論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:自定論文開放時間 user define
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus:開放下載的時間 available 2029-06-12
校外 Off-campus:開放下載的時間 available 2029-06-12
論文名稱 Title |
員⼯流動對股票崩盤⾵險之關聯 The Relationship Between Employee Turnover and Stock Price Crash Risk |
||
系所名稱 Department |
|||
畢業學年期 Year, semester |
語文別 Language |
||
學位類別 Degree |
頁數 Number of pages |
72 |
|
研究生 Author |
|||
指導教授 Advisor |
|||
召集委員 Convenor |
|||
口試委員 Advisory Committee |
|||
口試日期 Date of Exam |
2026-06-12 |
繳交日期 Date of Submission |
2026-06-12 |
關鍵字 Keywords |
員工流動、股價崩盤風險、科技業、員工特徵、公司治理 Employee Turnover, Stock Price Crash Risk, Technology Industry, Employee Characteristics, Corporate Governance |
||
統計 Statistics |
本論文已被瀏覽 77 次,被下載 0 次 The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 77 times, has been downloaded 0 times. |
中文摘要 |
本研究旨在探討全體員工流動率與股價崩盤風險之關聯性,藉以釐清人力資本變動如何反映企業資訊環境與未來極端下跌風險。在研究方法上,本文採用多元迴歸模型進行實證分析,並以負條件報酬偏態(Negative Conditional Return Skewness, NCSKEW)與漲跌波動率比(Down-to-up Volatility, DUVOL)作為股價崩盤風險之代理變數,以檢驗員工流動率對資本市場風險之解釋效果。本研究進一步探討員工特徵與公司治理對員工流動率與股價崩盤風險之調節效果。 實證結果顯示,員工流動率對股價崩盤風險之影響具有明顯產業差異,其正向效果主要存在於高度依賴人力資本之科技業。進一步分析發現,員工平均年資、平均年齡及教育程度皆未產生顯著調節效果;獨立董事比例與股權集中度則具有顯著正向調節作用,當公司治理機制較完善或股權集中度較高時,市場對員工流動所隱含之風險訊號反應更為敏感,進而強化其對股價崩盤風險之影響。此外,納入異質風險作為控制變數後,主要實證結果仍大致一致,顯示本文結論具一定穩健性。 |
Abstract |
This study investigates the relationship between aggregate employee turnover and stock price crash risk, aiming to clarify how human capital dynamics reflect a firm’s information environment and its future extreme downward risk. Using a multiple regression model for empirical analysis, this study employs the negative skewness of stock returns (NCSKEW) and the down-to-up volatility ratio (DUVOL) as proxies for stock price crash risk to examine the explanatory power of employee turnover on capital market risk. Furthermore, the research explores the moderating effects of employee characteristics and corporate governance on the nexus between employee turnover and crash risk. Empirical results demonstrate that the impact of employee turnover on stock price crash risk exhibits significant industrial heterogeneity, with a pronounced positive effect observed primarily in the technology sector, which is heavily reliant on human capital. Further analysis reveals that individual employee characteristics, average tenure, age, and educational attainment, do not exert significant moderating effects. Conversely, the proportion of independent directors and ownership concentration show significant positive moderating roles; that is, in firms with more robust governance or a higher degree of ownership concentration, the market is more sensitive to the risk signals latent in employee turnover, thereby intensifying its impact on crash risk. Additionally, the results remain consistent after incorporating idiosyncratic risk as a control variable, indicating the robustness of the conclusions. |
目次 Table of Contents |
目錄 論文審定書 ....................................................................................................................... i 誌謝 .................................................................................................................................. ii 摘要 ................................................................................................................................. iii Abstract ............................................................................................................................ iv 目錄 .................................................................................................................................. v 表目錄 ............................................................................................................................ vii 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 第三節 研究結果 ........................................................................................................ 4 第四節 研究貢獻 ........................................................................................................ 5 第五節 研究架構 ........................................................................................................ 6 第二章 文獻探討與研究假說 ........................................................................................ 7 第一節 員工流動 ........................................................................................................ 7 第二節 股票崩盤風險 ................................................................................................ 9 第三節 員工特徵與公司治理 .................................................................................. 10 第四節 研究假說 ...................................................................................................... 13 第三章 研究方法 .......................................................................................................... 16 第一節 資料來源與研究期間 .................................................................................. 16 第二節 變數定義 ...................................................................................................... 17 第四章 研究結果 .......................................................................................................... 26 第一節 敘述性統計與相關性分析 .......................................................................... 26 第二節 員工流動率與股價崩盤風險 ...................................................................... 31 第三節 員工流動率與股價崩盤風險 – 科技業與非科技業 ................................ 32 第四節 員工流動對股價崩盤風險 – 科技業員工年資之調節效果 .................... 36 第五節 員工流動對股價崩盤風險 – 科技業員工年齡之調節效果 .................... 37 第六節 員工流動對股價崩盤風險 – 科技業員工教育程度之調節效果 ............ 39 第七節 員工流動對股價崩盤風險 – 科技業獨立董事比例之調節效果 ............ 40 第八節 員工流動對股價崩盤風險 – 科技業股權集中度之調節效果 ................ 42 第五章 穩健性測試 ...................................................................................................... 44 第一節 員工流動率與股價崩盤風險 – DUVOL穩健性測試 .............................. 44 第二節 DUVOL穩健性測試 – 科技業之調節效果 ............................................. 46 第四節 異質風險穩健性測試 – 科技業與非科技業 ............................................ 51 第五節 異質風險穩健性測試 – 科技業員工年資與年齡之調節效果 ................ 55 第六節 異質風險穩健性測試 – .............................................................................. 57 科技業員工教育程度、獨立董事比例與股權集中度之調節效果 ........................ 57 第六章 結論與建議 ...................................................................................................... 59 第一節 結論 .............................................................................................................. 59 第二節 未來研究建議 .............................................................................................. 60 參考文獻 ........................................................................................................................ 61 表目錄 表4-1 產業別樣本佔比統計表 .................................................................................. 28 表4-2 敘述性統計表 .................................................................................................. 29 表4-3 相關性係數表 .................................................................................................. 30 表4-4 員工流動對股價崩盤風險的影響 .................................................................. 32 表4-5 員工流動對股價崩盤風險的影響-科技業..................................................... 33 表4-6 員工流動對股價崩盤風險的影響-非科技業................................................. 35 表4-7 員工流動對股價崩盤風險的影響-科技業員工年資之調節效果................. 37 表4-8 員工流動對股價崩盤風險的影響-科技業員工年齡之調節效果................. 38 表4-9 員工流動對股價崩盤風險的影響-科技業員工教育程度之調節效果......... 40 表4-10 員工流動對股價崩盤風險的影響-科技業獨立董事比例之調節效果....... 41 表4-11 員工流動對股價崩盤風險的影響-科技業股權集中度之調節效果 ........... 43 表4-12 員工流動對股價崩盤風險的影響 – DUVOL穩健性測試 ........................ 46 表4-13 DUVOL穩健性測試 – 科技業之調節效果 ................................................ 48 表4-14 員工流動對股價崩盤風險的影響 – 異質風險穩健性測試 ...................... 51 表4-15 異質風險穩健性測試 – 科技業與非科技業 .............................................. 54 表4-16 異質風險穩健性測試 – 科技業員工年資與年齡之調節效果 .................. 56 表4-17 異質風險穩健性測試 – 科技業員工教育程度、獨立董事比例與股權集 中度之調節效果 .................................................................................................. 58 |
參考文獻 References |
Al Mamun, M., Balachandran, B., & Duong, H. N. (2020). Powerful CEOs and stock price crash risk. Journal of Corporate Finance, 62, 101582. Akerlof, G. A., Romer, P. M., Hall, R. E., & Mankiw, N. G. (1993). Looting: The economic underworld of bankruptcy for profit. Brookings Papers on Eeconomic Activity, 1993(2), 1-73. Andreou, P. C., Antoniou, C., Horton, J., & Louca, C. (2016). Corporate governance and firm‐specific stock price crashes. European Financial Management, 22(5), 916-956. Andreou, P. C., Louca, C., & Petrou, A. P. (2017). CEO age and stock price crash risk. Review of Finance, 21(3), 1287-1325. Ang, A., Hodrick, R. J., Xing, Y., & Zhang, X. (2006). The cross‐section of volatility and expected returns. The Journal of Finance, 61(1), 259-299. Bae, J., & Ha, Y. S. (2025). Employee satisfaction, firm performance, and stock returns: Evidence from the Korean stock market. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 93, 102847. Campbell, J. Y., Lettau, M., Malkiel, B. G., & Xu, Y. (2001). Have individual stocks become more volatile? An empirical exploration of idiosyncratic risk. The Journal of Finance, 56(1), 1-43. Call, A. C., Campbell, J. L., Dhaliwal, D. S., & Moon Jr, J. R. (2017). Employee quality and financial reporting outcomes. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 64(1), 123-149. Callen, J. L., & Fang, X. (2013). Institutional investor stability and crash risk: monitoring versus short-termism?. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(8), 3047-3063. Chen, J., Hong, H., & Stein, J. C. (2001). Forecasting crashes: Trading volume, past returns, and conditional skewness in stock prices. Journal of Financial Economics, 61(3), 345-381. Cheng, C. A., Li, S., & Zhang, E. X. (2020). Operating cash flow opacity and stock price crash risk. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 39(3), 106717. Cho, H., Choi, S., & Kwon, D. H. (2024). Employee Characteristics and Corporate Risk‐Taking: Focusing on Tenure. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 53(3), 282-303. Choi, J. H., Gipper, B., & Malik, S. (2023). Financial reporting quality and wage differentials: evidence from worker‐level data. Journal of Accounting Research, 61(4), 1109-1158. Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2011). Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 443. DeFond, M. L., Hung, M., Li, S., & Li, Y. (2015). Does mandatory IFRS adoption affect crash risk?. The Accounting Review, 90(1), 265-299. Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446-456. Edmans, A., Pu, D., Zhang, C., & Li, L. (2024). Employee satisfaction, labor market flexibility, and stock returns around the world. Management Science, 70(7), 4357-4380. Ekhsan, M. (2019). The influence job satisfaction and organizational commitment on employee turnover intention. Journal of Business, Management, & Accounting, 1(1). Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3-56. Fan, J. P., & Wong, T. J. (2002). Corporate ownership structure and the informativeness of accounting earnings in East Asia. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33(3), 401-425. Gao, H., Zhang, H., & Zhang, J. (2018). Employee turnover likelihood and earnings management: Evidence from the inevitable disclosure doctrine. Review of Accounting Studies, 23(4), 1424-1470. Glebbeek, A. C., & Bax, E. H. (2004). Is high employee turnover really harmful? An empirical test using company records. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 277-286. Hancock, J. I., Allen, D. G., Bosco, F. A., McDaniel, K. R., & Pierce, C. A. (2013). Meta-analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance. Journal of Management, 39(3), 573-603. Hong, H. A., Kim, J. B., & Welker, M. (2017). Divergence of cash flow and voting rights, opacity, and stock price crash risk: International evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 55(5), 1167-1212. Hu, J., Li, S., Taboada, A. G., & Zhang, F. (2020). Corporate board reforms around the world and stock price crash risk. Journal of Corporate Finance, 62, 101557. Hutton, A. P., Marcus, A. J., & Tehranian, H. (2009). Opaque financial reports, R2, and crash risk. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(1), 67-86. Jin, L., & Myers, S. C. (2006). R2 around the world: New theory and new tests. Journal of Financial Economics, 79(2), 257-292. Kim, J. B., Li, Y., & Zhang, L. (2011). Corporate tax avoidance and stock price crash risk: Firm-level analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 100(3), 639-662. Kim, J. B., & Zhang, L. (2016). Accounting conservatism and stock price crash risk: Firm‐level evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(1), 412-441. Kim, J. B., Wang, Z., & Zhang, L. (2016). CEO overconfidence and stock price crash risk. Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(4), 1720-1749. Kothari, S. P., Shu, S., & Wysocki, P. D. (2009). Do managers withhold bad news?. Journal of Accounting Research, 47(1), 241-276. Li, Q., Lourie, B., Nekrasov, A., & Shevlin, T. (2022a). Employee turnover and firm performance: Large-sample archival evidence. Management Science, 68(8), 5667-5683. Li, Z., Chen, Y., & Li, Y. (2023). Top management abnormal turnover and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China. International Review of Financial Analysis, 89, 102817. Li, Z., Han, N., Zeng, Q., & Li, Y. (2022b). Executive team heterogeneity, equity pledges, and stock Price crash risk: Evidence from China. International Review of Financial Analysis, 84, 102420. Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 493. Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392. Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Organizational tenure and job performance. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1220-1250. Serfling, M. A. (2014). CEO age and the riskiness of corporate policies. Journal of Corporate Finance, 25, 251-273. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737-783. Sturman, M. C. (2003). Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships. Journal of Management, 29(5), 609-640. Von Bonsdorff, M. E., Zhou, L., Wang, M., Vanhala, S., von Bonsdorff, M. B., & Rantanen, T. (2018). Employee age and company performance: An integrated model of aging and human resource management practices. Journal of Management, 44(8), 3124-3150. Wang, L., Zhu, W., Peng, T., & Hu, J. (2023). Employee quality and stock price crash risk. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 30(4), 1047-1066. Xie, B., Davidson III, W. N., & DaDalt, P. J. (2003). Earnings management and corporate governance: the role of the board and the audit committee. Journal of Corporate Finance, 9(3), 295-316. Yim, S. (2013). The acquisitiveness of youth: CEO age and acquisition behavior. Journal of Financial Economics, 108(1), 250-273. |
電子全文 Fulltext |
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。 論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:自定論文開放時間 user define 開放時間 Available: 校內 Campus:開放下載的時間 available 2029-06-12 校外 Off-campus:開放下載的時間 available 2029-06-12 您的 IP(校外) 位址是 18.97.9.170 現在時間是 2026-10-06 論文校外開放下載的時間是 2029-06-12 Your IP address is 18.97.9.170 The current date is 2026-10-06 This thesis will be available to you on 2029-06-12. |
紙本論文 Printed copies |
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。 開放時間 available 2029-06-12 |
QR Code |