Search results

Given the fierce competition in financial services, service failure management and trust restoration tactics are becoming strategic priorities. Studies investigating trust restoration have increased over the years due to the significance of trust in services and the frequency of trust violations. Drawing on the sense-making and defensive approaches of attribution theory, this study aims to explore the effectiveness of various trust recovery tactics (e.g. apology, explanation, and investigation) in financial services considering the prevalence of service failure severity.

Based on a scenario-based survey, this study gathered data from 402 consumers of different banks in Pakistan. The study analyzed the data using ordinary least square regressions and structural equation modeling.

The study indicated that explanation is more effective in repairing character-competence and commitment-based trust, while investigation remained highly effective for inducing congruence-based trust. Interestingly, an apology was more effective for communication-based trust repairing, while context-based trust recovery was unaffected against all recovery tactics. Despite the prevalence of severe service failure, recovery actions proved fully effective for character-competence and commitment-based trust while partially effective for congruence-based trust recovery. This study also found that severe service failure undermines the effectiveness of recovery actions in repairing communication and context-based trust.

The study extends the literature on trust recovery by integrating sense-making and defensive attribution theory. The sense-making approach contributes to the existing knowledge on trust recovery by elucidating how consumers and service providers develop a shared understanding to facilitate the recovery mechanism of multidimensional trust in financial services.

Previous academic literature indicates that the case of the banking crises recovery, in view of implemented regulations and policies, differs across times and countries. This is explained by varied institutional environments in which banking sectors operate, and in which financial crises persist. Therefore, the aim of this study is to prioritize investigation of the regulatory framework in the crisis‐response policies across European countries affected by the current financial turmoil. In order to elicit most accurate results and fill in the gap in existing literature on banking crises, the paper aims to focus on both qualitative and quantitative methodological frameworks in order to ensure that the concerns raised by practitioners are addressed and implications for the regulatory processes instrumented.

The emphasis of the current study has been laid to flag the region‐ and country‐specific vulnerabilities in regulatory framework employed for banking crisis recovery. Additional focus has been put on groups of systemic risk which evolved from the current financial crisis and ways these risks can be ameliorated. Furthermore, the current paper strives to explore the ideas of ways to ameliorate negative outcomes of the global crisis and mitigate common risks with reference to the flawed regulations. Especially, important issues have been raised by the interviewed experts who put forward their opinions on the ways of lifting the regulatory shortcomings and costs of remedies identified in the study and who provided solutions to ensuring the financial stability of European capital markets.

The study highlighted areas of regulations that require immediate attention and which failed to prevent financial markets from the current banking crisis. These findings are then summarized with constructive proposals on how to amend banking sector and financial regulations. The study also provides a cross‐European comparison of the financial crisis‐recovery policies, evaluating solutions adopted in various selected European countries. Henceforth, the empirical model tested the possibility of a tradeoff existing between remedies which involve substantial public funds and exert burden on both fiscal balances and taxpayers, and the speed and effectiveness of the recovery processes. To this point, no tradeoff has been found. Moreover, contrasting the current banking crisis to the past financial market disturbances, highlighted the magnitude of the nascent economic downturn prevailing in Europe.

Since the existing body of literature abounds in studies devoted to investigations of the causes for the current banking crisis, the research focus of this paper has been shifted away from the factors and flawed regulations that trigger banking crises. To this point, the paper has traits of pioneering work.

At the time they occurred, the savings and loan insolvencies were considered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Contrary to what was then believed, and in sharp contrast with 2007–2009, they in fact had little macroeconomic significance. Savings and Loan (S&L) remediation cost between 2 percent and 3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), whereas the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the conservatorships of Fannie and Freddie actually made money for the US Treasury. But the direct cost of government remediation is largely irrelevant in judging macro significance. What matters is the cumulative output loss associated with and plausibly caused by failing financial institutions. I estimate output losses for 1981–1984, 1991–1998, and 2007–2026 (the latter utilizing forecasts and projections along with actual data through 2015) and, for a final comparison, 1929–1941. The losses associated with 2007–2009 have been truly disastrous – in the same order of magnitude as the Great Depression. The S&L failures were, in contrast, inconsequential. Macroeconomists and policy makers should reserve the word crisis for financial disturbances that threaten substantial damage to the real economy, and continue efforts to identify in advance financial institutions which are systemically important (SIFI), and those which are not.

The main stance of this paper is to draw an authentic and rigorous outlook in terms of the financial and operational performance of small lodging establishments (SLEs) and put forth achievable and practical economic solutions that demonstrate the relative effectiveness of the adopted measures. This paper also suggests practical solutions to help minimize SLEs' financial vulnerability to long-term crisis and to boost their resilience with relative measures by applying recovery revival strategies for this particular segment of the lodging industry.

The authors have picked a locally owned resort hotel in Central Florida area and structured a real-life, case study-based inductive approach that is purposeful and offers rich economic outlook and analysis for the entire lodging industry, especially for the resort-hotel type of accommodation facilities. The main reason for why they only focus on one company is that they can fully understand the financial effects of COVID-19 on resort type of hotels and layout countering strategies. To achieve paper objectives, they have implemented cost–benefit (C–B), break-even (B-E) analyses along with a sensitivity testing approach.

The most striking result was that during the state-mandated shutdown period in 2020, overhead and overall operational costs associated with room sales and revenues were very high during this period that shrank the contribution margin ratio for rooms CMRw (room) and eventually yielded high sales volumes to be achieved at the B-E points vs lower sales volumes with almost the same average daily rate (ADR) levels needed for the B-E levels.

Future studies should specifically delve further into a portfolio of SLEs in the region or state or nation wise because the units comprising the SLEs might be too small to muster the changes required to bounce forward for the entire lodging industry in the world.

The resort's revenue re-optimization focus should center on financial re-benchmarking and business re-viability stress under different levels of shock scenarios. According to the different scenarios and calibrations for the ADRs, room nights, net present values (NPVs) of cash flows and profit margins derived from our main analyses, minimizing expenses and preserving cash would be the best key strategy for financial recovery during an ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

It is obvious that the lodging, hospitality and tourism industry are the hardest-hit industries by the harsh and adverse effects of COVID-19. The effects of pandemic are differently shaped on operations in different industries and subsectors. Therefore, the operational and financial evaluation for the SLEs as the core and a catalyst in the entire lodging industry can shed a light on the strategic financial recovery procedures with broadly applicable real-life and endogenous capabilities and reasoning.

The purpose of this study is to examine the association of managerial incentives and political costs with hospital financial distress, recovery or closure. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has stated that hospital closures are important for evaluating the distribution of cost, quality and access to healthcare throughout the US. Using Logistic regression, we demonstrate that hospital closure is associated with low occupancy, return on investment, asset turnover, and lack of affiliation with a multihospital system. It is also significantly associated with urban location, teaching programs, high Medicare and Medicaid patient populations, and high debt. Essential access nonprofit hospitals are less likely to close, while this does not affect governmental and for-profit hospitals. Our research hypotheses are supported by these results.

Based on a review of the literature, this paper sets out to suggest that an organisation's service recovery procedures lead to three distinct outcomes; customer, process, and employee recoveries. The objective of the paper is to investigate the impact of service recovery procedures (i.e. the way service recovery is managed and executed) on these three outcomes and their relative impact on an organisation's financial performance.

A model, linking recovery procedures to the outcomes of recovery and financial performance, is tested using empirical data from a detailed survey of 60 organisations in the UK.

It would appear that many organisations and academic researchers have focused their efforts on customer recovery and have, to some extent, ignored the potentially higher impact outcomes of process and employee recovery. The main finding was that service recovery procedures have a greater impact on employees and process improvement than on customers. Furthermore, while many organisations appear to be concerned with service recovery few seem to be good at it or gaining the benefits of recovered customers, improved processes or recovered employees.

This paper tries to encourage wider research into the impact of service recovery. The main limitations were sample size and selection.

It challenges the way some organisations have focused their recovery procedures on satisfying or delighting customers and suggests that by doing so they are missing out on substantial benefits. It also suggests that many organisations have a long way to go to develop their recovery procedures.

This work proposes three outcomes of service recovery and finds that the impact of process and employee recoveries may be more significant than customer recovery.

The requirement of full cost recovery for water services including environmental and resource costs in accordance with the polluter pays principle in Art. 9 EU-Water Framework Directive is a unique provision in the history of the European environmental law. The wording of the provision is a compromise between the Council's and the Parliament's versions that mirrors different conceptual ideas on how to internalize environmental and resource costs. Art. 9 now contains a two-step concept for the achievement of the aim. The uniform implementation of the full cost-recovery calls for common accounting standards for the calculation of financial cost and a common methodology for the estimation of environmental and resource costs on the European level. In Germany, the requirements of the first step are partly fulfilled, but necessities of the second step are not being met at the moment.

Major crises such as the global financial crisis 2007–08 or the COVID-19 crisis increase the level and likelihood of supplier financial distress. This research expands the understanding of how cooperatively, respectively, uncooperatively buying firms might respond to suppliers who suffer from financial distress in the course of major crises.

The authors build on a collaborative project with a German automotive OEM, analyze OEM internal “financial quick check data”, questionnaire data and longitudinal supplier financial data and apply regression, mediation and difference-in-difference estimation analyses.

The results show that the stronger the dependence on the distressed supplier, the more cooperative the buying firm's response. Furthermore, a more cooperative response of the buying firm has a strong positive influence on the suppliers' financial performance and hence recovery from the distress situation. Insights from supplier financial distress in the course of the financial crisis 2007–2008 can serve as learnings for the COVID-19 crisis.

The study fills a gap in the scholarly literature on “response to risk incidents” and response formation. Resource dependence theory and resource dependence dynamics offer a strong rationale for the type of response buying firms are likely to choose.

Besides offering the first menu of response options, this study can help practitioners in figuring out the most appropriate response to distressed suppliers. The findings can assist buying firms in their decisions how to deal with suppliers during major economic and financial crises.

This research is the first to conceptualize buying firms' response options to financially distressed suppliers, to investigate the influence of dependence on buying firm's response and to reveal the consequences of the buying firm's response for the supplier's financial recovery.