This study aimed to understand travelers’ perceptions about the benefits of tourism crisis preparedness certification and its potential to positively influence the travelers’ destination decision-making process. A survey of U.S. households revealed that, in general, travelers are neutral or not sure about certification and its relationship to safety, benefits, and future travel. The main predictors of likelihood to travel to a certified tourism prepared destination were as follows: (1) I have a great deal of confidence in such a crisis certification process; (2) I would feel safer when visiting a certified crisis prepared travel destination; (3) A certified crisis prepared destination would be safer to visit than one that is not; and (4) a crisis prepared certification benefits the visitor. The findings imply a need for a clear definition and conceptualization of tourism crisis preparedness certification. By extension, the benefits of certification should be articulated to travelers so they can make informed travel decisions.
This paper contributes to the literature on agency theory by examining relations between family involvement and CEO compensation. Using a panel of 362 small U.S. listed firms, we analyze how founding families influence firm performance through option portfolio price sensitivity. Consistent with the dual agency framework, we find that family firms have lower CEO incentive pay, which is further reduced by higher executive ownership. Interestingly, such incentive pay offsets the positive impact that families have on firm valuation. Collectively, our results show that, compared with nonfamily firms, lower incentive pay adopted by family firms due to lower agency costs mitigates the direct effect of family involvement on firm performance. Once accounting for CEO incentive pay, we do not observe performance differences between family and nonfamily firms.
We provide evidence of a drastic drop in stock run-ups of U.S. target firms preceding merger and acquisition (M&A) announcements over the past decades. The median target run-up declines from approximately 10% in the 1980s to 2% after 2010. The trend in target run-ups cannot be fully explained by deal or firm characteristics associated with deal anticipation. However, it disappears after controlling for changes in the strength of U.S. insider trading regulation over the research period. Further analyses corroborate our conclusion that more stringent insider trading regulation is the most likely explanation for the reduction in target run-ups. INTRODUCTIONIt is well established in the corporate finance literature that target firm stock prices tend to increase substantially before merger and acquisition (M&A) announcements (Weston, Mitchell, & Mulherin, 2014). Studies on this topic consistently find positive average preannouncement target abnormal stock returns (i.e., target run-ups) in the area of 10% representing approximately half of the total M&A stock price effect for target firms (
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.