Is a franchise tenant with no personal guarantee worth more or less than a local with one

Funded two draws on a strip in Lakeland, Florida last spring, 6,400 sf, four bays, three occupied. The anchor was a regional sandwich franchise, corporate lease, no personal guarantee because the franchisee argued the brand itself was security enough. Owner accepted that. I thought it was fine at the time.

Franchisee went dark in August. Corporate honored the lease for about six weeks, then their counsel sent a termination notice citing a clause none of us had really stress-tested. Took eleven weeks to work through, and the owner ate roughly $34,000 in lost rent and legal before a new tenant signed. The new tenant is a local tax prep shop, personal guarantee on the dotted line, shorter term, lower base rent.

What I keep thinking about is whether the franchise name on the lease actually bought anything. The owner got a tidier looking rent roll going into his refi in March, the lender liked the brand, and the rate reflected that. Then the brand walked. The local guy with a guarantee would have looked worse on paper in March and probably held up better in August.

I'm not saying franchise tenants are bad. I'm saying I watched a corporate name function as a substitute for a guarantee and then not perform like one. Now when I'm looking at a deal and someone tells me the brand is the backstop, I ask to see the assignment and termination language before I say anything else.