過去許多文獻都認為競價拍賣的價格發現功能較強，折價幅度也較小，但基於承銷效率的考量許多國家都採用詢價圈購多於競價拍賣，台灣一直以來也以詢價圈購為主流的股票承銷方式。然而，2016年起台灣證券交易所卻推行了以競價拍賣為主的承銷新制。新制實施後對於承銷效果的影響為何，目前國內尚未有研究進一步探討。因此本研究蒐集了1995年1月至2018年2月間所有的普通股IPO資料，並特別針對新制後的IPO進行分析。結果發現，新制推行後多數公司主動採取競價拍賣來進行股票承銷，而競價拍賣相較於詢價圈購也確實有較低的折價幅度，中長期的價格效率表現也較佳。但若同時納入公開申購一起進行比較，上述效果則變為不顯著。而在新舊制下競價拍賣的得標價與承銷價價差上並無顯著性的差異。整體來看，2016年後的競拍承銷效果優於早期的競拍承銷，同時也優於同期的詢價圈購，但與公開申購承銷的差異不明顯。現階段政策下台灣股市公開申購的比重較低，未來可考慮進一步提高公開申購的提撥比例以吸引市場投資人。

In the past, many literatures believed that the price discovery function of IPO auctions was strong and the margin of discount was relatively small. Consider underwriting efficiency Taiwan and most countries have used bookbuilding more than IPO auctions. However, since 2016 Taiwan Stock Exchange has implemented a new underwriting policy based on IPO auctions. Currently there is no further study on the impact of new underwriting policy in Taiwan. Therefore, this study collects all IPO data of common stocks from January 1995 to February 2018 and analyzes the new IPOs in particular. As a result, finds out that after the new policy, most companies take the initiative to take bid auctions for stock underwriting, and IPO auctions do have a lower discount rate compared to bookbuilding, mid and long-term price performance also performs better. However, if public subscription is included into comparison, the results become insignificant. Under the old and new IPO auctions policy, there is no significant difference between the bid price and the underwriting price spread. On the whole, the effect of IPO auctions underwriting after 2016 is better than earlier and it is also better than the bookbuilding in the same period. Although there are no significant difference between underwriting public subscription. Under this policy, the proportion of public purchase is relatively low. In the future, government can consider to raise public subscription proportion to attract market investors.

第一章 緒論............................1
第一節 研究背景與動機...................1
第二節 研究目的........................3
第三節 研究架構........................4
第二章 台灣承銷方式與競價拍賣新制........5
第一節 台灣承銷方式介紹.................5
第二節 競價拍賣新制介紹.................9
第三章 文獻回顧........................15
第四章 資料與研究方法...................19
第一節 研究期間與資料來源...............19
第二節 相關變數定義與研究方法...........20
第五章 實證結果分析....................23
第一節 敘述統計與相關性分析.............25
第二節 迴歸模型分析....................31
第六章 結論與建議......................35
參考文獻.................................37

壹、中文部分
劉玉珍與陳薇如（2004），為何詢價圈購方式逐漸取代競價拍賣？證券暨期貨月刊，22(5)，16-31。

江淑貞與吳桂燕（2013），為何台灣的競價拍賣逐漸式微於初次上市市場？臺大管理論叢，23(2)，29-64。

王朝仕與陳振遠（2008），申購積極性對新上市公司股票績效的影響。管理學報，25，245-267。

姜堯民與戴維芯（2016），台灣股票初次上市櫃相關研究文獻回顧。經濟論文叢刊，44(1)，77-125。

楊家溱、巫永森與吳壽山（1999），新上市股票異常報酬探討與不同承銷配售方式之選擇。管理學報，25，245-267。

徐燕山與徐政義（2002），IPO折價與訊息的代理變數。財務金融學刊，10，63-88。

李孟霖（2017），競價拍賣新制政策效果分析。國立政治大學財務管理研究所學位論文，1-47。

姜堯民與戴維芯（2007），興櫃交易對初次上櫃績效的影響。證券櫃檯雙月刊， 17-32。

陳軒基、葉秀娟與陳右超（2003），承銷制度與折價幅度：台灣初次上市櫃股票之實證分析（1980-2000）。證券市場發展季刊，14(4)，175-198。

貳、英文部分
Loughran, T., & Ritter, J. (2004). Why has IPO underpricing changed over time? Financial Management, 5-37.

Jagannathan, R., Jirnyi, A., & Sherman, A. G. (2015). Share auctions of initial public offerings: Global evidence. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 24(3), 283-311.

Biais, B., & Faugeron-Crouzet, A. M. (2002). IPO auctions: English, Dutch,… French, and internet. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 11(1), 9-36.

Lee, Y. T., Lin, J. C., & Liu, Y. J. (2007). IPO auctions and private information. Journal of Banking and Finance, 31 (5), 1483-1500.

Tan, R. S. K., Eng, L. L., & Khoo, A. (1999). The effects of offering method and trading location on the pricing of IPOs in Singapore. Applied Financial Economics, 9(5), 491-499.

Lee, J., Shim, H., & Yi, H. C. (2016). Re-visiting Bookbuilding versus Auction IPOs: A Perspective of Informationally Efficient Prices in the Aftermarket. Working Paper, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, 1-51.

Sherman, A. E. (2005). Global trends in IPO methods: Book building versus auctions with endogenous entry. Journal of Financial Economics, 78(3), 615-649.

Kutsuna, K., & Smith, R. (2003). Why does book building drive out auction methods of IPO issuance? Evidence from Japan. Review of Financial Studies, 17(4), 1129-1166.

Chen, A., Hung, C. C., & Wu, C. S. (2002). The underpricing and excess returns of initial public offerings in Taiwan based on noisy trading: a stochastic frontier model. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 18(2), 139-159.

Neupane, S., Marshall, A., Paudyal, K., & Thapa, C. (2017). Do investors flip less in bookbuilding than in auction IPOs? Journal of Corporate Finance, 47, 253-268.

Aggarwal, R., & Rivoli, P. (1990). Fads in the initial public offering market? Financial Management, 45-57.

Ritter, J. (1991). The-Long Run Performance of Initial Public Offerings. Journal of Finance, 46, 3-28.

Derrien, F., & Womack, K. L. (2003). Auctions vs. bookbuilding and the control of underpricing in hot IPO markets. The Review of Financial Studies, 16(1), 31-61.

Yeh, Y. H., Shu, P. G., & Guo, R. J. (2008). Ownership structure and IPO valuation—Evidence from Taiwan. Financial Management, 37(1), 141-161.

Neupane, S., Marshall, A., Paudyal, K., & Thapa, C. (2017). Do investors flip less in bookbuilding than in auction IPOs? Journal of Corporate Finance, 47, 253-268.

Fjesme, S. L. (2016). Initial Public Offering Allocations, Price Support, and Secondary Investors. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 51(5), 1663-1688.