Do Dual-Branded Hotels Outperform Single-Branded Hotels?

Dual branding of hotels has become a growing industry practice. Beyond the potential marketing benefits of the dual-branding strategy, this paper tests whether dual-branded hotels operate more efficiently than comparable single-branded hotels (and therefore deliver better bottom-line results). Comparing a proprietary longitudinal data set on the operating performance generated by dual-branded hotels in the U.S. against a set of comparable single-branded hotels, we document mixed results. While dual- and single-branded hotels achieve similar occupancy percentages, dual-branded hotels generate higher average daily rate and revenue per available room. That said, dual-branded hotels have similar departmental expenses to those with a single brand. Although dual-brand hotels achieve some savings in undistributed expenses, for example, administrative and general (A&G) and maintenance, they incur higher IT and marketing expenses. As a result, gross operating profit margins are slightly lower in dual-branded hotels than in single-branded hotels. In sum, we document limited operating efficiency gains in dual-branded hotels compared to single-branded hotels. However, we recognize that the novelty of dual branding may mean that we need to allow more time to allow these hotels to achieve stabilized operation

First Quarter 2020: Gird Your Loins

Hotels in all regions experienced negative price momentum this quarter with hotels in the New England area having the worst price performance. Hotels located in gateway cities were especially hard hit. Hotel financial operating performance based on economic value analysis (EVA) has turned negative, indicating that hotel returns are coming primarily from future price appreciation. The prices of large and small hotels have both trended downwards toward their long run average from the perspective of our moving average trendlines and standardized unexpected price performance metrics. The cost of hotel debt financing has fallen this quarter while the cost of equity financing has increased, making it costlier to borrow equity capital. In terms of risk premiums, the risk premium for hotels has risen compared to the risk-free rate. Besides this, the relative risk premium that lenders require for hotels over and above other commercial real estate has also increased, indicating that lenders are demanding a higher compensation for originating hotel loans. A reading of our tea leaves suggests that both large and small hotels are expected to decline in price. This is report number 34 of the index series

Fourth Quarter 2019: 2019 Ends on a Whimper

Onlyhotels in the New England region, and to a lesser extent the Midwest region, experienced a positive price momentum this quarter, although both regions suffered poor performance from a year-over-year perspective. Hotels located in gateway cities outperformed hotels in non-gateway cities. Hotel financial operating performance continued to post positive profit with operating profit exceeding both a hotel property’s operating costs and its financial (borrowing) cost based on economic value analysis (EVA). Although the price of large hotels increased in the fourth quarter (as compared to quarter three), the price of small hotels declined quarter to quarter, and the price of both large and small hotels fell on a year-over-year basis. It appears that the price of both types of hotels is reverting to their moving average. The cost of hotel debt financing remained flat this quarter, while the cost of equity financing declined. In terms of risk premiums, there was no change in the risk premium for hotels compared to the risk-free rate. Besides this, the relative risk premium that lenders require for hotels over and above other commercial real estate has narrowed, indicating that lenders aren’t demanding a higher compensation for originating hotel loans. However, the spread between the 10-year Treasury and the 3-month Treasury was flat in the current period, which continues to raise concerns over its impact on market liquidity as well as its contribution to slower price growth in hotels. A reading of our tea leaves suggests that large hotels should be expected to decline in price. In contrast, the price of smaller hotels is anticipated to rise. This is report number 33 of the index series

HOTVal Toolkit

**************************************************************************** Scroll down to Additional Files to access the HOTVal Toolkit. **************************************************************************** HOTVal is a hotel valuation spreadsheet based on a regression model discussed in the Center for Real Estate and Finance at Cornell called Cornell Hotel Indices: Second Quarter 2012: The Trend is Our Friend by Crocker H. Liu, Adam D. Nowak, and Robert M. White, Jr. The model which will be continually updated, provides a rough estimation of the value of a hotel property once the user inputs information on whether the hotel is a large or small hotel, the year and quarter of the valuation, the state where the property is located, the number of rooms, the number of floors, the land area of the hotel property, the actual age of the hotel and whether the hotel is located in a Gateway city. For the first three inputs as well as the last input, if the user clicks on a cell highlighted in yellow, a pull down menu will appear to expedite inputting. The model is provided as a free public service by The Center for Real Estate and Finance at the School of Hotel Administration at Cornell University to academics and practitioners on an as-is, best-effort basis with no warranties or claims regarding its usefulness or implications. The estimates should be considered preliminary and subject to revision. *This January 2020 version updates the previous Hotel Valuation model, originally published in 2012, and provides valuation estimates up to and including the fourth quarter of 2019

Economic Fundamentals, Capital Expenditures and Asset Dispositions

The real estate literature recognizes the real option to invest in capital expenditures (CAPEX) or sell a property but treats these options as independent. We show that these real options are interconnected. We provide empirical evidence that, consistent with the real option framework, CAPEX increases in income growth expectations but declines in their volatility; that CAPEX are partially capitalized into property market values; and that CAPEX signifcantly reduce the subsequent likelihood of sale. We also present evidence that, controlling for market timing, past property performance infuences CAPEX but not disposition choices, consistent with a value-add investment strategy

Letter from the Editors

The Editorial Board of the Cornell Real Estate Review is pleased to present Volume 17 (2019). Under the direction of the Baker Program in Real Estate, the Review is a student run publication founded in 2002 as a forum for faculty, professionals, and real estate students to focus on the interdisciplinary nature of real estate. The Review covers a broad range of issues from various real estate fields including design, business economics, engineering, finance, law, planning, development, marketing, and property management. The publication blends informative articles on real estate practice with application-based academic research

Alumni Highlight: Jiwon Park (Baker/MBA \u2718), Samsung

Jiwon Park is a member of the real estate investment team in the asset management department of Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance. A 2018 graduate of Cornell’s Baker Program in Real Estate and the Johnson School of Management, Jiwon served as a Research Associate at Hodes Weill & Associates in New York as well as at an asset management firm in Los Angeles while at Cornell. Prior to Cornell, she worked at JLL Korea. Jiwon is a graduate of the University of Southern California with a double major in accounting and real estate finance

The Hurdles to Financing Modular Development

Revenues from the permanent modular construction (PMC) sector jumped 62% in one year to reach $3.3 billion in 2016 and its quick growth has not gone unnoticed. The industry has attracted investment from sources such as Soft Bank’s Vision Fund and Amazon’s Alexa Fund, an indication of the perceived feasibility of modular building that is further illustrated in PMC’s growing market share that increased 37% from 2014 to 2017 (Bousquin, 2019). Rising construction costs, tight labor markets, and an unprecedented demand for housing have pushed modular construction towards being one of the disruptors of an industry that has suffered a decline in productivity since the 1990’s (Changlie, 2015). However, early adopters of modular still face hurdles, especially when searching for institutional sources of capital to finance their projects

A Taxonomy of Coworking Space: Manhattan, NYC

The growth in the coworking inventory has accelerated over the past years, with more than 5 million square feet of new space flooding into the market in each of the past three years (Cushman & Wakefield, 2018). In 2018, over 200 coworking companies that operated in the U.S. had at least one location larger than 5,000 square feet. As competition increases, coworking markets enter periods of “specialization” in spaces of various size, business plans and clientele (Brown, 2016; Diduch, 2018), however, the lack of analysis of these characteristics make it difficult to understand the current supply of coworking space on the market

The U.S. Student Housing Market: Overlooked Opportunities

Student housing has emerged in recent years as one of the most in-demand asset classes in commercial real estate. Investors, both domestic and international, have been attracted to U.S. student housing projects for many reasons, including their steady yields and reliable returns during all market cycles (The Economist, 2018). As a result, investment in and development of student housing has increased dramatically over the past few years (Brass, 2018). Even with this increased focus on the sector, opportunities still remain in the student housing industry, particularly for investors and developers with differentiated projects. This paper will examine the current state of the U.S. student housing market and suggest four overlooked opportunities in this market that could provide investors and developers with an edge in the increasingly competitive and crowded environment