Franchising structure changes and shareholder value: Evidence from store buybacks and refranchising
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on agency theory and transaction cost analysis, this study investigates the impact of refranchising and buybacks of downstream retail units by franchising firms on shareholder value (i.e., stock returns). It further evaluates the contingency role of firm and industry factors in shaping this impact. An event study analysis over the years 2001-2020 confirms that both refranchising and buybacks positively affect stock returns. However, notable impact differences emerge between the two types of strategic decisions. For refranchising, firms with lower royalty rates, smaller returns-on-assets (ROA), and higher trade credit provided generate higher stock returns. Whereas, for buybacks, firms with higher royalty rates derive more value in stock markets. Analysis further shows that investors judge refranchising (buybacks) less (more) favorably in munificent industries, but industry dynamism has no effect on the stock returns generated from these moves. Together, the study offers important implications for franchising theory and retail practice in marketing. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11747-022-00921-3.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".