EVA, تصفیه MVA، EVA، و یا اندازه گیری عملکرد سنتی برای صنعت مهمان نوازی؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|14418||2009||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5888 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Hospitality Management, Volume 28, Issue 3, September 2009, Pages 439–445
Stewart (1991) proposed economic value added (EVA) as a true measurement of a firm's performance and an executive's evaluation tool because EVA reflects only incremental values added to a firm after considering cost of capital. Kim [Kim, W.G., 2006. EVA and traditional accounting measures: which metric is a better predictor of market value of hospitality companies? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 30(1), 34–39] examined EVA in the hospitality setting and concluded that EVA is not superior to other available measurements for accounting. However, this study contributes several improvements to Kim's (2006) study and compares the incremental explanatory power of six firm performance measures including EVA, refined EVA (REVA), market value added (MVA), and three traditional accounting performance measures for market adjusted returns. According to the findings, REVA and MVA are, apparently, valuable performance measures for evaluating hospitality firms.
In the 1990s, the concept of economic value added (EVA) became a topic of considerable interest resulting in wide, financial economics literature research from various perspectives. Stewart (1991) proposed EVA as a firm's performance measurement and as executives’ performance evaluation tool by arguing that EVA represents a firm's true performance because EVA reflects only incremental values added to a firm after considering cost of capital. Fortune published a cover story that discussed the benefits of EVA and a long list of major companies that adopted EVA as an evaluation tool ( Tully, 1993). To verify such support for EVA, a major part of the EVA literature attempted to examine the superiority of EVA to traditional performance measurements (for example, Brossy and Balkcom, 1994, Chen and Dodd, 1997, Garvey and Milbourn, 2000 and Lehn and Makhija, 1996) and the comparison also extended to a modified EVA ( Bacidore et al., 1997). However, several studies found that EVA was not superior to other traditional firm performance measurements (for example, Biddle et al., 1997, Chen and Dodd, 2001, de Villiers, 1997, Kim, 2006, Weissenrieder, 1998 and Zimmerman, 1997). Researchers, therefore, became less interested in the topic and EVA studies somewhat diminished in the literature.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The purpose of the study is to compare incremental explanatory power of six firm performance measures: three EVA-related performance measures (i.e., EVA, REVA, and MVA) and three traditional accounting performance measures (i.e., CFO, ROA, and ROE) on the market adjusted return, controlled for firm size. The study makes contributions, not only by introducing a modified EVA version (i.e., REVA), but also by investigating, separately, the three hospitality sub-sectors (i.e., hotel, restaurant, and casino). In addition, examining a more closely considered dependent variable, market adjusted return, makes the analysis more valid and reliable; the dependent variable adjusts for market return and uses a calculation period beginning 3 months after a firm's 10K reporting month. The latter calculation practice complies better with a generally accepted market efficiency theory: semi-strong efficient market. This is because in a semi-strong efficient market, stock prices do not tend to reflect insider information, but only public information such as annual reports (10Ks). Therefore, considering the fact that such public information becomes available within a nominal 3 months after the accounting period ends, analysis is more real and reliable.