生技產業乃高複雜、高風險及高獲利性產業，大部分生技公司目前皆尚處於虧損階段。因此就創投觀點來看，如何避免投資到有可能泡沫化之生技公司，皆需仰賴一套良好之評價模式。 基於本研究是以創投觀點看待投資性，且目標產業是生技產業，本研究建議投資人應該選擇製藥次產業切入投資，並以財務構面作為主決策構面，同時輔以本研究所提出之定量評價因子（銷售成長率、邊際利潤率、盈餘成長率、再投資率、WACC、ROIC）及定性評價因子（研發人員人數、碩博士比例、研發費用、新產品及新發明件數）作為輔助評價。另外，本研究藉由相關文獻及研究方法之探討，建立並確認目標公司相關的評價模式。 依據此評價模式，並考量數據取得難易度及可類比否，故選擇已上市櫃之公司－台灣東洋及濟生化學為樣本分析公司。實證結果顯示，東洋的合理價值區間為每股8.97~30.83元之間；濟生的合理價值區間為每股4.37~24.74元之間。除用股價淨值比計算出濟生之評估價值較實際股價略高以外，其他皆低於實際股價，故本評價模式具實用性。 / What is a biotech company really worth? The question is often faced by corporation, venture capitals, and investors alike who may be putting their capital at risk in a biotechnology company. Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer to the question; no standardized valuation methodology can be applied universally in order to determine investment value. Additionally, there is no method to isolate any specific scenario or state with a reasonable degree of certainty, valuation of a biotech company appears to be a challengeing endeavour. The objectives of the research are to analyze and investigate the value of biotech company from venture capital perspective. From the assessment of the research, an evaluation model to identify any potential investment opportunities in the biotech industry is considered to be effective.

<p>Canadas regulatory system is science-based and relies on risk assessment to inform decisions about which products of biotechnology (and other technologies) are safe enough for commercial application. Since regulation involves the loss of certain liberties, it is imperative that any regulatory regime be as objective as possible. Scientific risk assessment seems to be a good way to produce the information, which guides policy makers since it involves quantitative analysis and the production of seemingly objective data.</p><p>The view adopted by regulators and in current risk assessment practices is that objective means value-free. Therefore, because risk assessment data is scientific it is thought to be value-free but this is not the case. Risk assessment necessarily involves value assumptions. Assumptions must be made at all stages of the production of risk data. This does not mean, however, that risk assessment is hopelessly subjective. The notion of value-free objectivity can be replaced with the view that genuine objectivity arises through peer review and social discourse. Regulators can adopt this understanding of objectivity to acknowledge the value-ladenness of risk assessment data.</p><p>At present, the value assumptions made by industry, government and private scientists during risk assessment go largely unnoticed yet have an effect on the outcome of regulatory decisions. Such assumptions must be recognized in order to ensure that the decisions made about the risks society face are not biased. This is particularly true in the case of biotechnology regulation. The development of the science of biotechnology has occurred concurrently with the development of the biotech industry creating the opportunity for industry-biased risk assessments.</p><p>It is possible to make changes to the existing regulatory regime in Canada in order to avoid some of the major problems associated with unrecognized value assumptions in risk assessment. A complete restructuring of the regime is unnecessary, however. Maintaining the current regulatory structure with some minor changes could address these problems. These changes include: creating an independent review board, making explicit that value assumptions are part of risk assessment in government advisory reports, and enhancing the role of regulators. Canadas regulatory system can better address the risks associated with biotechnology if it acknowledges that risk assessment is value-laden.</p>

<p>Canadas regulatory system is science-based and relies on risk assessment to inform decisions about which products of biotechnology (and other technologies) are safe enough for commercial application. Since regulation involves the loss of certain liberties, it is imperative that any regulatory regime be as objective as possible. Scientific risk assessment seems to be a good way to produce the information, which guides policy makers since it involves quantitative analysis and the production of seemingly objective data.</p><p>The view adopted by regulators and in current risk assessment practices is that objective means value-free. Therefore, because risk assessment data is scientific it is thought to be value-free but this is not the case. Risk assessment necessarily involves value assumptions. Assumptions must be made at all stages of the production of risk data. This does not mean, however, that risk assessment is hopelessly subjective. The notion of value-free objectivity can be replaced with the view that genuine objectivity arises through peer review and social discourse. Regulators can adopt this understanding of objectivity to acknowledge the value-ladenness of risk assessment data.</p><p>At present, the value assumptions made by industry, government and private scientists during risk assessment go largely unnoticed yet have an effect on the outcome of regulatory decisions. Such assumptions must be recognized in order to ensure that the decisions made about the risks society face are not biased. This is particularly true in the case of biotechnology regulation. The development of the science of biotechnology has occurred concurrently with the development of the biotech industry creating the opportunity for industry-biased risk assessments.</p><p>It is possible to make changes to the existing regulatory regime in Canada in order to avoid some of the major problems associated with unrecognized value assumptions in risk assessment. A complete restructuring of the regime is unnecessary, however. Maintaining the current regulatory structure with some minor changes could address these problems. These changes include: creating an independent review board, making explicit that value assumptions are part of risk assessment in government advisory reports, and enhancing the role of regulators. Canadas regulatory system can better address the risks associated with biotechnology if it acknowledges that risk assessment is value-laden.</p>

本研究主要探討生技產業公開說明書之風險因子揭露對首次公開發行公司5年內的獲利能力做研究，想得知風險因子的揭露是否會影響公司獲利時間的長短。本研究以美國生技產業首次公開發行公司為研究對象，樣本期間為1997年至2012年。 許多文獻指出越來越多公司在尚未獲利前即先行上市，但公司未來的前景及獲利能力卻充滿高度的不確定性，而透過資訊的揭露可使該不確定性下降，因透過揭露，投資者可以了解公司營運狀況及表現，對公司價值能做較正確之判斷， 此時願意提供資金給公司營運，充足的資金使公司未來獲利機會上升。 本研究參考過去文獻，建立資訊揭露的四級指標加上風險因子所揭露的項目多寡，系統性地衡量生技公司公開說明書之風險因子，並以存活分析檢測假說。實證結果顯示：風險因子的內容描述越著重在某些特定資訊，例如：顧客資訊、重要員工資訊、量化資訊的表達、公司未來不確定性、財務需求時，公司未來獲利能力機會大增，而當更進一步的探究時，又發現對顧客資訊和量化資訊的表達越具體，越詳細時，也會使公司未來獲利機會上升。 / This study investigates whether disclosure of risk factors in the prospectus will influence the probability of the biotech firms to attain profitability. Data is collected for biotech companies of U.S IPOs issued from1997 to2012 as the research sample. Many extant empirical evidences indicate that the proportion of firms going public prior to achieving profitability has been increasing over time. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the long-term economic viability of these firms at the time of going public. Disclosures in the prospector may mitigate the effects of ex-ante uncertainty about firm’s value, and disclosures are potentially important means for management to communicate firm performance and governance to outside investors. Therefore, firms can raise more money by disclosing more information in IPO prospectors, because more information reperesent lower uncertainty between investors and firms.This study uses risk factors in the prospectus as concern issue and expects that the quantity of risk factors and the content or description of risk factors will influence the uncertainty and would mitigate investors’ concern. Referring to past literature, this study builds four-class index for disclosure score and uses two classifications of risk factors to systematically measure risk factors in the prospectus. The empirical results show that a biotech IPO with more information or some specific information of risk factors, like disclosures of main customers and key employees, will experience good performance after IPO. In addition, more detail descriptions in quantitative risk factors and customers’ information contributed to better performance in the future. In conclusion, disclosure of risk factors in the prospectus are related to firms’ probability of profitability after IPO as expected.

在台灣的高科技產業發展中，創投扮演了重要的角色，其所提供的資金與協助促進了新創事業的成長，造就了台灣資訊電子產業的躍居世界舞台與傲人的經濟成長。2000年人類基因圖譜的解出，似乎加快了基因技術的應用與相關產業的發展，進而成為全球經濟成長的新動力，因此我國創投的投資觸角也積極地延伸到生物技術產業上。 　　過去有關創投的相關研究多集中在投資評估準則的總體性研究，甚少針對某一產業的特性不同，來做進一步的研究，特別是在生物科技產業方面，因此，本研究將針對生物技術產業的特性與創投的股東背景、經營團隊與合作網路等組成因子，來探討其所產生的投資策略與行為。 　　本研究採用個案訪談之定性研究，選擇六家在生技產業投資比重較大的國內創投公司做訪談，再依據本研究架構進行分析整理，得到了以下之結論： 　　一、 生技產業的特性對投資策略與行為之影響 　　　1. 創投因看好生技產業的成長潛力而將提高此方面的投資比重，而生技產業的投資金額以美國為最高。 　　　2. 創投在生技產業的投資階段傾向涵蓋不同的階段。 　　　3. 創投在生技產業的投資以醫藥產業及其週邊之醫療器材為主，主要考量是醫藥產業是目前為止較高報酬的領域。 　　　4. 創投在生技產業的投資區域以美國為主，其中最重要的原因與該地區之產業群聚有關。 　　　5. 創投在生技產業的投資傾向以投資組合管理及聯合同業投資來降低投資風險。 　　　6. 創投在生技產業的投資傾向不聘任外部顧問，而傾向以經營團隊之專業評估為主，再以已投資公司與事業夥伴為諮詢對象。 　　　7. 創投在生技產業的投資回收策略為上市或購併，投資回收期間並不會因為生技產業的產品開發期長而延長。 　　　8. 創投在生技產業的投資評估，著重整體性評估（不會只看技術或智慧財產權），會因事業投資階段而有不同的評估重點，投資案愈偏早期，愈著重技術與人。投資案愈偏成熟期，所需評估的項目愈多。 　　　9. 生技產業的特性雖對創投的附加價值沒有影響，但創投對生技產業的投資案有提供附加價值，會因投資案事業發展階段之不同，而提供所需之協助，附加價值則以資訊蒐集與人脈介紹為主。 　　二、創投的組成對投資策略與行為之影響 　　　1. 創投的股東對外部顧問策略、投資案源與投資評估有影響，對投資金額、投資階段、投資領域、投資區域、風險控管、回收策略與附加價值沒有影響。 　　　2. 創投的經營團隊對投資金額、投資階段、投資領域、投資區域、風險控管、外部顧問、回收策略、投資評估與附加價值有明顯的影響，對投資案源則有些影響。 　　　3. 創投的合作網路對外部顧問、投資評估與附加價值有影響，對投資案源更是有明顯影響，而對投資金額、投資階段、投資領域、投資區域、風險控管與回收策略沒有影響。　 　　三、生技產業的特性對創投的組成之影響 　　　1. 生技產業的特性對創投董事會內的股東背景沒有影響。 　　　2. 生技產業的的特性影響到創投招募技術專業之經營團隊。 　　　3. 創投未因生技產業的特性而建構新的合作網路，而傾向運用集團中原有之合作網路，尤其是過去的已投資公司，為創投主要的諮詢者。 / Venture capital plays an important role in the development of high technological industries in Taiwan. It provides the essential fund and useful assistance to promote the growth of start-up companies. Because of it, the growth of economy in Taiwan dramatically increases and Taiwan has become the kingdom of information and communication industries around the world. In the year 2000, the complete sequence of human genome has enhanced the speed of the development in the field of biotech and its associated industries. In addition, the investment in biotech industry is expected to stimulate another trend of global economic growth. Therefore, venture capital in Taiwan also actively extends its influence in the field of biotech industries. 　　The majority of researches in venture capital seems to concentrate on the overall evaluation of the general criteria of investment, few studies focused on one particular industry, especially the biotech industry and its characteristics and aspects. Therefore, this study will aim at the characteristics of biotech industry and the constituent factors of venture capital to explore the strategies and behaviors of investment. 　　A qualitative research was conducted in six important venture capital firms in Taiwan using a method of intensive personal interview. The summaries of the research findings are as follows: 　　I. The impacts of the characteristics of biotech industry on the strategies and behaviors of investment: 　　　1. Venture capital firms will increase investment percentage in biotech area because of its potential of growth, and the majority amounts of venture capital seem to be invested in the United States. 　　　2. The venture capital firms’ investments in biotech tend to cover various stages. 　　　3. The fields venture capital firms invest in biotech appear to be focused on pharmaceuticals and medical devices, because the operating return from this area is higher than any others so far. 　　　4. The location of biotech companies venture capital invested are focused on the United States, which seem to have obvious phenomenon of clustering. 　　　5. Through portfolio management and co-investment, venture capital firms can reduce risk while investing in biotech. 　　　6. Instead of relying on outside consultant when invest in biotech, venture capital firms prefer to depend on inside management teams for due diligence. In addition, the past invested firms and partners are helpful while needed. 　　　7. The exit strategies of venture capital firms are initial public offering or merger & acquisition when invest in biotech companies, and the period of investment appears to be not correlated with the long product life cycle of biotech industry. 　　　8. Instead of emphasis on technologies or intellectual properties, venture capitalists emphasize all factors which evaluating biotech companies. Their decision criteria depend on venture development stages, the earlier stages these cases are, the more important technologies and management teams are, the later stages these cases are, the more factors are considered. 　　　9. Venture capitalists add values to the biotech companies they invested, not because of the characteristics of biotech industry, but differ from development stages of cases. Most of add values are information collection and networking. 　　II. The influences of the constituent factors of VC on the strategies and behaviors of investment: 　　　1. The stockholders of venture capital affect outside consultant strategy, deal flow, due diligence, but make no influence on investment amount, venture development stage, field, location, risk control, exit strategy and value-added. 　　　2. The management teams of venture capital obviously influence investment amount, venture development stage, field, location, outside consultant strategy, risk control, exit strategy, due diligence and value-added, and make a little influence on deal flow. 　　　3. The networking of venture capital make a little influence on outside consultant, due diligence and value-added, and make obvious influence on deal flow, but do not affect investment amount, venture development stage, field, location, risk control and exit strategy. 　　III. The influences of the characteristics of biotech industry on the components of venture capital: 　　　1. The characteristics of biotech industry don’t appear to affect the background of stockholders in the board. 　　　2. Venture capital firms recruit professional management teams because of the same particular characteristics of biotech industry. 　　　3. While investing in biotech industry, venture capital firms utilize networks, especially the past invest , as their main consultants.

本研究主要探討生技產業公開說明書之風險因子揭露以及首次公開發行(IPO, initial public offering)前之策略聯盟關係對首次公開發行折價所產生之影響。本研究以美國生技產業首次公開發行公司為研究對象，樣本期間為1997年至2012年。 許多文獻指出當初級市場認購人間資訊不對稱程度越大時，IPO價值之事前不確定性(ex ante uncertainty)越高，因此以事前不確定性的概念來衡量資訊不對稱程度，並透過公開說明書中資訊之揭露作為事前不確定性的代理變數以探討其與IPO折價現象之關聯。本研究即利用公開說明書之風險因子揭露作為事前不確定性的代理變數，並預期揭露的數量多寡與內容描述將影響IPO折價。另外，由於文獻指出策略聯盟所傳達的正面訊號，可能有助於生技公司減少因產業特性所造成的不確定性，因此本研究預期生技公司於IPO前擁有策略聯盟關係將影響IPO折價。 本研究參考過去文獻，建立資訊揭露的四級指標加上風險因子所揭露的項目多寡，系統性地衡量生技公司公開說明書之風險因子，並以多元迴歸分析檢測假說。實證結果顯示：風險因子的內容描述越具量化或越具體，IPO折價越大，並且發現大公司之風險因子揭露數量與IPO折價具正向關係，而生技公司於IPO前擁有策略聯盟關係對IPO折價幅度具有顯著負向關係。研究結果顯示公開說明書之風險因子揭露及策略聯盟與事前不確定性所產生之IPO折價現象之關聯性。 / This study investigates whether disclosure of risk factors in the prospectus and the effect of strategic alliances before IPO date will influence underpricing of the biotech firms. Data is collected for biotech companies of U.S IPOs issued from 1997 to 2012 as the research sample. Much literature indicates that the greater is the information asymmetry between different investors, the higher is the ex ante uncertainty about an initial public offering’s value. Hence, the ex ante uncertainty is measured as the degree of asymmetric information. And there are a number of studies that use different measurement as a proxy for ex-ante uncertainty including disclosures in the prospectus to examine its relation to underpricing. This study uses risk factors in the prospectus as a proxy for ex-ante uncertainty and expects that the quantity of risk factors and the content or description of risk factors will influence underpricing. Furthermore, since previous studies consider that strategy alliances convey a positive signal to investors which would reduce the uncertainty from the industrial characteristics of the biotech industry and would mitigate investors’ concern, this study expects that a biotech IPO with strategic alliances before IPO date will affect underpricing. Referring to past literature, this study builds four-class index for disclosure score and uses the number of risk factors to systematically measure risk factors in the prospectus. The empirical results show that a biotech IPO with more quantitative information or some specific information of risk factors will experience higher underpricing. In addition, in larger firms the greater are risk factors disclosed no matter the quantity or the content and its description, the higher is underpricing. And there is a significantly negative relation between strategic alliances before IPO date and underpricing. In conclusion, disclosure of risk factors in the prospectus and the effect of strategic alliances are related to underpricing as expected.