are less risky in terms of unsystematic risk. The authors suggested that consolidation,
via mergers and acquisitions, could quickly increase a hotel REIT firm’s market
capitalization and consequently help reduce unsystematic risk. Their results also
suggest that the market reacts more strongly to firm-specific events affecting hotel
REITs paying higher dividends. Higher dividend payout could increase unsystematic
risk, and hotel REITs must carefully consider the effect of this on investment capital and
financing mix, and on unsystematic risk. The authors argued that large hotel REIT firms
paying lower dividends and using less debt are likely to have a valuation advantage.
Tang and Jang (2008) compared hotel C-corporations and REITs in terms of the
profitability impact of their requirements and showed that the latter pay less tax and
have higher levels of fixed assets, ownership diversification, and dividend payout
ratios. They suggested that the relationship between profitability and dividend payout
might be nonlinear. Hotel REITs not only pay more dividends than required but can
also pay more than their net income, because of extra cash from depreciation.
Moreover, the only significant variable affecting the ROA of hotel REITs and
C-corporations is the different dividend payout. ROA increased more quickly in
C-corporations for the same amount of increase in payout, implying that this decreases
free cash flow associated agency costs faster than for hotel REITs.
Comparing the unsystematic risk determinants of the hotel and restaurant
industries, Hsu and Jang (2008) showed that profitability is the most influential factor.
That is, more profitable hospitality firms suffer less unsystematic risk. Financial and
operating leverage and firm size are also significantly associated with the
unsystematic risk of the hospitality firms studied.
Previous studies focused on examining the relationship between a firm’s
unsystematic risk and its financial features. However, unsystematic risk is
firm-specific, and future studies could explore how nonfinancial features of a
hospitality firm relate to its unsystematic risk. For example, Rego et al. (2009) found
that consumer-based brand equity has a stronger role in predicting firm-specific
unsystematic risk than systematic risk.
3.1.3 Foreign currency risk exposure. Foreign exchange fluctuations are an
important determinant of risk for hotels operating internationally. Occupancy may
decline in strong currency environments, and the resulting loss could be compensated
for by gains in exchange. A weak local currency may threaten dollar-denominated
earnings, and managers can make up for currency loss by increasing the average daily
rate (ADR) without reducing occupancy. Although about 60 percent of foreign
exchange risk exposure could be attenuated or even eliminated (Chang, 2009), very few
hospitality firms manage such risk, because either the amount is immaterial or it is not
cost effective to use derivatives (Singh and Upneja, 2007; Singh and Upneja, 2008).
Singh and Upneja (2007) suggested that few lodging firms use derivatives such as
forwards to hedge against foreign exchange risk exposure. They showed that the
foreign sales ratio and diversification measures of a firm provide weak evidence for
their use of derivatives, and that hospitality firms with higher growth opportunities
will use derivatives more. However, firms have less incentive to take this approach if
they have enough internal cash flow to cover fixed claims and fund future investment
(Singh and Upneja, 2007).
Various currencies, such as the Australian dollar, Chinese yuan, and Japanese yen,
have experienced volatile fluctuations in recent years and the gain or loss from such