影響無形資產價值驅動因子之國內外比較—以台灣、美國IC設計業為例

Abstract

IC設計公司最重要的核心能力也就是設計與研發晶片的能力，這種無形無相的能力是公司競爭優勢之所繫，也正是一般傳統財務報表所無法揭露的智慧資本。本研究採學者Sveiby所歸納的市場資本化法與資產報酬法來評價無形資產價值，同時藉由因素分析、逐步迴歸法萃取出驅動無形資產價值的因子，並比較台灣、美國IC設計公司間的差異性。 無論採用何種類別的評價法，國內外IC設計公司無形資產價值的驅動因素並不相同。在市場資本化法下，由於牽涉市值的應用，故整體迴歸方程式的解釋能力較低（12.3%~35.4%）。在資產報酬法下，解釋國內IC設計公司無形資產價值的因素較為一致，僅是重要性排序的不同，而解釋國外IC設計公司無形資產價值的因素則較為分歧。資產報酬法下整體迴歸方程式的解釋能力較市場資本化高得許多，國內公司的解釋力介於59.3%~85.0%，而國外公司的解釋力則介於49.7%~61.1%之間。 由於兩大評價範疇下所最重要的指標並不相同，例如在市場資本化法中，差異化能力是最重要的指標；在資產報酬法中則是獲利能力。因此就國內IC設計公司之管理者而言，到底該重視那個指標則可能要視其公司整體策略發展而定。此外，「研發資源」均是影響國內外IC設計公司無形資產價值第二重要的驅動因子，並未因國別的差異而有所不同，這表示IC設計公司的競爭優勢最終究還是其本身的研發能力，因為研發活動是全球IC設計公司最重要的活動。

The core competences of IC design houses are their capability to design and develop integrated chips. This capability is also what they compete and what the so-called “intellectual capital” is about. This study adopted “Market Capitalization method, MCM” and “Return on Assets method, ROA” for the use of intangibles valuations, used factor analysis and stepwise regression to find the driving forces of intangible values, and compared whether differences exist between Taiwan and US design houses.

No matter what valuation categories, the driving forces of the intangible asset values are different between Taiwan and US design houses. The explanatory power of the stepwise regression functions is lower under MCM than that under ROA. Besides this, driving forces explaining Taiwan and US design houses are more consistent and more diverse, respectively, according to the research under ROA method.

In terms of Taiwan firms, the most influential driving force under the two valuation categories is different, which indicator should be taken may depend on the overall strategy and under management discretion（MCM︰Differentiation, ROA︰Profitability）. Furthermore, “R&D resources” is the second best driving force for both Taiwan and US firms, which indicates their competitive edge still falls on R&D capability without border difference.