| 摘要: | 2008金融海嘯重創我國經濟，政府為挽救經濟，除實施許多振興經濟方案外，也針對營運困難企業實施了一些紓困方案，這些紓困方案一公布實施後立即產生很大效果，眾多發生營運困難之國內企業紛紛據此向銀行業申請貸款展延，其中以茂德科技貸款展延案最受外界囑目。此一紓困案廣泛引起各界爭議，有贊成及反對的聲音出現，可是政府卻強力主導銀行配合予以紓困，然而銀行業的授信有其本身的專業評估，且若銀行因紓困而導致本身受到拖累時，所產生的危害更大。因此，本研究旨在探討政府為了紓困企業，要求銀行同意延長其還款期限是否合理？以及DRAM產業是否值得政府伸出援手? 茂德科技是否值得政府伸出援手? 本研究從產業和個案進行分析，並分別以政府和銀行的角度來看是否應給予支持，最後再根據文獻回顧所歸納的分析因子來評估政府紓困的合理性，其中分析因子分別為經濟、就業、金融市場、企業管理、技術創新、環保等。並以此評估政府紓困的三種方案，即不紓困、紓困到底(但不整合或整併)以及透過TMC加以整合。本研究的結論為三種方案中以紓困到底對國家競爭力的預期效果最差，其次，由TMC出面整合的變數最大，若成功，則是最佳方案，否則，將是一場更大災難的開始。若保守作法，不紓困最佳，因其對我國整體的傷害最小。 In 2008 the financial tsunami devastated our country’s economy. In order to save the economy, the government implemented many financial stability plans and some bailout plans for enterprises under financial distress. After these bailout plans were announced and implemented, they immediately produced a big effect. Many domestic enterprises with business difficulties turned to the banking industry to apply for loan extensions. Among them, the loan extension of ProMOS Technology was the most prominently noticed case. The ProMOS Technology bailout plan aroused widely controversies, with voices of agreement and disagreement. However, the government emphatically requested the cooperation of the banks to enforce the bailout plans. Nevertheless, the banking industry had their professional assessments regarding the loans. If the banks were negatively affected by the bailout, the dangers produced by the bailout plan would be even greater. The purpose of this research is to explore whether the government’s request of the banks to extend loan payments (in order to relieve the enterprises) was reasonable? Is it worthy for the government to bailout the whole DRAM industry? Particularly, is it worthy for the government to bailout the ProMOS Technology? This research analyzes the data of the DRAM industry and the ProMOS Technology, to determine whether the bailout plans are reasonable from government and banking industry’s perspectives. This study evaluate the three possible bailout plans based on the factors of economy, employment placement, financial market, business management, technological innovation, and environmental protection. The three plans were “not rescuing”, “rescuing to the end” (but would not incorporate or combine), and “incorporating through TMC”. The conclusions of this study are as follows. The plan of “rescuing to the end” was the worst in terms of the expected value of national competitiveness. And the outcome of the plan of “incorporating through TMC” was the most unpredictable. It would be the best plan, if the plan turn out to be successful. Otherwise, it would entail a bigger catastrophe. The first plan, which is a conservative method, would be the best, because it had the least damage to the nation as a whole. |
