This study analyzes the leverage and performance relationship in the context of the U.S. hospitality industry. We consider that, studying this traditional corporate finance issue in the context of the hospitality industry, is relevant due to its unique characteristics in terms of capital structure and value creation. In addition to Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Fixed-Random effects (FE-RE) estimations, we also employ System Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) panel data techniques to avoid the endogeneity issue. Thus, using a sample of 313 U.S. hospitality firms for the period 2001–2018, our primary results are consistent with the pecking order theory, suggesting a negative relationship between leverage and firm performance. The findings are robust to alternative variables description and econometric techniques. We also find an inverted U-shape relationship, but given the high indebtedness of hospitality firms, the negative impact on firm performance is prevalent. Our contribution to the literature is double. First, we highlight the importance of analyzing the capital structure issue in a certain industry and, second, we provide important policy implications for managers and investors.
Citation: Conrado Diego García-Gómez, Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin, Ender Demir, José María Díez-Esteban. Leverage and performance: the case of the U.S. hospitality industry[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2021, 5(2): 228-246. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2021010
[1] | Roshan Ara, Saeed Ahmad, Zareen A. Khan, Mostafa Zahri . Threshold dynamics of stochastic cholera epidemic model with direct transmission. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26863-26881. doi: 10.3934/math.20231375 |
[2] | Yuqin Song, Peijiang Liu, Anwarud Din . Analysis of a stochastic epidemic model for cholera disease based on probability density function with standard incidence rate. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18251-18277. doi: 10.3934/math.2023928 |
[3] | Ying He, Bo Bi . Threshold dynamics and density function of a stochastic cholera transmission model. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 21918-21939. doi: 10.3934/math.20241065 |
[4] | Saima Rashid, Fahd Jarad, Hajid Alsubaie, Ayman A. Aly, Ahmed Alotaibi . A novel numerical dynamics of fractional derivatives involving singular and nonsingular kernels: designing a stochastic cholera epidemic model. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 3484-3522. doi: 10.3934/math.2023178 |
[5] | Moh. Mashum Mujur Ihsanjaya, Nanang Susyanto . A mathematical model for policy of vaccinating recovered people in controlling the spread of COVID-19 outbreak. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 14508-14521. doi: 10.3934/math.2023741 |
[6] | Ahmed Alshehri, Saif Ullah . Optimal control analysis of Monkeypox disease with the impact of environmental transmission. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16926-16960. doi: 10.3934/math.2023865 |
[7] | Naret Ruttanaprommarin, Zulqurnain Sabir, Rafaél Artidoro Sandoval Núñez, Soheil Salahshour, Juan Luis García Guirao, Wajaree Weera, Thongchai Botmart, Anucha Klamnoi . Artificial neural network procedures for the waterborne spread and control of diseases. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 2435-2452. doi: 10.3934/math.2023126 |
[8] | Maysaa Al-Qurashi, Sobia Sultana, Shazia Karim, Saima Rashid, Fahd Jarad, Mohammed Shaaf Alharthi . Identification of numerical solutions of a fractal-fractional divorce epidemic model of nonlinear systems via anti-divorce counseling. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5233-5265. doi: 10.3934/math.2023263 |
[9] | Oluwaseun F. Egbelowo, Justin B. Munyakazi, Manh Tuan Hoang . Mathematical study of transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 with waning immunity. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 15917-15938. doi: 10.3934/math.2022871 |
[10] | Abeer Alshareef . Quantitative analysis of a fractional order of the SEIcIηVR epidemic model with vaccination strategy. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 6878-6903. doi: 10.3934/math.2024335 |
This study analyzes the leverage and performance relationship in the context of the U.S. hospitality industry. We consider that, studying this traditional corporate finance issue in the context of the hospitality industry, is relevant due to its unique characteristics in terms of capital structure and value creation. In addition to Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Fixed-Random effects (FE-RE) estimations, we also employ System Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) panel data techniques to avoid the endogeneity issue. Thus, using a sample of 313 U.S. hospitality firms for the period 2001–2018, our primary results are consistent with the pecking order theory, suggesting a negative relationship between leverage and firm performance. The findings are robust to alternative variables description and econometric techniques. We also find an inverted U-shape relationship, but given the high indebtedness of hospitality firms, the negative impact on firm performance is prevalent. Our contribution to the literature is double. First, we highlight the importance of analyzing the capital structure issue in a certain industry and, second, we provide important policy implications for managers and investors.
Cholera is an acute diarrhoeal illness caused by infection of the intestine with bacterium vibrio cholerae, which lives in an aquatic organism [16]. The ingestion of contaminated water can cause cholera outbreaks, as John Snow proved in 1854 [24]. This is a possibility of transmission of the disease, but others do exist. For example, susceptible individuals can become infected if they become in contact with contaminated people. When individuals are at an increased risk of infection, then they can transmit the disease to those who live with them, by reflecting food preparation or using water storage containers [24]. An individual can be infected with or without symptoms and some of these can be watery diarrhea, vomiting and leg cramps. If contaminated individuals do not get treatment, then they become dehydrated, suffering acidosis and circulatory collapse. This situation can lead to death within 12 to 24 hours [18,24]. Some studies and experiments suggest that a recovered individual can be immune to the disease during a period of 3 to 10 years. Nevertheless, recent researches conclude that immunity can be lost after a period of weeks to months [19,24].
Since 1979, several mathematical models for the transmission of cholera have been proposed: see, e.g., [2,3,8,9,11,14,16,17,18,19,22,24] and references cited therein. In [19], the authors propose a SIR (Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered) type model and consider two classes of bacterial concentrations (hyperinfectious and less-infectious) and two classes of infectious individuals (asymptomatic and symptomatic). In [24], another SIR-type model is proposed that incorporates hyperinfectivity (where infectivity varies with time since the pathogen was shed) and temporary immunity, using distributed delays. The authors of [18] incorporate in a SIR-type model public health educational campaigns, vaccination, quarantine and treatment, as control strategies in order to curtail the disease.
Between 2007 and 2018, several cholera outbreaks occurred, namely in Angola, Haiti, Zimbabwe and Yemen [1,24,31]. Mathematical models have been developed and studied in order to understand the transmission dynamics of cholera epidemics, mostly focusing on the epidemic that occurred in Haiti, 2010–2011 [1]. In [16], a SIQR (Susceptible-Infectious-Quarantined-Recovered) type model, which also considers a class for bacterial concentration, is analysed, being shown that it fits well the cholera outbreak in the Department of Artibonite - Haiti, from 1
Recently, the biggest outbreak of cholera in the history of the world has occurred in Yemen [26]. The epidemic began in October 2016 and in February-March 2017 was in decline. However, on 27
Following World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations, the first-ever oral vaccination campaign against cholera had been launched on 6
In this paper, we propose a SITRV (Susceptible-Infectious-Treated-Recovered-Vaccinated) type model, which includes a class of bacterial concentration. In Section 2, we formulate and explain the mathematical model. Then, in Section 3, we show that the model is mathematically well posed and it has biological meaning. We prove the existence and uniqueness of the disease-free and endemic equilibrium points and compute the basic reproduction number. The sensitivity of the basic reproduction number with respect to all parameters of the model is analysed in Subsection 3.3 and the stability analysis of equilibria is carried out in Subsection 3.4. In Section 4, we show that the model fits well the cholera outbreak in Yemen, between 27
We trust that our work is of great significance, because it provides a mathematical model for cholera that is deeply studied and allows to obtain important conclusions about the relevance of vaccination campaigns in cholera outbreaks. We show that, if it had existed a vaccination campaign from the beginning of the outbreak in Yemen, then the epidemic would have been extinguished. Actually, we believe that the absence of this type of prevention measures in Yemen, was one of the responsible for provoking the biggest cholera outbreak in world's history [26], killing 2 275 individuals until 15
We modify the model studied in [16], adding a vaccination class and considering different kinds of cholera's treatment. The model is a SITRV (Susceptible-Infectious-Treated-Recovered-Vaccinated) type model and considers a class of bacterial concentration for the dynamics of cholera. The total human population
{S′(t)=Λ−βB(t)κ+B(t)S(t)+ω1R(t)+ω2V(t)−(φ+μ)S(t),I′(t)=βB(t)κ+B(t)S(t)−(δ+α1+μ)I(t),T′(t)=δI(t)−(ε+α2+μ)T(t),R′(t)=εT(t)−(ω1+μ)R(t),V′(t)=φS(t)−(ω2+μ)V(t),B′(t)=ηI(t)−dB(t). | (2.1) |
Throughout the paper, we assume that the initial conditions of system (2.1) are non-negative:
S(0)=S0≥0, I(0)=I0≥0, T(0)=T0≥0, R(0)=R0≥0, V(0)=V0≥0, B(0)=B0≥0. | (3.1) |
Our first lemma shows that the considered model (2.1)-(3.1) is biologically meaningful.
Lemma 1. The solutions
Proof. We have
{dS(t)dt|ξ(S)=Λ+ω1R(t)+ω2V(t)>0,dI(t)dt|ξ(I)=βB(t)κ+B(t)S(t)≥0,dT(t)dt|ξ(T)=δI(t)≥0,dR(t)dt|ξ(R)=εT(t)≥0,dV(t)dt|ξ(V)=φS(t)≥0,dB(t)dt|ξ(B)=ηI(t)≥0, |
where
Lemma 2 shows that it is enough to consider the dynamics of the flow generated by (2.1)-(3.1) in a certain region
Lemma 2. Let
ΩH={(S,I,T,R,V)∈(R+0)5|0≤S(t)+I(t)+T(t)+R(t)+V(t)≤Λμ} | (3.2) |
and
ΩB={B∈R+0|0≤B(t)≤Λημd}. | (3.3) |
Define
ΩV=ΩH×ΩB. | (3.4) |
If
Proof. Let us split system (2.1) into two parts: the human population, i.e.,
N′(t)=S′(t)+I′(t)+T′(t)+R′(t)+V′(t)=Λ−μN(t)−α1I(t)−α2T(t)≤Λ−μN(t). |
Assuming that
From now on, let us consider that
E0=(S0,I0,T0,R0,V0,B0)=(Λa4a0a4−φω2,0,0,0,Λφa0a4−φω2,0). | (3.5) |
Remark 1. Note that, because
Next, following the approach of [18,27], we compute the basic reproduction number
Proposition 3(Basic reproduction number of (2.1)). The basic reproduction number of model (2.1) is given by
R0=βΛηa4(a0a4−φω2)κda1. | (3.6) |
Proof. Consider that
F(t)=[0βB(t)S(t)κ+B(t)0000],V+(t)=[Λ+ω1R(t)+ω2V(t)0δI(t)εT(t)φS(t)ηI(t)] and V−(t)=[βB(t)S(t)κ+B(t)+a0S(t)a1I(t)a2T(t)a3R(t)a4V(t)dB(t)]. |
Therefore, by considering
[S′(t)I′(t)T′(t)R′(t)V′(t)B′(t)]T=F(t)−V(t). |
The Jacobian matrices of
F=[000000βB(t)κ+B(t)0000βκS(t)(κ+B(t))2000000000000000000000000] and V=[βB(t)κ+B(t)+a000−ω1−ω2βκS(t)(κ+B(t))20a100000−δa200000−εa300−φ000a400−η000d]. |
In the disease-free equilibrium
F0=[00000000000βΛa4(a0a4−φω2)κ000000000000000000000000] and V0=[a000−ω1−ω2βΛa4(a0a4−φω2)κ0a100000−δa200000−εa300−φ000a400−η000d]. |
The basic reproduction number of model (2.1) is then given by
R0=ρ(F0V−10)=βΛηa4(a0a4−φω2)κda1, |
found with the help of the computer algebra system
Now we prove the existence of an endemic equilibrium when
Proposition 4 (Endemic equilibrium). If the basic reproduction number (3.6) is such that
E∗=(S∗,I∗,T∗,R∗,V∗,B∗), | (3.7) |
where
{S∗=a1a4{κd(a1a2a3−δεω1)+Ληa2a3}η˜D,I∗=a2a3{βΛηa4−(a0a4−φω2)κda1}η˜D,T∗=a3δ{βΛηa4−(a0a4−φω2)κda1}η˜D,R∗=δε{βΛηa4−(a0a4−φω2)κda1}η˜D,V∗=a1φ{κd(a1a2a3−δεω1)+Ληa2a3}η˜D,B∗=a2a3{βΛηa4−(a0a4−φω2)κda1}d˜D |
and
Proof. We note that
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
With the above inequalities, we conclude that
βΛηa4=R0(a0a4−φω2)κda1⇔ βΛηa4−(a0a4−φω2)κda1=R0(a0a4−φω2)κda1−(a0a4−φω2)κda1⇔ βΛηa4−(a0a4−φω2)κda1=(a0a4−φω2)κda1(R0−1). |
Therefore, we have that
{I∗=a1a2a3κd(a0a4−φω2)(R0−1)η˜D,T∗=a1a3κdδ(a0a4−φω2)(R0−1)η˜D,R∗=a1κdδε(a0a4−φω2)(R0−1)η˜D,B∗=a1a2a3κ(a0a4−φω2)(R0−1)˜D. |
In order to obtain an endemic equilibrium, we have to ensure that
In this section, we are going to study the sensitivity of
Parameter | |
| 1 |
| |
| 1 |
| -1 |
| 0 |
| |
| |
| |
| 0 |
| |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| -1 |
Definition 1 (See [6,15,25]). The normalized forward sensitivity index of a variable
Υzp=∂z∂p×p|z|. |
Remark 2. When a parameter
Now we prove the local stability of the disease-free equilibrium
Theorem 5 (Stability of the DFE (3.5)). The disease-free equilibrium
1. locally asymptotic stable, if
2. unstable, if
Moreover, if
Proof. The characteristic polynomial associated with the linearised system of model (2.1) is given by
pV(χ)=det(F0−V0−χI6). |
In order to compute the roots of the polynomial
|−a0−χ00ω1ω2−βΛa4(a0a4−φω2)κ0−a1−χ000βΛa4(a0a4−φω2)κ0δ−a2−χ00000ε−a3−χ00φ000−a4−χ00η000−d−χ|=0, |
that is,
χ2+(a0+a4)χ+(a0a4−φω2)=0∨χ2+(a1+d)χ+a1d−βΛηa4(a0a4−φω2)κ=0∨χ=−a2∨χ=−a3. |
As the coefficients of polynomial
χ2+(a1+d)χ+a1d−βΛηa4(a0a4−φω2)κ |
have negative real part if and only if
a1d−βΛηa4(a0a4−φω2)κ>0⇔R0<1. |
Therefore, the DFE
We end this section by proving the local stability of the endemic equilibrium
Theorem 6 (Local asymptotic stability of the endemic equilibrium (3.7)). The endemic equilibrium
Proof. In order to apply the method described in Theorem 4.1 of [5], we are going to do the following change of variables. Let us consider that
X=(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6)=(S,I,T,R,V,B). |
Consequently, we have that the total number of individuals is given by
{x′1(t)=f1=Λ−βx6(t)κ+x6(t)x1(t)+ω1x4(t)+ω2x5(t)−a0x1(t),x′2(t)=f2=βx6(t)κ+x6(t)x1(t)−a1x2(t),x′3(t)=f3=δx2(t)−a2x3(t),x′4(t)=f4=εx3(t)−a3x4(t),x′5(t)=f5=φx1(t)−a4x5(t),x′6(t)=f6=ηx2(t)−dx6(t). | (3.8) |
Choosing
β∗=(a0a4−φω2)κda1Ληa4. |
Considering
J∗0=[−a000ω1ω2−a1dη0−a1000a1dη0δ−a200000ε−a300φ000−a400η000−d]. |
The eigenvalues of
det(J∗0−χI6)=0⇔ χ=0 ∨ χ=−a1−d ∨ χ=−a2 ∨ χ=−a3 ∨ χ=−12(a0+a4±√(a0−a4)2+4φω2). |
Note that the eigenvalue
−12(a0+a4−√(a0−a4)2+4φω2)=−12(φ+μ+ω2+μ−√(φ+μ−ω2−μ)2+4φω2)=−12(φ+ω2+2μ−√φ2−2φω2+ω22+4φω2)=−12(φ+ω2+2μ−√(φ+ω2)2)=φ+ω2≥0−12(φ+ω2+2μ−(φ+ω2))=−μ<0. |
Therefore, we can conclude that a simple eigenvalue of
w=[w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 w6]T and v=[v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6], |
given by
w=[−a4(a1a2a3−δεω1)a2a3(a0a4−φω2) 1 δa2 δεa2a3 φa4 ηd]Tw2 |
and
v=[0 1 0 0 0 a1η]v2. |
Remember that
a=6∑i,j,k=1wiwjvk[∂2fk∂xi∂xj(E0)]β=β∗ and b=6∑i,k=1wivk[∂2fk∂xi∂ϕ(E0)]β=β∗ |
with
[∂2f2∂x1∂x6(E0)]β=β∗=[∂2f2∂x6∂x1(E0)]β=β∗=β∗κ and [∂2f2∂x26(E0)]β=β∗=−2β∗Λa4a0a4−φω2. |
Therefore, the constant
a=−2β∗ηa4d(a0a4−φω2)(a1a2a3−δεω1a2a3κ+Ληd)v2w22<0. |
Furthermore, we have that
b=v2w6[∂2f∂x6∂ϕ(E0)]β=β∗=Ληa4κd(a0a4−φω2)v2w2>0. |
Thus, as
{a<0b>0ϕ=β−β∗=a1κd(a0a4−φω2)Ληa4(R0−1)>0⇔{a<0b>0R0>1, |
we conclude from Theorem 4.1 in [5] that the endemic equilibrium
In this section, we simulate the worst cholera outbreak that ever occurred in human history. It occurred in Yemen, from 27
Parameter | Description | Value | Reference |
| Recruitment rate | 28.4 | [12] |
| Natural death rate | 1.6 | [13] |
| Ingestion rate | 0.01694 (day | Assumed |
| Half saturation constant | | Assumed |
| Immunity waning rate | 0.4/365 (day | [19] |
| Efficacy vaccination waning rate | 1/1 460 (day | [7] |
| Vaccination rate | 5/1 000 (day | Assumed |
| Treatment rate | 1.15 (day | Assumed |
| Recovery rate | 0.2 (day | [18] |
| Death rate (infected) | 6 | [13,31] |
| Death rate (in treatment) | 3 | Assumed |
| Shedding rate (infected) | 10 (cell/ml day | [3] |
| Bacteria death rate | 0.33 (day | [3] |
| Susceptible individuals at | 28 249 670 (person) | [34] |
| Infected individuals at | 750 (person) | [31] |
| Treated individuals at | 0 (person) | Assumed |
| Recovered individuals at | 0 (person) | Assumed |
| Vaccinated individuals at | 0 (person) | [30] |
| Bacterial concentration at | | Assumed |
ΥR0φ=−φφ+ω2+μ≃−0.877050<0. |
Furthermore, for
(S∗,I∗,T∗,R∗,V∗,B∗)=(2.943350×107, 1.035599×105, 5.954131×105, 1.070992×108, 0, 3.138180×106) |
and for
(S0,I0,T0,R0,V0,B0)=(1.689119×107, 0, 0, 0, 1.204910×108, 0). |
Note that the previous figures correspond to the equilibrium points for the parameter values of Table 2, which can be obtained numerically for a final time of approximately 1 370 years. We also call attention to the fact that the recruitment rate
In this paper, we proposed and analysed, analytically and numerically, a SITRVB model for cholera transmission dynamics. In order to fit the biggest cholera outbreak worldwide, which has occurred very recently in Yemen, we simulated the outbreak of Yemen without vaccination. Indeed, vaccination did not exist in Yemen from 27
This research was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) within projects UID/MAT/04106/2013 (CIDMA), and PTDC/EEI-AUT/2933/2014 (TOCCATA), funded by Project 3599 - Promover a Produção Científica e Desenvolvimento Tecnológico e a Constituição de Redes Temáticas, and FEDER funds through COMPETE 2020, Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI). Lemos-Paião is also supported by the FCT Ph.D. fellowship PD/BD/114184/2016, Silva by the postdoctoral grant SFRH/BPD/72061/2010.
The authors are very grateful to an anonymous referee for reading their paper carefully and for several constructive remarks, questions and suggestions.
The authors declare that there is no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] | Abdullah H, Tursoy T (2019) Capital structure and firm performance: evidence of Germany under IFRS adoption. Rev Managerial Sci, 1–20. |
[2] | Ampenberger M, Schmid T, Achleitner AK, et al. (2013) Capital structure decisions in family firms: empirical evidence from a bank-based economy. Rev Managerial Sci 7: 247–275. |
[3] | Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58: 277–297. |
[4] | Assaf AG, Tsionas MG (2019) Revisiting shape and moderation effects in curvilinear models. Tourism Manage 75: 216–230. |
[5] | Bloom M, Milkovich GT (1998) Relationships among risk, incentive pay, and organizational performance. Acad Manage J 41: 283–297. |
[6] | Blundell R, Bond S, Windmeijer F (2000) Estimation in dynamic panel data models: improving on the performance of the standard GMM estimator, In: T, Baltagi, B. Fomby, & B. Carter Hill (Eds.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels, Bingley: Emerald, 53–92. |
[7] | Brigham EF, Ehrhardt MC (2011) Financial Management: Theory and Practice (13thed), Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning. |
[8] | Cho MH (1998) Ownership structure, investment, and the corporate value: an empirical analysis. J Financ Econ 47: 103–121. |
[9] | Dalci I (2018) Impact of financial leverage on profitability of listed manufacturing firms in China. Pacific Account Rev 30: 410–432. |
[10] | Damodaran A (2019) Cost of Capital by Sector (US). Available from: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/wacc.htm. |
[11] | Davydov D (2016) Debt structure and corporate performance in emerging markets. Res Int Bus Financ 382: 299–311. |
[12] | Demir E, Díez-Esteban JM, García-Gómez CD (2019) The impact of geopolitical risks on cash holdings of hospitality companies: Evidence from emerging countries. J Hospitality Tourism Manage 39: 166–174. |
[13] | Díez-Esteban JM, García-Gómez CD, López-Iturriaga FJ, et al. (2017) Corporate risk taking, returns and the nature of major shareholders: evidence from prospect theory. Res Int Bus Financ 42: 900–911. |
[14] | Díez-Esteban JM, Farinha JB, García-Gómez CD (2016) The role of institutional investors in propagating the 2007 financial crisis in Southern Europe. Res Int Bus Financ 38: 439–454. |
[15] | Flannery MJ, Hankins KW (2013) Estimating dynamic panel models in corporate finance. J Corp Financ 19: 1–19. |
[16] | Fosu S (2013) Capital structure, product market competition and firm performance: Evidence from South Africa. Q Rev Econ Financ 53: 140–151. |
[17] | Gleason KC, Mathur LK, Mathur I (2000) The interrelationship between culture, capital structure, and performance: evidence from European retailers. J Bus Res 50: 185–191. |
[18] | Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice-Hall. |
[19] | Hernández PJ (2020) Reassessing the link between firm size and exports. Eurasian Bus Rev, 10: 207–223 |
[20] | Ibhagui OW, Olokoyo FO (2018) Leverage and firm performance: new evidence on the role of firm size. North Am J Econ Financ 45: 57–92. |
[21] | Jang S, Tang CH (2009) Simultaneous impacts of international diversification and financial leverage on profitability. J Hospitality Tourism Res 33: 347–368. |
[22] | Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3: 305–360. |
[23] | Jensen MC (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. Am Econ Rev 76: 323–329. |
[24] | Jiang L, Dalbor M (2017) Factors Impacting Capital Expenditures in the Quick Service Restaurant Industry. J Hospitality Financ Manage 25: 90–100. |
[25] | Jiraporn P, Liu Y (2008) Capital structure, staggered boards, and firm value. Financ Anal J 64: 49–60. |
[26] | Kraus A, Litzenberger RH (1973) A state‐preference model of optimal financial leverage. J Financ 28: 911–922. |
[27] | King MR, Santor E (2008) Family values: ownership structure, performance and capital structure of Canadian firms. J Bank Financ 32: 2423–2432. |
[28] | Le TPV, Phan TBN (2017) Capital structure and firm performance: Empirical evidence from a small transition country. Res Int Bus Financ 42: 710–726. |
[29] | Li Y, Singal M (2019) Capital structure in the hospitality industry: The role of the asset-light and fee-oriented strategy. Tourism Manage 70: 124–133. |
[30] | Mao Z, Gu Z (2008) The relationship between financial factors and firm performance: empirical evidence from US restaurant firms. J Foodservice Bus Res 11: 138–159. |
[31] | Margaritis D, Psillaki M (2010) Capital structure, equity ownership and firm performance. J Bank Financ 34: 621–632. |
[32] | Modigliani F, Miller MH (1958) The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. Am Econ Rev 48: 261–297. |
[33] | Moudud-Ul-Huq S (2019) Banks' capital buffers, risk, and efficiency in emerging economies: are they counter-cyclical? Eurasian Econ Rev 9: 467–492. |
[34] | Muradoğlu YG, Sivaprasad S (2014) The impact of leverage on stock returns in the hospitality sector: Evidence from the UK. Tourism Anal 19: 161–171. |
[35] | Myers SC, Majluf NS (1984) Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. J Financ Econ 13: 187–221. |
[36] | Nenu EA, Vintilă G, Gherghina SF (2018) The Impact of Capital Structure on Risk and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence for the Bucharest Stock Exchange Listed Companies. Int J Financ Stud 6: 41. |
[37] | Pachecho L, Tavares F (2017) Capital structure determinants of hospitality sector SMEs. Tourism Econ 23: 113–132. |
[38] | Phillips PA, Sipahioglu MA (2004) Performance implications of capital structure: Evidence from quoted UK organizations with hotel interests. Serv Ind J 24: 31–51. |
[39] | Roberts MR, Whited TM (2013) Endogeneity in empirical corporate finance, In: G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. M. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, Elsevier, 493–572. |
[40] | Roodman D (2008) XTABOND2: Stata module to extend xtabond dynamic panel data estimator, In: Statistical Software Components S435901, Boston College Department of Economics. |
[41] | Sardo F, Serrasqueiro Z (2021) Intellectual capital and high-tech firms' financing choices in the European context: a panel data analysis. Quant Financ Econ 5: 1–18. |
[42] | Seo K (2018) Excessive leverage and firm performance in competitive casino markets. Tourism Hospitality Res 18: 498–504. |
[43] | Singal M (2015) How is the hospitality and tourism industry different? An empirical test of some structural characteristics. Int J Hospitality Manage 47: 116–119. |
[44] | Sucurro M, Constanzo GD (2019) Ownership structure and firm patenting activity in Italy. Eurasian Econ Rev 9: 239–266. |
[45] | Tekker D, Tasseven O, Takel A (2009) Determinants of Capital Structure for Turkish Firms: A Panel Data Analysis. Int J Financ Econ 29: 180–187. |
[46] | Tian GG, Zeitun R (2007) Capital structure and corporate performance: evidence from Jordan. Australasian Account Bus Financ J. |
[47] | Villarón-Peramato O, Martinez-Ferrero J, García-Sánchez IM (2018) CSR as entrenchment strategy and capital structure: corporate governance and investor protection as complementary and substitutive factors. Rev Managerial Scienc 12: 27–64. |
1. | Ibrahim M. Hezam, Abdelaziz Foul, Adel Alrasheedi, A dynamic optimal control model for COVID-19 and cholera co-infection in Yemen, 2021, 2021, 1687-1847, 10.1186/s13662-021-03271-6 | |
2. | Maria Francesca Carfora, Isabella Torcicollo, Identification of epidemiological models: the case study of Yemen cholera outbreak, 2020, 0003-6811, 1, 10.1080/00036811.2020.1738402 | |
3. | Lilis Suryani, W. M. Kusumawinahyu, N. Shofianah, Dynamical Analysis on A Model of Cholera Epidemic with Quarantine, Vaccination, and Two Path of Transmissions, 2021, 1776, 1742-6588, 012052, 10.1088/1742-6596/1776/1/012052 | |
4. | Ana P. Lemos-Paião, Cristiana J. Silva, Delfim F. M. Torres, Ezio Venturino, Optimal Control of Aquatic Diseases: A Case Study of Yemen’s Cholera Outbreak, 2020, 185, 0022-3239, 1008, 10.1007/s10957-020-01668-z | |
5. | Olena Kostylenko, Helena Sofia Rodrigues, Delfim F. M. Torres, The spread of a financial virus through Europe and beyond, 2019, 4, 2473-6988, 86, 10.3934/Math.2019.1.86 | |
6. | Mohamed A. Zaitri, Cristiana J. Silva, Delfim F. M. Torres, Stability Analysis of Delayed COVID-19 Models, 2022, 11, 2075-1680, 400, 10.3390/axioms11080400 | |
7. | Ana P. Lemos-Paião, Helmut Maurer, Cristiana J. Silva, Delfim F. M. Torres, Vitaly Volpert, A SIQRB delayed model for cholera and optimal control treatment, 2022, 17, 0973-5348, 25, 10.1051/mmnp/2022027 | |
8. | Kumama Regassa Cheneke, Koya Purnachandra Rao, Gereme Kenassa Edesssa, Harvinder S. Sidhu, A New Generalized Fractional-Order Derivative and Bifurcation Analysis of Cholera and Human Immunodeficiency Co-Infection Dynamic Transmission, 2022, 2022, 1687-0425, 1, 10.1155/2022/7965145 | |
9. | Wahyudin Nur, Agus Suryanto, Wuryansari Muharini Kusumawinahyu, Schistosomiasis Model Incorporating Snail Predator as Biological Control Agent, 2021, 9, 2227-7390, 1858, 10.3390/math9161858 | |
10. | Olukayode Adebimpe, Isaac Adesina, Babatunde Gbadamosi, Olajumoke Oludoun, Oluwakemi Abiodun, Olukayode Adeyemo, 2022, Chapter 53, 978-981-16-2101-7, 591, 10.1007/978-981-16-2102-4_53 | |
11. | Kumama Regassa Cheneke, Koya Purnachandra Rao, Geremew Kenassa Edessa, Vladimir Mityushev, Application of a New Generalized Fractional Derivative and Rank of Control Measures on Cholera Transmission Dynamics, 2021, 2021, 1687-0425, 1, 10.1155/2021/2104051 | |
12. | Kumama Regassa Cheneke, Koya Purnachandra Rao, Geremew Kenassa Edessa, Fahad Al Basir, Modeling and Analysis of HIV and Cholera Direct Transmission with Optimal Control, 2022, 2022, 1607-887X, 1, 10.1155/2022/5460337 | |
13. | Isa Abdullahi Baba, Usa Wannasingha Humphries, Fathalla A. Rihan, A Well-Posed Fractional Order Cholera Model with Saturated Incidence Rate, 2023, 25, 1099-4300, 360, 10.3390/e25020360 | |
14. | Martins O. Onuorah, F. A. Atiku, H. Juuko, Yuriy Rogovchenko, Mathematical model for prevention and control of cholera transmission in a variable population, 2022, 9, 2768-4830, 10.1080/27658449.2021.2018779 | |
15. | Saima Rashid, Fahd Jarad, Hajid Alsubaie, Ayman A. Aly, Ahmed Alotaibi, A novel numerical dynamics of fractional derivatives involving singular and nonsingular kernels: designing a stochastic cholera epidemic model, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 3484, 10.3934/math.2023178 | |
16. | Dumitru Baleanu, Fahimeh Akhavan Ghassabzade, Juan J. Nieto, Amin Jajarmi, On a new and generalized fractional model for a real cholera outbreak, 2022, 61, 11100168, 9175, 10.1016/j.aej.2022.02.054 | |
17. | Silvério Rosa, Delfim F. M. Torres, Fractional-Order Modelling and Optimal Control of Cholera Transmission, 2021, 5, 2504-3110, 261, 10.3390/fractalfract5040261 | |
18. | Salma Siddiqua, Anita Chaturvedi, Naba Kumar Goswami, 2022, 2516, 0094-243X, 130002, 10.1063/5.0108808 | |
19. | Moiz Usmani, Kyle D. Brumfield, Yusuf Jamal, Anwar Huq, Rita R. Colwell, Antarpreet Jutla, A Review of the Environmental Trigger and Transmission Components for Prediction of Cholera, 2021, 6, 2414-6366, 147, 10.3390/tropicalmed6030147 | |
20. | Wahyudin Nur, Agus Suryanto, Wuryansari Muharini Kusumawinahyu, Schistosomiasis model with treatment, habitat modification and biological control, 2022, 19, 1551-0018, 13799, 10.3934/mbe.2022643 | |
21. | B. Gbadamosi, O. Adebimpe, Mayowa M. Ojo, O. Oludoun, O. Abiodun, I. Adesina, Modeling the impact of optimal control measures on the dynamics of cholera, 2023, 9, 2363-6203, 1387, 10.1007/s40808-022-01570-9 | |
22. | Kusum Lata, A. K. Misra, Y. Takeuchi, Modeling the effectiveness of TV and social media advertisements on the dynamics of water-borne diseases, 2022, 15, 1793-5245, 10.1142/S1793524521500698 | |
23. | Zafer Bekiryazici, Sensitivity analysis and random dynamics for a mathematical model of tuberculosis transmission, 2023, 0361-0918, 1, 10.1080/03610918.2023.2212884 | |
24. | Phoebe AMADİ, George LAWI, Job BONYO, A Metapopulation Model for Cholera with Variable Media Efficacy and Imperfect Vaccine, 2023, 2636-8692, 20, 10.33187/jmsm.1289684 | |
25. | Shenxing Li, Wenhe Li, Dynamical Behaviors of a Stochastic Susceptible-Infected-Treated-Recovered-Susceptible Cholera Model with Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Process, 2024, 12, 2227-7390, 2163, 10.3390/math12142163 |
Parameter | |
| 1 |
| |
| 1 |
| -1 |
| 0 |
| |
| |
| |
| 0 |
| |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| -1 |
Parameter | Description | Value | Reference |
| Recruitment rate | 28.4 | [12] |
| Natural death rate | 1.6 | [13] |
| Ingestion rate | 0.01694 (day | Assumed |
| Half saturation constant | | Assumed |
| Immunity waning rate | 0.4/365 (day | [19] |
| Efficacy vaccination waning rate | 1/1 460 (day | [7] |
| Vaccination rate | 5/1 000 (day | Assumed |
| Treatment rate | 1.15 (day | Assumed |
| Recovery rate | 0.2 (day | [18] |
| Death rate (infected) | 6 | [13,31] |
| Death rate (in treatment) | 3 | Assumed |
| Shedding rate (infected) | 10 (cell/ml day | [3] |
| Bacteria death rate | 0.33 (day | [3] |
| Susceptible individuals at | 28 249 670 (person) | [34] |
| Infected individuals at | 750 (person) | [31] |
| Treated individuals at | 0 (person) | Assumed |
| Recovered individuals at | 0 (person) | Assumed |
| Vaccinated individuals at | 0 (person) | [30] |
| Bacterial concentration at | | Assumed |
Parameter | |
| 1 |
| |
| 1 |
| -1 |
| 0 |
| |
| |
| |
| 0 |
| |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| -1 |
Parameter | Description | Value | Reference |
| Recruitment rate | 28.4 | [12] |
| Natural death rate | 1.6 | [13] |
| Ingestion rate | 0.01694 (day | Assumed |
| Half saturation constant | | Assumed |
| Immunity waning rate | 0.4/365 (day | [19] |
| Efficacy vaccination waning rate | 1/1 460 (day | [7] |
| Vaccination rate | 5/1 000 (day | Assumed |
| Treatment rate | 1.15 (day | Assumed |
| Recovery rate | 0.2 (day | [18] |
| Death rate (infected) | 6 | [13,31] |
| Death rate (in treatment) | 3 | Assumed |
| Shedding rate (infected) | 10 (cell/ml day | [3] |
| Bacteria death rate | 0.33 (day | [3] |
| Susceptible individuals at | 28 249 670 (person) | [34] |
| Infected individuals at | 750 (person) | [31] |
| Treated individuals at | 0 (person) | Assumed |
| Recovered individuals at | 0 (person) | Assumed |
| Vaccinated individuals at | 0 (person) | [30] |
| Bacterial concentration at | | Assumed |