生物科技產業之先進者是否可以藉由先進者的優勢帶來較高之營運績效及 市場報酬呢? 本研究根據過去文獻設立三個假說，假說一為生物科技產業併購潮 之先進者相較於跟隨者有較高異常報酬，其次假說二為生物科技產業併購潮之先 進者相較於跟隨者有較高營運績效，最後，假說三則為規模較大且營運較好之公 司較易成為生物科技產業併購潮之先進者。
然而經由本研究的實證研究結果顯示，在生物科技產業併購潮中，相較於跟 隨者，為先取得競爭優勢而選擇先進行併購活動之公司，其股東財富效果不但沒 有顯著異常報酬，長期下更產生負的營運績效，因此與本研究假說一及假說二並 不符合。
推論其原因，可能與生物科技產業特性有關，因為先進者優勢之存在與跟隨 者無法仿效其資源或技術等特性息息相關，換言之，若跟隨者愈難以模仿先進者 之技術，則先進者優勢愈大，然而，生物科技產業之技術創新發展快速，且其模 仿成本低，模仿期間短，因此跟隨者容易利用模仿方式而非創新方式開發市場，
且併購活動可快速取得有價值之資源，故更進一步削弱了先進者之優勢，此外，
由於成為先進者所面臨之風險相較於跟隨者而言較大，而且生物科技產業本身亦 為技術風險性極高之產業，即使研發成功，公司於取得專利後須經過一段時間且 須龐大資金才可上市，以美國為例，僅有 41%之企業其資金存量可以支撐三年以 上，故成為先進者所帶來之不確定風險不僅抵銷了其所帶來之優勢，更可能進一 步產生劣勢，致使先進入併購活動之公司相較於晚進入之跟隨者，併購後反而產 生較差的綜效。
此外，由分析得知先進者併購策略亦是導致先進者與跟隨者績效顯著差異原 因，先進者若非基於策略因素，而單純因幸運而併購者，其績效顯著低於跟隨者。
且由先進者本身公司特性及併購方式，亦可發現造成先進者績效較低之原因，若
先進者規模愈小、代理程度愈嚴重，且以現金方式併購非相關產業且規模相對較 小之目標公司，則其資產運用會愈不具效率，營運績效進而相對較低，而若公司 過去經營績效較差，且併購市場佔有率高且規模相對較高之目標公司，則先進者 併購後之市場佔有率反而會較低。
最後，本研究分析結果亦發現主併公司規模愈小，且其產業處於衰退期之主 併公司，成為先進者之機率越大，因此，可進一步推論，根據過去文獻顯示，公 司本身資源優勢且規模較大較為健全之公司，其先進者優勢較大，然而，分析結 果卻顯示生物科技產業併購潮之先進者，大多為所處產業較差且資源優勢較低之 公司，與本研究假說三不符，推測其原因，可能因產業處於衰退期之主併公司為 跳脫目前衰退困境而選擇進行多角化，或為改善競爭力、取得市場先機，而傾向 早期進行併購活動，且因為生物科技產業資金需求大且研發成本高，而小規模生 物科技產業公司資金較不充足，故傾向於早期透過併購活動迅速提升規模，強化 本身不足之處。此外，先進者優勢較低且營運績效較差之原因，可能亦與先進者 大多為所處產業較差且資源優勢較低之主併公司有關。
本研究主要貢獻在於對於相較於晚期進入併購活動之跟隨者，較早進入併購 活動之先進者績效差異分析提供長期模型，但本研究之限制為受限於所搜集之樣 本資料，本研究集中於生物科技產業研究並僅限於北美地區，故後續者可進一步 擴大樣本群，鎖定其他產業或擴大研究地區，並加以修正本模型不足之處。
參考文獻
Agrawal, A., Jaffe, J.F., and Mandelker, G.N. 1992. The post-merger performance of acquiring firms: a re-examination of an anomaly. The Journal of Finance. 47(4):
1605-1621.
Anand, J., and Singh, H. 1997. Asset redeployment, acquisitions and corporate strategy in declining industries. Strategic Management Journal. 18: 99-118.
Andrade, G., and Stafford, E. 2004. Investigating the economic role of mergers.
Journal of Corporate Finance. 10(1): 1-36.
Barney, J.B. 1988. Returns to bidding firms in mergers and acquisitions: reconsidering the relatedness hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal. 9: 71-78.
Berger, P.G., and Ofek, E. 1995. Diversification's effect on firm value. Journal of
Financial Economics. 37(1): 39-65.
Boulding, W., and Christen, M. 2003. Sustainable pioneering advantage? Profit implications of market entry order. Management Science. 22(3): 371-392.
Brown, C., and Lattin, J.M. 1994. Investigating the relationship between time in market and pioneering advantage. Management Science. 40: 1361-1369.
Brown, S.J., and Warner, J.B. 1985. Using daily stock returns. The Case of Event Studies. Journal of Financial Economics. 14: 3-31.
Brush, T.H. 1996. Predicted change in operational synergy and post-acquisition performance of acquired businesses. Strategic Management Journal. 17(1): 1-24.
Carow, K., Heron, R., and Saxton, T. 2004. Do early birds get the returns? An empirical investigation of early-mover advantages in acquisitions. Strategic
Management Journal. 25(6): 563-585.
Chatterjee, S. 1992. Sources of value and structure: chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. Strategic Management Journal. 13(4): 267-286.
Coeurderoy, R., and Durand, R. 2004. Leveraging the advantage of early entry:
proprietary technologies versus cost leadership. Journal of Business Research. 57(6):
583-590.
Comment, R., and Jarrell, G.A. 1995. Corporate focus and stock returns. Journal of
Financial Economics. 37(1): 67-87.
Datta, D.K., Pinches, G.E., and Narayanan, V.K. 1992. Factors inflencing wealth creation from mergers and acquisitions: a meta-analysis. Strategic Management
Journal. 13(1): 67-84.
Dodd, P. 1980. Mergers proposals, management discretion and stockholder wealth.
Journal of Financial Economics. 8(2): 105-137.
Durand, R., and Coeurderoy, R. 2001. Age, order of entry, strategic orientation, and organizational performance. Journal of Business Venturing. 16(5): 471-494.
Eckbo, B.E., Giammarino, R.M., and Heinkel, R.L. 1990. Asymmetric information and the medium of exchange in takeovers: theory and tests. Review of Financial
Studies. 3(4): 651-75.
Finkelstein, S. 1997. Interindustry merger patterns and resource dependence: a replication and extension of Pfeffer 1972. Strategic Management Journal. 18(10):
787-810.
Fishman, M.J. 1989. Preemptive bidding and the role of the medium of exchange in acquisitions. The Journal of Finance. 44(1): 41-57.
Ghosh, A. 2001. Does operating performance really improve following corporate acquisitions? Journal of Corporate Finance. 7(2): 151-178.
Hansen, R.G. 1987. A theory for the choice of exchange medium in mergers and acquisitions. The Journal of Business. 60(1): 75-95.
Harford, J. 1999. Corporate cash reserves and acquisitions. Journal of Finance. 54:
1969-1997.
Healy, P.M., Palepu, K.G., and Ruback, R.S. 1992. Does corporate performance improve after mergers? Journal of Financial Economics. 31: 135-175.
Huff, L.C., and Robinson, W.T. 1994. The impact of leadtime and years of
competitive rivalry on pioneer market share advantages. Management Science. 40(10):
1370-1377.
Hunt, J.W. 1990. Changing pattern of acquisition behavior in takeovers and the consequences for acquisition processes. Strategic Management Journal. 11(1): 69-77.
Jarrell, G.A., Brickley, J.A., and Netter, J.M. 1988. The market for corporate control:
the empirical evidence since 1980. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2(1):
49-68.
Jensen, M.C. 1986. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers.
American Economic Review. 76(2): 232?29.
John, K., and Ofek, E. 1995. Asset sales and increase in focus. Journal of Financial
Economics. 37(1): 105-126.
Kalyanaram, G., Robinson, W.T., and Urban, G.L. 1995. Order of market entry:
established empirical generalizations, Emerging empirical generalizations, and future research. Marketing Science. 14(3): 212-221.
Klepper, S., and Simons, K.L. 2000. Dominance by birthright: entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U.S. television receiver industry.
Strategic Management Journal. 21(10-11): 997-1016.
Lambkin, M. 1988. Order of entry and performance in new markets. Strategic
Management Journal. 9: 127-140.
Lee, H., Smith, K.G., Grimm, C.M., and Schomburg, A. 2000. Timing, order and durability of new product advantages with imitation. Strategic Management Journal.
21(1): 23-30.
Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R., and Winter, S.G.. 1984. Survey research on R&D
appropriability and technical opportunity-Part 1: oppropriability, Working Paper ,
Yale University.Lieberman, M.B., and Montgomery, D.B. 1988. First-mover advantages. Strategic
Management Journal. 9: 41-58.
Makadok, R. 1998. Can first-mover and early-mover advantages be sustained in an industry with low barriers to entry/imitation? Strategic Management Journal. 19(7):
683-696.
Maquieiraa, C.P., Megginsonb, W.L., and Nail, L. 1998. Wealth creation versus wealth redistributions in pure stock-for-stock mergers. Journal of Financial
Economics. 48(1): 3-33.
Mascarenhas, B. 1992. Order of entry and performance in international markets.
Strategic Management Journal. 13: 499-510.
Mitchell, M.L., and Mulherin, J.H. 1996. The impact of industry shocks on takeover and restructuring activity. Journal of Financial Economics. 41(2): 193-229.
Mitchell, W. 1991. Dual clocks: entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value. Strategic
Management Journal. 12(2): 85-100.
Mulherin, J.H., and Boone, A.L. 2000. Comparing acquisitions and divestitures.
Journal of Corporate Finance. 6(2): 117-139.
Myers, S.C., and Majluf, N.S. 1984. Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial
Economics. 13: 187-221.
Noda, T., and Collis, D.J. 2001. The evolution of intraindustry firm heterogeneity:
insights from a process study. The Academy of Management Journal. 44(4): 897-925.
Parry, M., and Bass, F.M. 1990. When to lead or follow? It depends. Marketing
Letters. 1(3): 187-198.
Paugh, J., and Lafrance, D.J.C. (1997). The U.S. biotechnology industry. In O.o.T.
Policy (Ed.), Meeting the challenge: U.S. industry faces the 21st century.
Pennings, J.M., Barkema, H., and Douma, S. 1994. Organizational learning and diversifcation. The Academy of Management Journal. 37(3): 608-640.
Pfeffer, J. 1972. Mergers as a response to organizational interdependence.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 17(3): 382-394.
Rajan, R., Servaes, H., and Zingales, L. 2000. The cost of diversity: the diversification discount and inefficient investment. The Journal of Finance. 55(1): 35-80.
Robinson, W.T. 1988. Sources of market pioneer advantages: the case of industrial goods industries. Journal of Marketing Research. 25: 87-94.
Robinson, W.T., Fornell, C., and Sullivan, M. 1992. Are market pioneers intrinsically stronger than later entrants? Strategic Management Journal. 13(8): 609?24.
Robinson, W.T., and Min, S. 2002. Is the first to market the first to fail? Empirical evidence for industrial goods businesses. Journal of Marketing Research. 39(1):
120-128.
Song, X.M., Benedetto, C.A.D., and Zhao, Y.L. 1999. Pioneering advantages in manufacturing and service industries: Empirical evidence from nine countries.
Strategic Management Journal. 20: 811-836.
Stimpert, J.L., and Duhaime, I.M. 1997. Seeing the big picture: the influence of industry, diversification, and business strategy on performance. The Academy of
Management Journal. 40(3): 560-583.
Switzer, J.A. 1996. Evidence on real gains in corporate acquisitions. Journal of
Financial Economics. 48(5): 443-460.
Szymanski, D.M., Bharadwaj, S.G., and Troy, L.C. 1995. Order of entry and business performance: an empirical synthesis and reexamination. Journal of Marketing. 59(4):
17-33.
VanderWerf, P.A., and Mahon, J.F. 1997. Meta-analysis of the impact of research methods on findings of first-mover advantage. Management Science. 43(11):
1510-1519.
Varadarajan, P.R., Peterson, R.A., and Kerin, R.A. 1992. First-mover advantage: a synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. Journal of Marketing.
56(4): 33-52.
Walker, M.M. 2000. Corporate takeovers, strategic objectives, and acquiring-firm shareholder wealth. Financial Management. 29(1): 53-66.
Williamson, O.E. (1998). The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets,