過去對於因子模型在台灣市場的實證研究仍未有一致的看法，由於臺灣市場特性還有投資人結構與美國不同，在美國可解釋股票報酬的因子與模型在台灣市場不一定適用。本研究使用橫斷面分析檢驗Fama-French的五因子模型在臺灣市場的解釋力，發現五因子模型中的獲利因子與投資因子大部分不顯著，且部分截距項顯著異於零，因此，本研究將五因子模型加入動能因子、流動性不足因子、投資人情緒因子，希望透過考量不同變數，提升模型解釋力，並找出適合台灣市場的模型。實證結果發現動能因子與流動性不足因子在臺灣股票市場的解釋力不高，而投資人情緒因子對臺灣市場的股票報酬有部分的解釋能力。且由於過去臺灣對於因子模型的研究大部分是討論平均報酬率的結果，因此本研究進一步以分量迴歸檢驗自行建構的八因子模型，探討不同分位數下因子係數及模型解釋力的變化，實證結果發現，在第10百分位時八因子模型有最高的解釋力且解釋力隨著百分位的提高有下降的趨勢，與美國市場的研究結果一致。

In the past, there was still no consensus on the empirical research of factor models in the Taiwan market. Due to the characteristics of the Taiwan market and the difference in investor structure from that of the United States, the factors and models that explain stock returns in the United States may not be applicable in the Taiwan market.
This study uses cross-sectional analysis to test the explanatory power of Fama-French's five-factor model in the Taiwan market. It is found that most of the profit factors and investment factors in the five-factor model are not significant, and some of the intercept terms are significantly different from zero, so In this study, the five-factor model is added to the kinetic energy factor, the lack of liquidity factor, and the investor’s sentiment factor. It is hoped that by considering different variables, the model's explanatory power will be improved and a model suitable for the Taiwan market will be found.
The empirical results found that the kinetic energy factor and the lack of liquidity factor in the Taiwan stock market are not very explanatory, while the investor sentiment factor has a part of the explanatory power for the stock returns in the Taiwan market.
And since most of the research on factor models in Taiwan in the past was the result of discussing the average rate of return, this study further tested the self-constructed eight-factor model with component regression, and explored the changes in factor coefficients and model explanatory power under different quantiles. It is found that the eight-factor model has the highest explanatory power at the 10th percentile and the explanatory power tends to decrease as the percentile increases, which is consistent with the research results of the US market.

(1). Amihud,Y.,Mendelson,H.,1989. The Effects of Beta, Bid-Ask Spread, Residual Risk, and Size on Stock Returns. Journal of Finance 44 (2), 479-486.
(2). Amihud,Y.,2003. Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets 5 (1), 31-56.
(3). Asness,C.,Moskowitz,T.,Pederson,L.,2013. Value and Momentum Everywhere. Journal of Finance 68 (3), 929-985.
(4). Banz,R.,1981. The relationship between return and market value of common stocks. Journal of Financial Economics 9 (1), 3-18.
(5). Baker,M.,Wurgler,J.,2006. Investor Sentiment and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns. Journal of Finance 61 (4), 1645-1680.
(6). Chan,K.,C.,Hamao,Y.,Lakonishok,J.,1991. Fundamentals and Stock Returns in Japan. Journal of Finance 46 (5), 1739-1764.
(7). Carhart, M. M., 1997. On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance.The Journal of Finance 52 (1), 57-82.
(8). De Bondt,W.F.M., Thaler,R., 1985, Does the stock market overreact? Journal of Finance 40 (3), 793-805.
(9). Fama,E.,French,K.,1992. The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns. Journal of Finance 47 (2), 427-465.
(10). Fama,E.,French,K.,1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds.Journal of Financial Economics 33 (1), 3-56.
(11). Fama,E.,French,K.,2006. Profitability, investment and average returns. Journal of Financial Economics 82 (3), 491-518.
(12). Fama,E.,French,K.,2015. A five-factor asset pricing model.Journal of Financial Economics 116 (1), 1-22.
(13). Fama,E.,French,K.,2017. International tests of a five-factor asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics 123 (3), 441-463.
(14). Foye,J.,2018. A comprehensive test of the Fama-French five-factor model in emerging markets. Emerging Markets Review 37 (1), 199-222.
(15). González,M,O., Jareño,F.,2019. Testing extensions of Fama & French models:A quantile regression approach.The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 71 (1), 188-204.
(16). Haugen,R.A.,Baker,N.L.,1996.Commonality in the determinants of expected stock returns.Journal of Financial Economics 41 (3), 401–439.
(17). Jegadeesh,N.,Titman,S.,1993. Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency. Journal of Finance 48 (1), 65-91.
(18). Liu,W.,2006. A liquidity-augmented capital asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics 82 (3), 631-671.
(19). Novy-Marx,R.,2013. The other side of value: The gross profitability premium.Journal of Financial Economic 108 (1), 1-28.
(20). Rosenberg,R.,Reid,K.,Lanstein,R.,1985. Persuasive evidence of market inefficiency. The Journal of Portfolio Management 11 (3), 9-16.
(21). Stattman,D.,1980. Book values and stock returns. The Chicago MBA: A Journal of Selected Papers 4 (1), 25-45.
(22). 顧廣平、吳壽山、許和鈞，1994。「漲跌幅與公司規模對股票報酬之影響-臺灣股票市場之實證研究」。證券市場發展季刊，第26卷，第一期，1-28。
(23). 余招賢，1997。「臺灣股票市場風險、規模、淨值╱市價比、成交量週轉率與報酬之關係」。交通大學管理科學研究所碩士論文，1-63。
(24). 周賓凰、劉怡芬，2000。「台灣股市橫斷面報酬解釋因子：特徵、單因子、或多因子」。證券市場發展季刊，第12卷，第45期，1-32。
(25). 周賓凰、張宇志、林美珍，2007。「投資人情緒與股票報酬互動關係」。證券市場發展季刊，第19卷，第2期，153-190。
(26). 王明昌，朱榕屏，王弘志，2010。「台灣股市不存在中期動能效應嗎」。東吳經濟商學學報，第68期，第一期，91-120。
(27). 施雅芬，2010。「 從價值溢酬的觀點剖析台灣股票報酬」。國立高雄應用科技大學商務經營研究所碩士論文，1-68。
(28). 闕河士、方怡，2011。「基金持股不流動性對共同基金規模與績效關係之影響」。中華管理評論國際學報，第14卷，第二期，1-20。
(29). 闕河士、方怡，2014。「台灣股票市場之機構投資人持股與系統流動性關係」。管理與系統，第21卷，第四期，551-580。
(30). 林仁啟，2014。「流動性不足與台灣股票報酬率：橫斷面暨時間序列之影響」。中正大學財務金融學系學位論文。
(31). 李桂枝、徐川皓、許耿智、章孟宸，2015。「利用隨機優勢探討台股的動能與反轉現象。臺灣企業績效學刊」。第9卷，第一期，73-85。
(32). 江璧岑，2016。「公司治理評鑑與證券報酬 - Fama and French 多因子模型的應用」。臺北大學會計學系學位論文，1-33。
(33). 劉清標、林筱鳳、陳榮宏，2017。「股票報酬與投資人情緒之預測」。財金論文叢刊，第26期，1-18。
(34). 劉清標、吳佩紋、林筱鳳，2019。「企業創新效率之六因子資產定價模型」。商管科技季刊，第20卷，第一期，69-108。
(35). 陳建宏、黃湘婷，2020。「情緒指標對台灣金融類股之日報酬率影響」。財金論文叢刊，第32期，59-71。