過去文獻曾單獨測試不同虧損特性（持續性負盈餘與暫時性負盈餘）負盈餘公司，亦曾單獨測試納入相關價值動因（投資活動層面與持續經營能力層面），均無法完全解釋負盈餘公司之盈餘與權益市值負相關異象。本文同時考慮負盈餘公司之不同虧損特性及相關價值動因，實證結果發現：（1）負盈餘公司的盈餘與權益市值負相關異象，僅存在於持續性負盈餘公司；（2）持續性負盈餘公司中，僅納入研發支出於評價模型之盈餘與權益市值負相關降低幅度低於，再納入其餘四項價值動因（資本支出、現金持有部位、現金增資與發行公司債）後的負相關降低幅度；（3）持續性負盈餘公司之研發支出、資本支出、現金持有部位與現金增資為重要的評價因素，而暫時性負盈餘公司則以研發支出與現金增資為重要評價因素；（4）本文亦發現相關價值動因對於不同公司規模與電子業及非電子業間，在解釋不同虧損類型公司之盈餘與權益市值之關係亦存在差異。

Some prior studies try to resolve the anomalous negative price-earnings relation by investigating whether investors price temporary losses and persistent losses differently. Some other prior studies examine whether this anomaly can be explained by the inclusion of value drivers into the valuation model. This study partitions sample firms by loss type (temporary losses and persistent losses) and simultaneously includes value drivers in the valuation model to investigate the infamous anomaly. Major findings that are different from prior studies are: (1) only persistent-loss firms have negative price-earnings relation; (2) the reduction of the negative price-earnings relation when research and development expenditure driver is included in the valuation model is significantly less than the reduction after the other four additional value drivers (capital expenditures, cash position, capital increase, and bond issuance) are included in the valuation model; (3) for persistent loss firms, research and development, capital expenditures, cash position, and capital increase are significant value drivers and for temporary loss firms, research and development and cash position drivers are significant value drivers; and (4) firm size and industry type (electronic industry and non-electronic industries) can also affect the price-earnings relation.