This sponsored content was created in collaboration with a Skift partner.
Hotel growth is often communicated through a narrow set of numbers: properties signed, rooms added, and the size of the development pipeline. Those figures are easy to track and report, but they say much less about what an owner ultimately gets from that growth, whether capital earns an adequate return, and whether the asset’s value increases over time.
“Net unit growth is an entirely logical measure for an asset-light operator,” said Wayne Williams, chief financial officer of Minor Hotels. “It shows how efficiently the system is expanding and how future revenues and fee streams are generated. However, you shouldn’t confuse that with an owner metric.”
According to Williams, owners have their own scorecard. They want to know how revenue converts into EBITDA, how much cash an asset generates, whether costs flex appropriately with demand, and what return they’re earning on the capital committed.
That matters more to owners in today’s development environment. The cost of getting a signing decision wrong is higher than it was five years ago, as expensive capital, higher development costs, and project delays put greater pressure on hotels to justify the investment and deliver the returns assumed at signing. That makes the quality of growth just as important as its pace.
The Alignment Test
The hotel industry’s move toward asset-light growth has its advantages. Operators can expand faster, enter more markets, and build larger distribution and loyalty platforms without committing the capital required to own the underlying real estate. However, the capital requirement doesn’t disappear.
“The underlying hotel hasn’t suddenly become light,” Williams said. “What changes in an asset-light model is the responsibility. It’s someone else’s money at risk, and operators need to act accordingly.”
That creates an alignment question. When an operator recommends a renovation, a technology investment, a new restaurant concept, or a repositioning, would it make the same recommendation if the money being spent were its own?
Minor Hotels has an unusual vantage point on that question. Around 70% of its existing portfolio is owned, leased, or otherwise involves Minor having capital exposure. At the same time, more than 85% of its extended pipeline is now asset-light, up from roughly 70% a year earlier. That means the company is expanding through more asset-light deals without giving up the owner exposure that shapes how it assesses capital, costs, and returns.
According to Williams, this matters because Minor experiences financing costs, labor expenses, energy bills, renovation cycles, technology investments, and cash generation directly, and those pressures affect how the company evaluates capital.
The company evaluates how much capital each opportunity requires, the incremental earnings it could generate, the assumptions underpinning those returns, the downside risks, and whether investing that capital elsewhere could produce a better return.
“Capital allocation approval is not the end of the story for us. We keep challenging the assumptions as each project develops,” Williams said. “If the economics change, we may change the scope, phase the investment, delay it, or decide not to proceed.”
Ownership As a Testing Ground
Minor Hotels put this thinking into practice across its European portfolio in 2023 and 2024, when it identified 43 existing hotels where renovation or repositioning could improve performance. The company committed more than $110 million to those assets. The investment did not add any rooms to Minor’s portfolio, but it did change the economics of the existing hotels. EBITDA across the 43 properties increased by close to 40% by 2025, compared with approximately 14% for comparable hotels over the same period.
“Being accretive to earnings is important, and the path you take to get there matters,” Williams said. “It’s counterintuitive to net unit growth, but when you’re focused on earnings, that becomes an important part of how you think about growth.”
Minor also uses its owned portfolio to test new concepts before taking them to third-party owners. The company invested over $11 million in Layan Life in Phuket, a purpose-built medical wellness and longevity facility. Minor is using the property to test the concept’s economics, assess customer demand, and refine its distribution and marketing model. The company can then use those lessons to improve the proposition before asking other owners to invest in a similar concept.
“Having skin in the game doesn’t guarantee every decision will be right,” Williams said. “However, when your own capital is at risk, you feel the consequences directly. That gives you a more honest feedback loop of what worked, what didn’t, and what needs to change.”
The company is also applying the model behind the scenes by first testing cloud-based financial systems, automation, and changes to its commercial operating model across its owned hotels. It intends to refine those systems before considering a broader rollout to third-party properties.
What Owners Should Ask Before Signing
None of this means scale has stopped mattering. Large systems can bring distribution reach, loyalty members, purchasing power, investment capacity, and diversification. However, scale needs to be paired with speed — the ability to respond when demand shifts, costs move, or an investment stops performing as expected.
That agility begins at the hotel level. Minor builds budgets and forecasts from the individual property level upward, considering market mix, geographic source markets, cost flexibility, and productivity before rolling those insights into the wider portfolio.
Williams believes that should change the questions owners choosing an operator should ask. Brand contribution, loyalty reach, and distribution remain important. However, owners should also ask what those capabilities contribute to their particular hotel after accounting for associated costs, how quickly an operator can respond when margins come under pressure, and whether the operator has experience turning investment into measurable improvements in earnings and asset value.
“If this were your money, would you still recommend that I make this investment?” he said.
That question is more relevant as Minor itself grows through an increasingly asset-light pipeline. Ownership and asset-light expansion don’t have to sit on opposite sides of the industry’s development debate. Maintaining capital exposure can make an operator more effective at asset-light growth by keeping each hotel’s economics visible.
Owners must make that judgment before they sign, renew, convert, or commit more capital. Pipeline growth can show an operator’s ambitions, but it can’t tell them whether the decisions made after signing will protect and grow their asset’s value.
“Ultimately, owners should be looking for an operator that understands their hotel as an individual business, not simply another flag in the system,” said Williams.
To explore development and partnership opportunities with Minor Hotels, visit www.minorhotels.com/en/development.
This content was created collaboratively by Minor Hotels and Switch Studio.
Source: skift.com
