none

• Main Authors: Yu-ming Yu, 游裕明
• Other Authors: none
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2011
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/31214990289205877857

碩士 === 東吳大學 === 會計學系 === 99 === In response to the development trend of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the No. 36 Statement of Financial and Accounting Standards implemented in 2006 had made major changes in the accounting processes, such as initial recognition and measurement after recognition of convertible bonds issued by companies. This research aims to explore whether the issuing companies of convertible bonds changed their issuing terms because of the different accounting process rules, after the statement of financial accounting standards becoming effective in 2006. From the convertible bonds issued by listed and OTC companies between 2001 and 2010, the research archived and analyzed the convertible bonds issued by totally 784 listed and OTC companies in the five years (2001 to 2005) before and following five years (2006 to 2010) after the new accounting process rules became effective. The change tendency of design of 12 primary issuing terms of convertible bonds was compared and analyzed and the results could be for the reference of issuing companies, securities dealers and investors. On the design of issuing, there were five terms becoming significantly different after 2006 including payback period, way of payback in maturity date, yield to call, reset provision of conversion price, and creditors’ put option. Among them, the design of terms of payback period, way of payback at maturity date and yield to call, were more correlated to the factors of design for attracting investors to buy, simplifying issuing cost or considering issuing situation in the markets while the change of the conversion price reset right was most significant e, followed by that of creditors’ put option, proving that the change of accounting standards had directly affected the related rights designs of issuing convertible bonds by companies. Particularly, in 2008, the Accounting Research and Development Foundation in Taiwan issued ARDF interpretation 331, stipulating that in the issuing terms of companies issuing convertible bonds after 2009, the conversion right of convertible bonds with reset provisions should be listed as debt rather than shareholders’ equity. This caused the cancellation of price reset right design by most companies issuing convertible bonds after 2009, and the yearly increase in the number of companies cancelling the design of put option.