Search results

Mergers and acquisitions are frequent occurrences in the world of business. While a merged firm may convert an acquired asset to other brands, the restaurant industry tends to acquire the same brand name and does not change the name of the acquired assets. Acquisitions can prove to be a risky proposition in any industry. This study attempts to determine if a product-diversified acquisition in the restaurant industry is a value-creating decision. By comparing focused and diversified acquisitions, we try to find if focused acquisitions create value and that diversified acquisitions do not. Our initial expectation was that focused acquisitions create more shareholder value. We find that both focused and diversified acquisitions make significant positive abnormal returns for acquirers.

The purpose of this study is to invoke prospect theory to construct an empirical framework to predict idiosyncratic risk, and argue that when a firm performs better than its benchmarks, the firm tends to play safe by avoiding firm-specific risk to maintain its satisfactory performance level, but when a firm performs worse than its benchmarks, the firm may become aggressive with taking more risks to achieve an increased level of performance.

This study tested the relationships between restaurant firms’ future idiosyncratic risk and the proposed firm financial characteristics. Heteroscedasticity- and autocorrelation-consistent (HAC) standard errors (Newey and West, 1994) were used to deal with potential problems of autocorrelations and heteroscedasticity. The standard error of residuals from the Fama-French three-factor model (Fama and French, 1993) was estimated to proxy for restaurant idiosyncratic risk.

The main analysis reveals that five financial characteristics are significant predictors for restaurant firms’ future idiosyncratic risk in accordance with the proposed, negative relationship based on the prospect theory.

Managers may predict their competitors’ future risk-taking behaviors using the current study’s findings, which will provide competitive advantage in a highly competitive business environment that we have now. Also, in practice, restaurant investors may consider findings of this study in forecasting future risks of their portfolio to help evaluate and revise their portfolios.

First, this is a new endeavor of its kind dealing with the restaurant industry, filling the void in the literature in predicting the risk-taking behavior of restaurant firms in a time of crisis. Second, this study forms a prediction model that establishes “predictive causality” (Diebold, 2001) motivated by prospect theory. Third, building upon prior research, this study comprehensively examines relationships between the firm characteristics that capture firm-specific strategies (Ou and Penman, 1989) and the idiosyncratic risk that are “associated with firm-specific strategies” (Luo and Bhattacharya, 2009) in a restaurant setting. Finally, the findings of this study bear significant implications for practitioners and other parties of interest.

The aim of this study is to investigate institutional investment behavior relating to lodging firms and their brand equity.

Ordinary least squares (OLS) and two‐stage least squares (2SLS) regressions are used. The dependent variable is institutional investor percentage and the independent variables are advertising expenditures, size, capital expenditures, proxy Q, debt ratio, price, share turnover and year.

The study found that institutional investors' holdings are positively related to advertising expenditures. There is a significant difference in institutional holdings between lodging firms with advertising expenditures and those without. Institutions favor lodging firms that have lower debt ratios. Institutional investors prefer small firms because they typically offer superior returns.

Further research may be done to see whether individual investors favor firms with brand equity. Additional research may be conducted in other segments, such as restaurants or casinos.

Findings may help lodging managers in raising financial capital from institutional investors; researchers in conducting future research on institutional investors; and educators in better describing institutional investors' important roles to hospitality students.

The paper is the first to show a relationship between institutional investors and advertising expenditures in the lodging industry.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) creates long-term shareholder value through managing risks from economic, environmental, and social developments. Among institutional owners, pension funds have a long-term investment horizon and can influence a firm's strategy. They promote CSR activities in the long run. Mutual funds and investment banks tend to have more of a short-term investment horizon. They are not strong supporters of CSR activities. Our results support the previous time horizon hypotheses. Although pension funds prefer CSR firms in the hotel and casino industry, mutual funds and brokerage firms had no interest in CSR firms. Pension fund and mutual fund ownership is negatively related to CSR firms in the restaurant industry. Brokerage firms are indifferent to CSR firms.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of long-term debt and firm value in the lodging industry. Previous research on capital structure in the lodging industry has been conducted in an attempt to understand what motivates the use of debt. We explore this further by assessing whether or not this debt use translates into increases in firm value. The regression analysis shows that after controlling for size and risk, we find a positive relationship with long-term debt and the value of the firm. Return on assets is negatively related to firm value, but capital expenditures are not.

The existing research finds a positive financial impact of franchising for relatively short time windows, usually less than ten years. As a result, these studies leave one critical research question unanswered: does franchising influence restaurant firms' financial performance consistently in the long term? The purpose of this paper is to address the research question and offer relevant managerial implications.

This study uses and expands the models derived from Ohlson, from Amir and Lev and from Lev and Zarowin to address the financial impacts of franchise in the restaurant industry from a long-term and consistent perspective.

Carrying out empirical tests over all ten-year testing windows that span 1980-2010 with quarterly data, this study finds that franchising is an effective mechanism to systematically and consistently outperform non-franchise firms in the long term and provides compelling empirical evidence to answer the research question. Further, limited-service restaurants also exhibit consistent and positive impacts on firm financial performance in the long term, suggesting limited-service operations are also effective to enhance firm value and outperform competitors.

First, this study expands the set of variables employed by many financial researchers to explain stock price in the restaurant industry. Second, this study tests and shows that franchising systematically leads to financial outperformance over the long term. Third, this study tests and shows that limited service restaurants consistently and systematically outperform their peers in the long run. Finally, the results of this study can be used to help investors and fund managers select restaurant company stocks and offer compelling evidence in support of franchising and limited service operations.

Examines the capital structure decisions of restaurant firms. Hypothesizes that these decisions are based upon a financial “pecking‐order” as well as the position of the firm in the financial growth cycle. Using ratios from publicly‐traded restaurant firms in the USA and ordinary least squares regression models, the results tend to support the notion that both the pecking‐order and the financial growth cycle influence financing decisions. However, the results also indicate that there may be separate factors affecting long‐term and short‐term debt decisions made by restaurant managers.