進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-1207201609283100
論文名稱(中文) 成本僵固性與公開收購之關聯性
論文名稱(英文) Do managers intentionally use sticky costs to signal private information? Evidence from repurchase tender offers
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 會計學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Accountancy
學年度 104
學期 2
出版年 105
研究生(中文) 顏千婷
研究生(英文) Chien-Ting Yen
學號 R16034096
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 26頁
口試委員 指導教授-周庭楷
口試委員-黃華瑋
口試委員-謝喻婷
中文關鍵字 成本僵固性  公開收購 
英文關鍵字 sticky cost  tender offers 
學科別分類
中文摘要 以往文獻指出成本僵固性導因於資源調整不效率性或代理問題,而本研究主張成本僵固性可能是反映管理階層對於公司未來前景為樂觀之預期,因此本研究檢測公開收購之公司,管理階層是否會藉由成本僵固性,來向市場上釋放出公司未來之展望。本研究發現,公司若採用固定價格收購,管理階層越會利用成本僵固性來向市場上釋放訊號,但公司若採用荷蘭式拍賣,卻無法得到相同之結果。接著,本研究也發現,在資訊環境越不透明時,相較於荷蘭式拍賣方式,採用固定價格收購的公司成本僵固性越明顯。綜合上述,管理階層若對公司未來展望為樂觀之預期時,會透過固定價格收購購回股票並且搭配成本僵固性,來向市場上釋放出訊號。
英文摘要 The previous academic literature on sticky costs mostly focused on resource adjustment inefficiency or agency problems. However, there is little evidence on whether managers intentionally use sticky costs to signal private information. We find that the degree of sticky costs is significantly higher for fixed-price repurchase tender offers than Dutch-auction tender offers. In other words, managers who adopt fixed-price repurchase tender offers intentionally use sticky costs to signal managerial optimism. Furthermore, we also find that the signaling effect of sticky costs is stronger for firms with less analyst coverage and lower institutional ownership. Overall, our evidence show that managers could use sticky costs as a signal of business prospects.
論文目次 摘要 I
SUMMARY II
誌謝 V
第壹章 緒論 1
第貳章 文獻回顧 4
第一節 成本僵固性 4
第二節 購回股票 6
第參章 研究方法 8
第一節 實證模型 8
第二節 變數說明 9
第三節 樣本選擇 10
第四節 敘述性統計 11
第五節 相關係數 12
第肆章 實證結果 14
第一節 主要迴歸結果 14
第二節 考量資訊透明度的調節效果 16
第三節 額外測試-採用BALAKRISHNAN, LABRO AND SODERSTROM(2014)模型 21
第伍章 結論 23
參考文獻 24





參考文獻 Anderson, M. C., Banker, R. D. and Janakiraman, S. N. 2003. Are selling, general, and administrative costs “sticky”? Journal of Accounting Research 41: 47-63.
Anderson, S. W. and Lanen, W. 2007. Understanding cost management: What can we learn from the evidence on “sticky costs”? Working paper, University of California, Davis.
Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D. and Plehn-Dujowich, J. M. 2011. Sticky cost behavior: Theory and evidence. Working paper, Temple University.
Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., Ciftci, M. and Mashruwala, R. 2014. The moderating effect of prior sales changes on asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research 26: 221-242.
Banker, R., Byzalov, D. and Plehn-Dujowich, J. 2014. Demand uncertainty and cost behavior. The Accounting Review 89: 839-865.
Banker, R. and Byzalov, D. 2014. Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research 26: 43-79.
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E. and Welsch, R. E. 1980. Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: Wiley.
Best, W., Best, T. and Hodges, W. 1998. The effect of self-tender offers on earnings expectations. Journal of Financial Research 21: 123-138.
Brav, A., Graham, J., Harvey, C. and Michaely, R. 2005. Payout policy in the 21st century. Journal of Financial Economics 77: 483-527.
Balakrishnan, R., Labro, E. and Soderstrom, N. S. 2014. Cost Structure and Sticky Costs. Journal of Management Accounting Research 26: 91-116.
Chen, C. X., Lu, H. and Sougiannis, T. 2012. The agency problem, corporate governance, and the behavior of selling, general, and administrative costs. Contemporary Accounting Research 29: 252-282.
Cannon, J. N. 2014. Determinants of “sticky costs”: An analysis of cost behavior using United States air transportation industry data. The Accounting Review 89: 1645-1672.
Comment, R. and Jarrell, G. 1991. The relative signalling power of Dutch-auction and fixed-price self-tender offers and open-market share purchases. Journal of Finance 46: 1243-1271.
Cooper, R. and Kaplan, R. S. 1998. The design of cost management systems: Text, cases, and readings (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dann, L. 1981. Common stock repurchases: An analysis of returns to bondholders and stockholders. Journal of Financial Economics 9: 113-138.
Fama, E. F. and Jensen, M. C. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law & Economics 26: 301-326.
Fried, J. 2000. Insider signaling and insider trading with repurchase tender offers. The University of Chicago law review 67: 421-478.
Greene, W. H. 2003. Econometric analysis, 5th ed. New York: Macmillan.
Grullon, G. and Michaely, R. 2004. The information content of share repurchase programs. Journal of Finance 59: 651-680.
He, D., Teruya, J. and Shimizu, T. 2010. Sticky selling, general and administrative cost behaviour, and its changes in Japan. Global Journal of Business Research 4: 1-10.
Healy, P. M. and Palepu, K. G. 1993. The effects of firms’ financial disclosure strategies on stock prices. Accounting Horizons 7: 1-11.
Jamal, A. S. 2014. The asymmetrical behavior of cost:Evidence from Jordan. International Business Research 7: 113-122.
Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency cost and ownership structure. Journal of Finance Economics 3: 305-360.
Jiambalvo, J., Rajgopal, S. and Venkatachalam, M. 2002. Institutional ownership and the extent to which stock prices reflect future earnings. Contemporary Accounting Research 19: 117-145.
Kama, I. and Weiss, D. 2013. Do earnings targets and managerial incentives affect sticky costs? Journal of Accounting Research 51: 201-224.
Lakonishok, J. and Vermaelen, T. 1990. Anomalous price behavior around repurchase tender offers. Journal of Finance 45: 455-477.
Lang, M. H., Lins, K. V. and Miller, D. P. 2004. Concentrated control, analyst following, and valuation: Do analysts matter most when investors are protected least? Journal of Accounting Research 42: 589-623.
Louis, H. and Robinson, D. 2005. Do managers credibly use accruals to signal private information? Evidence from the pricing of discretionary accruals around stock splits. Journal of Accounting and Economics 39: 361-380.
Louis, H. and White, H. 2007. Do managers intentionally use repurchase tender offers to signal private information? Evidence from firm financial reporting behavior. Journal of Financial Economics 85: 205-233.
Maxwell, W. and Stephens, C. 2003. The wealth effects of repurchases on bondholders. Journal of Finance 58: 895-919.
Nagel, S. 2005. Short sales, institutional investors and the cross-section of stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics 78: 277-309.
Noreen, E. 1991. Conditions under which activity-based cost systems provide relevant costs. Journal of Management Accounting Research 3: 159-168.
Noreen, E. and Soderstrom, N. 1997. The accuracy of proportional cost models: Evidence from hospital service departments. Review of Accounting Studies 2: 89-114.
Porporato, M. and Werbin, E. 2012. Active cost management in banks:Evidence of sticky costs in Argentina, Brazil and Canada. International Journal of Financial Services Management 5: 303-320.
Stickney, C. P. and Brown, P. 1999. Financial reporting and statement analysis: A strategic perspective (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Dryden.
Rau, R. and Vermaelen, T. 2002. Regulation, taxes, and share repurchases in the United Kingdom. The Journal of Business 75: 245-282.
Yükçü, S. and Özkaya, H. 2011. Cost behaviour in Turkish firms: Are selling, general and administrative costs and total operating sticky costs? World of Accounting Science 13: 1-27.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2021-06-30起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2021-06-30起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw