerned are required to provide narratives (stories and discourses) in the court, including interpretation of the facts that they affirm by using relevant evidences. In order to win the case, however, the narrator must ensure that such narratives are interesting, understandable and persuasive to the judges. "Narratives," therefore, play important roles for constructing the facts by the two parties and for preparing the court verdicts. The strategies and methodologies used for judicial narratives are then of significant meanings and values.