本研究探討2008∼2011年間台灣的金控公司獲利面和市場面的相對效率值，採用Seiford and Zhu (1999)兩階段的資料包絡分析法。為了求出客觀的管理效率值，本文於獲利面採用Fried, Lovell, Schmidt and Yaisawarng (2002)提出的三階段資料包絡分析法，並和市場面分別加以分析和比較。
實證結果發現獲利面經調整後的管理效率值大幅提升，顯示環境變數與隨機干擾項確實會影響金控公司的表現，若未排除將會低估真實的效率值，且發現連續四個年度都是呈現獲利面調整後的標準差較小，表示經調整後的表現較能和市場面表現趨於一致，因此將金控公司的獲利面進行DEA三階段分析是有其必要性。
而在台灣的14家金控公司中僅36%的金控公司獲利面和市場面皆達到完全效率值，表示管理階層能有效使用資源創造極大的產出，投資人同時也看好金控公司的未來發展性。近年由於和中國相關的議題發酵，使投資人逐漸看好台灣金控公司的未來表現，因此2008∼2011年市場面效率大於獲利面效率的金控家數增加。另外，規模較大、子公司較少的金控公司獲利面規模效率值較高，主體為銀行的金控公司獲利面純粹技術效率值為最低，市場面則是偏好規模較小的金控公司，且不論獲利面有無調整其結果皆相同。

The main purpose of this thesis is to explore relative profitability and marketability efficiency of financial holding companies (FHCs) in Taiwan between 2008 and 2011. We adopt a two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) by Seiford and Zhu (1999). Besides, in order to find the real profitability efficiency, we apply three-stage DEA which is proposed by Fried,Lovell,Schmidt and Yaisawarng (2002). In this way, we can compare the real profitability efficiency with marketability efficiency.
Our empirical result shows after excluding the environmental factors and random factors, the profitability efficiency significantly increase. And we find the standard deviation of the value becomes smaller from the three-stage profitability efficiency in four years. It implies that it’s important to do the three-stage DEA in FHCs’ profitability.
There are only 36% of the FHCs in Taiwan more efficient both in profitability and marketability. It means that the managers use the resources efficiently and the investors have the positive attitude toward FHCs’ future development. Since the issue about cooperation between Taiwan and China, more and more investors look forward to Taiwan’s FHCs’ future. We find out there are more FHCs whose marketability efficiency is greater than profitability efficiency year by year.
In addition, no matter in the first-stage or three-stage, big-sized FHCs is more profitability than small-sized, less subsidiaries of the FHCs’ profitability efficiency is better than more subsidiaries. And FHCs with the main body of banks profitability is the worst than the other two types. However, investors perfer the small-sized FHCs.

參考文獻
一、英文部分
1.Banker, R. D. and Morey, R. C. (1986), “Efficiency Analysis for Exogenously Fixed Inputs and Outputs”, Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 34, No, 4, pp. 513-521.

2.Banker, 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.

3.Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. (1978), “Measuring the efficiency of decision making units”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 429-444.

4.Chen, T. Y. and Yeh, T. L. (2000), “A measurement of bank efficiency,ownership and productivity changes in Taiwan”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 95-109.

5.Drake, L., Hall, M. J. B. and Simper, R. (2006), “The impact of macroeconomic and regulatory factors on bank efficiency: A non- parametric analysis of Hong Kong's banking system”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 30, pp. 1443-1466.

6.Farrell, M. J. (1957), “The measurement of productive efficiency”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 120, No. 3, pp. 253-281.

7.Fried, H. O., Lovell, C. A. K., Schmidt, S. S. and Yaisawarng, S. (2002), “Accounting for environmental effects and statistical noise in data envelopment analysis”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, Vol. 17, pp. 157-174.

8.Fried, H. O., Lovell, C. A. K., Schmidt, S. S. and Yaisawarng, S. (1999), ” Incorporating the operating environment into a nonparametric measure of technical efficiency”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 249-267.

9.Golany, B. and Roll, Y. (1989), ”An application procedure for data envelopment analysis”, Omega, International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 3, pp. 237-250.
10.Lee, C. (1985), “Increasing performance appraisal effectiveness: Matching task types, appraisal process, and rater training”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 322-331.

11.Lin, J. C., Hu, J. L. and Sung, L. (2005), “The effect of electronic banking on the cost efficiency of commercial banks: An empirical study”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 22, pp. 605-611.

12.Lin, Y. H., Hsu, J.Y. and Hsiao, C. K. (2007), “Measuring efficiency of domestic banks in Taiwan: Application of data envelopment analysis and malmquist index”, Applied Economics Letter, Vol. 14, No. 11, pp. 821-827.

13.Lo, S. F. and Lu, W. M. (2006), “Does size matter?Finfing the profitability and marketability benchmark of financial holding companies”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 229–246.

14.Luo, X. (2003), “Evaluating the profitability and marketability efficiency of large banks:An application of data envelopment analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56, pp. 627-635.

15.Miller, S.M. and Noulas, A.G. (1996), “The techenical efficency of large bank production”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 20, pp. 495-509.

16.Seiford, L. M. and Zhu, J. (1999), “Profitability and marketability of the top 55 U.S.commercial banks”, Management Science, Vol. 45, No. 9, pp. 1240-1288.

17.Sherman, H. D. and Gold, F. (1985), “Bank branch operating efficiency: Evaluation with data envelopment analysis”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 9, pp. 297–315.

18.Siems, T. F. (1992), “Quantifying management’s role in bank survival”, Economic and Financial Policy Review, pp. 29-41.

19.Tsai, H, Y., Wu, C. R. and Wang, Y, M. (2011), “Operating strategies of banks in China: Analysis of operational and profitability efficiency”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 1136-1145.

20.Zhu, J. (2000), “ Multi-factor performance measure model with an application to Fortune 500 companies”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 123, No. 1, pp. 105-124.

二、中文部分
1.王克陸、彭雅惠、陳美燁 (2007)。「台灣金控子銀行經營績效之評估－使用DEA方法」，科技管理期刊，第12卷，第二期，第1-28頁。

2.朱一衛、洪緯典、姚政文 (2009)。「台灣金融控股公司獲利效率與市場效率之評估」，海峽兩岸創新與永續經營學術研討會暨2009管理創新與科技整合學術研討會。

3.余永讚 (2007)。「以二階段DEA評估中國大陸壽險業經營效率」，台灣風險與保險學成立大會暨第一屆學術研討會，第1-12頁。

4.李揚、曾千慧 (2004)。「本國銀行與外商銀行在台分行經營效率之研究—應用二體系效率邊界」，第一屆財務金融及財金未來學術暨實務研討會。

5.林雅惠、嚴奇峰、楊燿鴻 (2012)。「台灣金控產業經營效率之研究－資料包絡分析法」，萬能商學學報，第十七期，第137-158頁。

6.孫遜 (2004)，資料包絡分析法－理論與應用，揚智文化出版公司。

7.高強、黃旭男、末吉俊幸 (2003)。管理績效評估：資料包絡分析法，華泰文化。

8.陳妙玲、陳欣瑜 (2010)。「金融控股公司購併後業務多角化對財務績效之影響：以成本與市場相關表現爲中介變數」，台大管理論叢，第二十卷，第二期，第251-272頁。

9.黃旭男、高棟樑 (2005)。「台灣地區產險業經營績效之評估：二階段資料包絡分析法之應用」，保險專刊，第二十一卷，第57-79頁。

10.黃惠鈴 (2012)。「台灣金控公司旗下銀行部門之經營績效評估-以兩階段資料包絡法分析」，碩士論文，國立屏東商業技術學院國際企業所。

11.黃雅君 (2009)。「台灣金融控股公司績效評估－十三家金控」，碩士論文，國立東華大學國際經濟研究所。

12.黃慧君 (2010)。「台灣壽險公司經營績效之評估－兩階段資料包絡分析法的應用」，碩士論文，國立高雄大學經營管理研究所。

13.廖慧芳 (2006)。「金控子銀行效率分析—三階段DEA 模型之應用」，碩士論文，國立中央大學產業經濟研究所。

14.劉育呈 (2011)。「經環境效果與統計噪音調整後的兩岸證券商經營效率之比較研究」，碩士論文，國立交通大學經營管理研究所。

15.劉松瑜、謝燧棋、溫育芳 (2006)。「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，第127-176頁。

16.嚴珮瑜 (2008)。「台灣本土銀行經營效率比較分析：DEA、Malmquist 生產力指數及SFA 方法之應用」，碩士論文，國立中興大學應用經濟學系研究所。