臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

高科技企業為獲得持久性競爭優勢，不斷投資於技術升級活動，是不可獲缺之關鍵。然而於高度不確定之產業環境下，為達成技術升級目標並對企業資源做最有效配置，精確的資本預算方法是必備條件。本研究經文獻探討發現，傳統資本預算之淨現值法，忽略高度不確定性下之不可撤銷與可延遲投資行為特質，且未將投資決策之管理彈性納入考慮，使得淨現值法低估投資方案之實際價值。於現今新興之資本預算方法中，考慮市場成長機會及經營彈性成本之實質選擇權評價方法，可適切地描述不確定性下之企業投資決策，並突顯投資管理彈性之價值。
本研究擬以實質選擇權資本預算方法，應用於高科技產業廠商進行製程創新技術升級投資計畫之評價。並以Cournot模型及廠商雙方技術升級競爭型態為分析架構，試圖將廠商之競爭活動與技術升級先佔優勢引入評價模型中，並考慮成本領導優勢之存在性，市場需求不確定性、廠商投資決策之管理彈性與不可撤銷性。本研究利用動態規劃分析方法及向前歸納法(backward induction)，求算出於兩種技術升級路徑及三個技術階段下廠商技術升級投資計畫價值之封閉解(close form)、投資決策準則以及技術升級路徑之實現條件。
本研究發現，於廠商均進行技術升級活動之技術階段下，市場需求價格、保留價格過程之趨勢率及波動度、需求價格低限，與投資計畫價值呈正相關；而技術升級後之邊際生產成本、折現率與投資計畫價值呈負相關。本研究亦利用數值分析方法，試圖探討各參數變動對於市場均衡價格以及投資決策之影響。結果發現，成本領導廠商與非成本領導廠商成本降低的程度愈高，將增加成本領導廠商獲得技術領先地位之動機，並使企業之投資門檻降低。折現率、需求曲線斜率及投資於技術升級活動之沉沒成本的增加，將減少成本領導廠商處於技術領先之機會，並提高企業投資之門檻。

In high-tech industry, the key factor to obtain the sustainable competitive advantage is continually investing in technology progressing. However, in the highly uncertain environment, the precise capital budgeting is indispensable to aim technology progressing and allocate the source optimally. In our literature review, traditional DCF approach neglects the irreversibility and deferability of investment under uncertainty and do not consider the managerial flexibility of investment decision. Therefore, the DCF approach usually undervalues the intrinsic value of the investment project. Real option, one of modern capital budgeting approach, takes account for opportunities and cost of flexibility and captures the uncertainty while managers make invest decision.
This study applies the real options concept to evaluation of process innovating projects of technology progressing in high-tech industry. To consider strategic interaction and preemptive advantage of technology progressing race, we use Cournot model and competitive patterns of technology progressing as our research framework. Besides, cost leadership advantage, uncertainty of market demand, managerial flexibility and irreversibility also are in our consideration. In this model, by dynamic programming and backward induction, we obtained the close form solutions of firms’ value functions, investment thresholds in three stages of two different technology progressing paths and the conditions of realization of technology progressing path.
We find that the demand price, drift and volatility of reservation price and low bar of demand price are positive to project value. Marginal cost after technology progressing and discount rate are negative to project function. Besides, by numeral analysis, this study tries to explore the inferences of changes in various parameters to market equilibrium price and investment decisions. We find that the increase in the degree of cost reduction of cost leader and non-cost leader will not only enforce the cost leader be a technology leader but lower the investment threshold. The increases in discount rate, in slope of demand curve and in the sunk cost of technology progressing project will reduce the probability of that cost leader be a technology leader and increase the investment threshold.

第一章 緒 論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第二章 文獻回顧 5
第一節 傳統資本預算決策的探討 5
一、傳統資本預算決策之概念 5
二、傳統資本預算決策之限制 5
第二節 實質選擇權 7
一、選擇權概念 7
二、選擇權與資本預算決策之關係─實質選擇權 7
三、實質選擇權之分類 8
第三節 實質選擇權之相關文獻 10
一、實質選擇權文獻研究之基本架構 10
二、實質選擇權文獻相關課題 11
第四節 高科技產業技術升級活動之文獻回顧 15
第三章 研究建構 17
第一節 技術升級投資計畫評價模型之假設 17
第二節 研究方法 19
一、本研究使用之分析方法 19
二、動態規劃分析方法介紹 19
第三節 變數定義及觀念性架構 25
一、市場結構與成本函數 25
二、市場需求函數 25
三、技術升級路徑與技術升級投資計畫價值 25
四、投資決策準則─投資門檻 26
第四節 技術升級投資計畫評價模型 27
一、雙方均已進行技術升級活動下，投資案價值之常微分方程27
二、僅一廠商已進行技術升級活動下，投資案價值之常微分方程29
三、雙方均未進行技術升級活動下，投資案價值之常微分方程30
第四章 研究結果與分析 31
第一節 成本降低投資計畫於各種市場技術升級階段之價值31
一、第三階段─雙方均已技術升級之投資計畫價值31
二、第二階段─僅一廠商進行技術升級狀況下之投資計畫價值38
三、第一階段─雙方均未技術升級成功狀況之投資計畫價值40
第二節 邊界條件與投資門檻 41
一、技術升級路徑一 41
二、技術升級路徑二 45
三、技術升級路徑實現條件 49
第三節 均衡價格分析 53
一、各技術升級路徑下之均衡價格型態 53
二、沉沒成本對均衡價格與投資門檻之敏感度分析54
三、市場折現率對均衡價格與投資門檻之敏感度分析56
四、保留價格波動度對均衡價格與投資門檻之敏感度分析57
五、市場需求曲線斜率對均衡價格與投資門檻之敏感度分析68
六、技術升級效益性對均衡價格與投資門檻之敏感度分析60
第五章 研究結論與建議 63
參 考 文 獻 65

1.王健安，1998年，「資本投資計畫評核術的新觀念─實質選擇權之理論與實證方法的文獻回顧」，臺灣土地金融季刊 35卷。
2.石百達、盧佳琪，1999年，「以選擇權估價理論探討兩階段投資與申請專利之決策過程」，台灣經濟學會年會論文集 1999年。
3.張大成、賴景昌，2000年，「BOT放棄價值的評估─以台灣高速鐵路為例」，管理學報，第十七卷 第三期。
4.Afuah, 1998, “Innovation management: strategies, implementation, and profits”, Oxford University Press.
5.Berk, 1999, “A simple approach for decision when to invest”, The American Economic Review 89.
6.Beseanko, Dranove and Shanley, 2000, “Economics of strategy”, John Wiley and Sons Inc.
7.Bhattacharya, Glaazer and Sappington, 1992, “Licensing and the sharing of knowledge in research joint venture”, Journal of Economic Theory 56.
8.Black and Scholes, 1973, “The pricing of options and corporate liabilities”, Journal of Political Economy 81.
9.Bollen, 1999, “Real options and product life cycle”, Management Science 45.
10.Caballero and Pindyck, 1996, “Uncertainty, investment, and industry evolution”, International Economic Review 37.
11.Childs and Triantis, 1999, ”Dynamic R&D investment policies”, Management Science 45.
12.Cohen and Klepper, 1996, “Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: the case of process and product R&D”, Review of Economics and Statistics May 1996.
13.Courtney, Kirkland and Viguerie, 1997, “Strategy under uncertainty”, Harvard Business Review 75.
14.Cox, Ross and Rubinstein, 1979, “Option pricing: a simplified approach”, Journal of Financial Economics 7.
15.Dixit and Pindyck, 1994, “Investment under uncertainty”, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
16.Dixit and Pindyck, 1995, “The options approach to capital investment”, Harvard Business Review 73.
17.Flaherty, 1992, “Manufacturing and firm performance in technology-intensive industries: U.S. and Japanese DRAM experience”, Review of Industrial Organization 7.
18.Flamm, 1992, “Strategic arguments hot semiconductor trade policy”, Review of Industrial Organization 7.
19.Flamm, 1993, “Measurement of DRAM prices: technology and market structure”, Price Measurements and Their Uses, University of Chicago Press.
20.Grenadier, Weiss, 1997, “Investment in technological innovations: an option pricing approach”, Journal of Financial Economics 44
21.Gruber Harald, 1994, “Learning and strategic product innovation theory and evidence for the semiconductor industry ”, Amsterdam New York North-Holland.
22.Hamel and Prahalad, 1994, “Competing for the future─breakthrough strategies for seizing control on your industry and creating the markets of tomorrow” Harvard Business School Press.
23.He, Pindyck, 1992, “Investment in flexible production capacity”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 16.
24.Jagle, 1999, “Shareholder value, real options, and innovation in technology-intensive companies”, R&D Management 29
25.Kamien, 1992, “Patent licensing”, Handbook of Game Theory, Aumann, R.J. and Hart, S. Vol.1.
26.Kasanen, 1993, “Creating value by spawning investment opportunities”, Financial Management 22.
27.Kester, 1984, “Today’s Options for tomorrow’s growth”, Harvard Business Review .62
28.Lint and Penning, 1998, “R&D as an option on market introduction”, R&D Management 28.
29.Luehrman, 1997, “What’s it worth? ─ a general manager’s guide to valuation”, Harvard Business Review 75.
30.McDonald and Siegel, 1984, “Option pricing when the underlying asset earns a below-equilibrium rate of return: A note”, Journal of Finance XXXIX 1.
31.McDonald and Siegel, 1985, “ Investment and the valuation of firms when there is an option to shut down”, International Economic Review 26.
32.McDonald and Siegel, 1986, “The value of waiting to invest”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 101.
33.Myers, 1977, “Determinants of Corporate Borrowing”, Journal of Financial Economics 5.
34.Iansiti and West, 1997, “Technology integration: Turing great research into great product”, Harvard Business review 75.
35.Oster, 1994, “Modern competitive analysis”, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition.
36.Ottoo, 1998, “Valuation of internal growth opportunities: the case of a biotechnology company”, Quarterly Journal of Economics and Finance, Special Issue, 38.
37.Perlitz, Peske and Schrank, 1999, “Real options valuation: the new frontier in R&D project evaluation”, R&D Management 29.
38.Pisano and Wheelwright, 1995, “The new logic of high-tech R&D”, Harvard Business Review 73.
39.Smit and Ankum, 1993, “A real options and game-theoretic approach to corporate investment strategy under competition”, Financial Management 22.
40.Stark, 2000, “Real options, (dis)investment decision-making and accounting measure of performance”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 27.
41.Trigeorgis, 1996, “Real options, managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation”, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London and England: The MIT Press.
42.Wang, 1998, “Fee versus royalty licensing in a cournot duopoly model”, Economics Letters 60.
43.Yuan and Wang, 1999, ”Analysis on the key factors influencing competitive advantages of DRAM industry in Taiwan”, International Journal of Technology Management 18.