我國「金融控股公司法」於2001年11月1日起公佈實施，金融商品之整合及跨業經營之趨勢已定，各金融機構為加強其企業之競爭力並發揮經營之綜效，故有14家金融控股公司相繼於2001年12月至2003年1月間成立，本研究係以資料包絡分析法(Data Envelopment Analysis﹐DEA)之CCR模式、BCC模式及Malmquist 生產力指數，探討綜合證券商整體及個別之經營效率、金控與非金控架構下綜合證券商經營效率是否有顯著差異性，並就個別證券商之效率值觀察提出建議改善之方向，以供管理階層做為決策判斷之依據，另可作為綜合證券商是否加入金融控股公司之參考。
研究結果顯示：在經營效率方面，國內34家綜合證券商在2003年至2005年經營上皆能保持相對最有效率的券商有7家，包括寶來證券、元大京華證券、大慶證券、工銀證券、大和國泰證券、亞東證券、復華證券等業者；2004年整體綜合證券之經營效率較2003年退步，其主要原因來自規模效率之退步，而2005年整體經營效率又較2004年進步，其主要原因是來自於純粹技術效率及規模效率之進步；其中具金控背景之綜合證券商，各年度平均之總效率值略優於非具金控背景之綜合證券商，其主要原因2003年來自於純粹技術效率之領先，2004年來自於規模效率之領先，2005年來則來自於純粹技術效率及規模效率均領先之，另透過Mann-Whitney之檢定結果顯示，兩者之效率值差異並不顯著。
在生產力之跨期變化方面，2003年至2004年整體證券商之生產力變化呈進步之狀況，其主因為生產技術及技術效率同步改善所致；2004年至2005年則呈現退步之狀況，主要因為生產技術退步所致。2003年至2004年金控及非金控架構下之綜合證券商，其平均生產力指數皆大於1，代表其生產力變化呈現進步狀況，其中金控架構下之綜合證券商進步之主因為生產技術及技術效率同步改善所致，非金控架構下之綜合證券商進步之主因則為生產技術進步所致；2004年至2005年金控及非金控架構下之綜合證券商，其平均生產力指數皆小於1，代表其生產力變化呈退步狀況，其中退步之主因均為生產技術退步所致，且非金控架構下之綜合證券商退步幅度大於金控架構下之綜合證券商。綜上所述，金控架構下之綜合證券商之生產力變動情形，仍略優於非金控架構下之綜合證券商。惟兩者在2003年至2005年之生產力變化，不論是呈進步或退步狀況，其結果皆為同步。
為了解造成證券商無效率之原因，並使證券商能找出改善經營效率的方法，本研究採用Tobit迴歸分析來探討除原投入因子外，其他可能影響效率的因子為何，其實證結果顯示，證券商之員工數、分公司家數、是否為上市、櫃公司及負債/淨值比等解釋數變數與技術效率值無顯著關係。但解釋數變數中之是否為上市、櫃公司及負債/淨值比與純粹技術效率值間則呈顯著負相關；員工數、分公司家數等變數則與純粹技術效率值無明顯關係。另證券商之上市、櫃與否及負債/淨值比與規模效率間呈顯著正相關；員工數及分公司家數二項解數變數，則與公司之規模效率無明顯關係。

The 「Financial Holding company Act」 of Taiwan has been announced and implemented since November 1, 2001. Integration of different financial products and financial operations is already trend of the future. In order to strengthen the competitiveness and generate the synergy, financial institutions were consolidated to set up the financial holding company. There were 14 financial holding companies established during the period from December, 2001 to January, 2003. By using CCR model、BCC model and Malmquist productivity index of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), this research will further discuss the operation efficiency of the whole securities industry and also individual securities firm, and discuss whether there is any significant difference regarding operation efficiency between securities firms held by a financial holding company or not. This research will provide suggestions for securities firms to improve their operations and for the management to make decisions. Moreover, this research can be the reference for securities firms to decide whether they should join the financial holding company..

The result of this study shows: In respect of operation efficiency, 7 securities firms out of total 34 securities firms can keep relatively better operation efficiency during the period from 2003 to 2005, which include Polaris Securities、Yuanta Core Pacific Securities、Ta Ching Securities、IBT Securities、Daiwa Securities SMBC-Cathay、Oriental Securities、Fuhwa Securities. Compared to 2003, the operation efficiency of the whole securities industry in 2004 was decreased primarily because of the decrease of scale efficiency. However, the operation efficiency in 2005 was increased while compared with 2004. The major reason is the improvement of both scale efficiency and pure technological efficiency. In addition, the annual average values of total efficiency in those securities firms held by the financial holding company are better than those without a parent financial holding company. The major reason is due to the leading of pure technological efficiency in 2003, the leading of scale efficiency in 2004, and the leading of both pure technological and scale efficiency in 2005. Through the examination result of Mann-Whitney, the difference of both efficiency values is not significant.

With respect to the change of productivity in different period, the productivity of the whole securities industry was increased from 2003 to 2004 because of the improvement of production technology and technological efficiency. However, from 2004 to 2005, the productivity was decreased due to degeneracy of production technology. From 2003 to 2004, the average productivity index of the securities firms whether they are held by a financial holding company or not, are all greater than 1, which means their productivity increased. Furthermore, the productivity of securities firms held by the financial holding company was increased due to their improvement of both production technology and technological efficiency. The productivity of those securities firms not held by a financial holding company were increased mainly because of the improvement of production technology. From 2004 to 2005, average productivity index of all the securities firms are all less than 1, which means their productivity was decreased. The main reason is because of the degeneracy of production technology and the degeneracy of those securities firms not held by a financial holding company is much more significant. In summary, the productivity of a securities firm held by a financial holding company is still better than that of securities firm not held by a financial holding company. However, from 2003 to 2005, the results seem similar regardless of the productivity was increased or decreased,.

In order to understand the reason caused securities firms inefficient, and also for securities firms to find out the way to improve operation efficiency, this research apply Tobit regression model to analyze whether there are other factors may affect efficiency, except the input factors originally. The result shows: technological efficiency ratio does not have any significant correlation with explanation factors, such as numbers of employees and branches, listed/unlisted company and debt / net equity ratio . However, there is negative correlation between pure technological efficiency ratio and some explanation factors, such as listed company or not and the ratio of debt/net equity ratio. Numbers of employees and branches do not have any significant correlation with pure technological efficiency ratio.There is positive correlation between scale efficiency and factors, such as listed/unlisted company and debt/net equity ratio. However, the explanation factors, such as numbers of employees and branches, do not have significant correlation with securities firms’ scale efficiency.

中文文獻
1﹒王國樑、余威廷，(民 84)，「台灣證券業規模與多樣化經濟之探討」–
證券市場發展，第七卷，第3期，頁125–144。
2﹒江文山，(民 94)，「金控體系下綜合證券商經營績效之研究」–
世新大學經濟研究所碩士論文。
3﹒李世隆，(民 95)，「多角化經營策略與經營效率之分析–以台灣地區金融控股公司為例」– 國立台灣科技大學管理研究所碩士論文。
4﹒林基煌，(民 81)，「我國證券商經營績效之研究」–
證券金融，第58卷，頁1–24。
5﹒林義和，(民 90)，「以DEA模型評估我國證券商經營效率之研究」–
國立高雄第一科技大學財務管理系碩士論文。
6﹒高國賡、蕭景楷，(民 95.12) ，「台灣金控與非金控銀行經營效率之分析」– 財金論文叢刊，第五期，頁42–57。
7﹒徐翠伶、劉宜和、許彩珊，(民 94.12)，「證券商業務潛力與定位分析及金控對其之影響」– 國立中正大學產業發展與預測研究中心 (計畫主持人：周行一、鎮明常，共同主持人：李佩璇、崔可欣、鍾憲瑞、王慧娟)
8﹒高強、黃旭男、Toshiyuki Sueyoshi (民 92.7)，「管理績效評估–資料包絡分析法」–華泰文化事業公司。
9﹒孫遜 (民 93.2)，「資料包絡分析法-理論與應用」–揚智文化事業公司。
10﹒陳彥伶，(民 92)，「證券商合併之效率分析–資料包絡分析法」–
銘傳大學國際企業學系碩士論文。
11﹒葉佳玲、盧永祥，(民 95.12) ，「台灣綜合證券商規模經濟與範疇經濟之分析」– 財金論文叢刊，第五期，頁25–41。
12﹒劉松瑜、謝燧棋、溫育芳，(民 95.9) ，「台灣銀行業在金控與非金控架構下之效率分析」– 台灣金融財務季刊，第七輯第三期，頁127–176。
13﹒歐陽如虹，(民 91)，「台灣證券商經營效率分析」–
銘傳大學國際企業管理研究所碩士論文。
14﹒謝憶榕，(民 93)，「金控架構下與非金控架構下之綜合證券商效率分析」–
國立高雄第一科技大學金融營運系碩士論文。
英文文獻
1﹒Aly, H., R. Grabowski, C. Pasurka and N. Rangan, 1990, “Technical, Scale, and Allocation Efficiencies in U.S. Banking: An Empirical Investigation, “Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.72, pp.211-218.
2﹒Banker, R. D., A. Charnes and W. W. Cooper, 1984, “Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis, ” Management Science, Vol.30, pp.1078-1092.
3﹒Banker, R. D. and R. C. Morey, 1986, “The Use of Categorical Variables in Data Envelopment Analysis,”Management Science, Vol.32, pp.1613-1627.
4﹒Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes, 1978, “ Measuring The Efficiency of Decision Making Units,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.2, pp,429-444.
5﹒Charnes, A. and W. W. Cooper, 1995, Data Envelopment Analysis – Theory Methodology, and Application, Kluwer Academic Publisher.
6．Chang, P. L., S. N. Hwang and W. Y. Cheng, 1995, “Using Data Envelopment Analysis to Measure The Achievement and Change of Regional Development in Taiwan,” Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.43, pp.49-66.
7﹒Fare, R., S. Grosskopf. B. Lindren, and P. Ross, 1989, “Productivity Development in Swedish Hospitals: A Malmquist Output Index Approach,” 253-272, in Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, A. Y. Lewin, and L. M. Seiford, (eds.), Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology, and Application, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
8﹒Farrell, M. J., 1957, “The Measurement of Productive Efficiency,” Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Vol.120, pp.253-281.
9﹒Favero , C.A. and L. Papi, 1995, “Technical Efficiency and Scale Efficiency in the Italian Banking Sector: A Non-parametric Approach, “Applied Economics, Vol.27, pp385-395.
10﹒Kim, H. Y. 1986, “Economies of scale and economies of scope in multiproduct financial institutions: further evidence from credit union, “Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.18, pp.220-226.
11﹒Norman, M., and B. Stocker, 1991, Data Envelopment Analysis : The Assessment of Performance? John Wiley and Sons.
12﹒R. D., Charnes, A and Cooper, W. W., 1984, “Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis “Management Science, Vol.30, pp.1078-1092.
13﹒Sherman, H. D. and F. Gold, 1985, ”Bank Branch Operating Efficiency: Evaluation with Data Envelopment Analysis, “Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol.9, pp.29-41.
14﹒Yue, P.1992, “Data Envelopment Analysis and Commercial Bank Performance: A Primer with Applications to Missouri Banks,”Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, Vol. pp.31-45.