Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
With inflation rampant, everyone is concerned about money and the economy -- not just the prices on everyday goods and services, but their investments as well. The situation has people on edge. Rick Franza, dean of Hull College of Business at Augusta University, said there are differences between the economy and the markets. “Part of that is in the economy, we worry about now and the stock market is more forward-looking, so there’s always some disconnect between the financial markets and the economic reality," Franza said. "The disconnect seems to be worse than ever. There’s less correlation between the economic news and where the stock market goes.” “We used to think that a good jobs report would make a good economy, and typically it does, but in the last couple of months when the jobs report was good, the market has tanked. People are reading it as the strong job market means inflation is not under control." Franza indicated there is a fear factor when it comes to the stock market and its steady decline over the last nine months. Younger investors in the market haven’t seen many bad times, so they are fearful. He also said people nearing retirement are fleeing the market as well. When it comes to the drop in the stock market, it affects anyone who has investments. “Most of us have some kind of investments, especially in retirement accounts,” Franza added. Inflation though, has been the dominating factor in the market right now. "The impact of inflation will be more on small businesses. The large businesses will find a way to weather the storm. If inflation continues and companies can’t be profitable, they’ll start laying off people. Then we’ll have a recession, which will reduce inflation.” It could also have a rippling affect on consumer choices and ultimately costs. “If more companies go out of business, it’ll give us fewer choices, which means the supply chain will be restricted. Then, you’ll pay higher prices because of fewer options. In the long run, if the Fed sticks to its plan to keep raising rates, it will reduce inflation.” If you're looking to know more about this important topic, then let us help. Franza is available to speak with media about trending issues like inflation, small business and the economy – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Last month, workers at an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island voted to unionize. In the decision's wake, employees across other firms—backed by national labor organizations—are following suit. Villanova University economics professor Cheryl Carleton, PhD, explains that the successful warehouse unionization in New York (a grassroots initiative) is changing the way we view labor unions. "It prevents employees from thinking about unions as just the large existing unions," notes Dr. Carleton. "Workers themselves can coalesce and maintain a unified front to negotiate for what they need from firms." And if unions succeed, firms without unions must compete to entice employees to their operations. As a counterweight to growing unionization efforts, companies have increasingly engaged in the use of intimidation tactics. We see this in the ways firms retaliate against union organizers. "Many large firms that have lots of money and have fostered strong relationships with political powers do not want to let workers have a stronger voice in negotiation of wages, benefits and work rules. They will try to have these unions nullified or intimidate workers not to join them," says Dr. Carleton. "There has been considerable consolidation in industries in the United States, which gives firms a lot more power." And according to economics professor Mary Kelly, PhD, "firms will argue that if they compensate existing [union-represented] workers with higher pay, better benefits and improved working conditions, those higher costs will limit the number of new workers hired, encourage the replacement of some labor with capital/technology if possible and/or 'force' prices higher to consumers." But even if unionization fails, there are still costs to the company. "We see this now with companies increasing the benefits they provide and spending more money to prevent more unionization efforts. The 'spillover' effects of the presence or threat of unions increases cost to firms," says Dr. Carleton. But we still don't know the final economic impact of unionization. "Companies, the stock market and shareholders always respond to change and uncertainty, so when a company unionizes it is a period of uncertainty," says Dr. Carleton. "If the company does unionize, does it create more stability and more profitability? Or does it end up being more costly for the firm? Time will tell!" Despite all the uncertainty, "the idea of unions and the need for unions is still present, and the current labor market situation has given workers the impetus they need," Dr. Carleton says. "Unions are necessary to stand up to industries. Each worker has little power, but combined workers have a stronger voice."
Market jitters making you anxious? Our expert might have the remedy to calm your nerves.
So far, 2022 has been, in a word, volatile. With the emergence of omicron, supply chain issues choking the economy, inflation the highest it has been in decades and now the war drums beating in Europe, investors are getting nervous and the markets are showing the strain. As political guru James Carville once said, "It's the economy, stupid!" Following that sage advice, Augusta University’s Wendy Habegger is here to offer expert perspective to journalists looking to figure out just what’s going on with the markets and what investors and the public can expect in the coming months. Q: What's the best advice to give people when the stock market is on such a roller coaster ride? “Frankly put, if one can't stomach when the roller coaster drops, don't get on the ride. If one does not have much tolerance for risk, they should not invest in the stock market. If one is already invested in the stock market and breaking into a cold sweat every time they look at their stocks, then they need to take a cash position, meaning cash out of the stock market. The market does not reward anyone based upon their level of anxiety. What good is making gains on stocks if one will turn around and spend those gains treating their ulcers? I liken it to pro sports athletes who don't retire when they are still healthy. What good is all the money they earned if they are only going to be spending it on medical treatments for the rest of their lives? What kind of quality of life is that?" Q: With the market trending down right now, if people can invest, is this the best time to do so? “Whenever the market trends down, it is always a great time to buy stable companies with solid cash flows and certain commodities. Look for those companies and commodities that always do well regardless of what is happening in the economy. But remember my response to the above question. One should do this if and only if they can tolerate risk.” Q: Should people look at safer places to put their money for the time being, and what would some of those places be? “Again, this depends upon their level of risk tolerance. If they are risk tolerant, they should shift into less risky investments. If they are not risk tolerant, cash out and put it in their savings accounts or CDs.” Q: Does the emergency fund rule of thumb still come in to play, maybe now more than ever? “Yes, but I don't go by the standard rule of thumb for emergency savings – having three to six months of expenses saved. I teach students their goal should be to have 12 months of expenses saved. The three to six months rule is obsolete. We saw this with the recession of 2007-09 and with the pandemic. People need to be able to live without employment longer because there is no definitive time frame for when one will find gainful employment and the government should not be relied upon to support the mass population in the meantime. Also, even when the government does provide assistance, not everyone receives it and some still never recover from the aftermath. “ The economy is front and center for just about every American business, investor and household – and if you’re a reporter looking to know more, then let us help. Wendy Habegger is a respected finance expert available to offer advice on making the right money moves during volatile times. If you’re looking to arrange an interview, simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
The Rise and Fall of Cryptocurrency—Again
2021 saw a meteoric rise in the value of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. In addition, a reported 16% of Americans say they have invested in, traded or used cryptocurrency. But over the last two months, the value has dropped significantly. In September, El Salvador made Bitcoin a legal tender in the country and lost more than 20% of its investment in the four months since, resulting in the International Monetary Fund asking the country to stop its embrace of the currency. We have seen this song and dance before with cryptocurrency values dramatically rising and falling, but where do we go from here? According to Villanova University's John Sedunov, PhD, an associate professor of finance, people might have invested in crypto as a hedge against rising inflation in the last year because there weren't alternatives to the stock market, which itself has seen its fair share of volatility. If that trend continues and inflation concerns aren't erased, more Americans could invest in crypto. As crypto continues to work its way into the everyday vernacular, there could be an interesting player to help bring it more mainstream: traditional banks. Recently, JPMorgan announced a $12 billion investment into technology. JPMorgan, which has already launched one of its own digital coins, is ahead of the competition. "I think if anything is going to lead the way, as backwards as it is, it will be the traditional banks, specifically JPMorgan," Dr. Sedunov said. "Their reputation will bring competitors to market, allowing for the potential to become more mainstream." One of the key things, Dr. Sedunov notes, is that there needs to be wide knowledge and understanding about how cryptocurrency, and the blockchain where it's stored, actually works. "Until it's easier to understand and explain and becomes common knowledge, it's going to be a rough ride. It has to get to the point where the utility and ease of use is not trivial. It's very easy to buy it, but to spend or move it, it's a painful process to avoid fees. It has to be easier to access."
Emory Experts - Post-Financial Crisis: How Well do Mutual Fund Stocks Fare?
Following the global financial crisis in 2008, the assets of passively managed mutual funds have ballooned, while the market share of actively managed funds has fallen dramatically. Addressing this topic, a new research has been coauthored by Jeffrey “Jeff” Busse, professor of finance, and Goizueta alumni Kiseo Chung 17PhD, assistant professor of finance, Texas Tech University and Badrinath Kottimukkalur 17PhD, assistant professor of finance, George Washington University. In their paper, the researchers explain the shift in assets from actively managed funds to passive funds, “Impediments to Active Stock Selection and the Growth in Passive Fund Management. In 1999, Busse and his coauthors explain, the net assets of passive funds were “less than an eighth the assets of active funds.” But by the end of 2019, “the market share of passive equity funds increased to more than 50 percent,” Busse, Chung, and Kottimukkalur note. Passive funds track indices such as the S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ Composite, and Wilshire 5000—all indices that have been difficult to beat over the last decade. According to the Wall Street Journal, from 2008 to 2018, more than 80 percent of actively managed funds in the U.S. underperformed the S&P Composite 1500. This is in large part, the trio notes in their paper, because the so-called “FAANG” stocks—Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google—comprise such a large part of these indices. In fact, the top 10 stocks in the S&P 500 currently make up around 30 percent of its market cap. “The market caps of these companies are huge, and they’ve done exceptionally well since the financial crisis,” Busse explains. Hence, active fund managers and their teams of analysts have found it much more challenging to discover undervalued and overlooked stocks with positive alphas ─ the stocks that outperform an index. “As such, a general move toward passively managed funds is not so surprising,” the paper reveals. Finding Diamonds and Avoiding Duds Making it even more difficult to find diamonds in the rough is a lack of volatility in the stock market. Except for some isolated periods, including the month or so around the start of the pandemic in March 2020, the market hasn’t experienced much volatility since 2008. Without wide swings in prices, fund managers have less opportunity to buy low and sell high. Over the same time period, aggregate stock liquidity has also been high, which means less chance for fund managers to pick up winners at bargain prices. “When there’s money in the market—when there’s liquidity—it means there aren’t a lot of disagreements on prices,” explains Busse. “Liquidity is inversely related to mispricing,” the researchers explain in their paper. This combination of circumstances—the rise of the FAANG stocks, the lack of market volatility, and higher liquidity—is making it much more difficult for actively managed funds to find stocks that will help their funds beat the indices, and therefore, outperform the passive funds. As a result, justifying their management fees gets more complicated. According to Thomson Reuters Lipper, the average expense ratio (management fees divided by total investment in a fund) for actively managed funds is 1.4 percent compared to 0.6 percent for the average passive fund—nearly three times as much. While active fund managers have realized that these higher costs are no longer paying off and have moved to reduce them, actively managed funds continue to lose market share. Market Share Gain of Passively Managed Funds While the authors weren’t surprised by the growth of passively managed funds, they were surprised by how much they grew. From 1999 to 2019, the authors note, the number of actively managed funds grew by 11 percent, while the number of passively managed funds increased by 244 percent. “There haven’t been any papers that try to explain why passive funds have gained so much market share,” says Busse. He and his coauthors believe their research illustrates that it’s in large part because the market, post-financial crisis, is challenging for stock pickers. “As such, it has been difficult for actively-managed funds to recoup the costs associated with active management, and compared to earlier periods, passively managed funds are better positioned to gain market share,” they explain. “As the payoffs to active management decrease, it becomes more difficult to justify the costs of active management, and, thus, we expect funds to decrease these costs given their negative performance implications.” Busse doesn’t believe the current fund management environment will continue indefinitely. When the pandemic knocked the S&P 500 down 30 percent in March 2020, managers did gain opportunities to find positive alpha stocks—which they bought. “It’s just, on average, over the last 10 years, there haven’t been enough of those opportunities,” explains Busse. “It’s a matter of hanging in there and, in some sense, keeping your investors from fleeing to passive funds until the environment is a little bit better.” Jeffrey Busse is the Goizueta Foundation Term Professor of Finance where his research focuses on investments, with an emphasis on mutual funds. Jeff is available to speak with the media regarding this important topic – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Brexit: UK services are losing out to EU rivals – but Asia could be big winner
"Seven months after Britain’s exit from the EU, the chilly effects on UK trade are being felt. Total exports of UK goods and services were down by 13% (£36 billion) and imports down 22% (£66 billion) for January to May 2021 compared to the same period in 2019." Professor Jun Du, Aston Business School Singapore looks like one of the big winners from Brexit. joyfull In a separate new ONS report into UK services, exports and imports fell 12% and 24% in the first quarter of 2021 compared to the same period in 2019. To some extent this is due to the pandemic, but the decline with EU countries was more severe (exports down 15% and imports by 39%), which suggests Brexit was relevant too. The difference between services exports to EU and non-EU countries was particularly marked in sectors like construction (-43% vs +24%), maintenance and repair (-62% vs +11%), and manufacturing services (-40% vs -12%). It seems to confirm that the UK’s services offering has been made less competitive by the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement hardly covering such business. This has left EU members free to decide whether to allow different UK providers into their markets. But as we shall see, other services exporting countries outside the EU may also benefit as a result. In our recent paper, Ireland looked like the big winner. It has probably benefited from firms relocating and business being re-routed from the UK, not to mention low corporation tax and a young well-educated workforce. Between 2016 and 2019, Ireland’s services exports rose 24% (that’s €144 billion or £123 billion), driven by financial services, IT and transport. Speculation still abounds about which other EU cities will benefit in the medium term. Amsterdam surpassed London as Europe’s largest share-trading centre in January by absorbing much trade in euro-denominated assets, though London has been back on top recently. Other potential winners include Frankfurt (banking), Luxembourg (banking and asset management) and Paris (financial, professional and business services). Even a less serious contender like Berlin can attract tech talents thanks to its culture clusters and affordability. On the other hand, most financial traders have so far remained in London. The city is still strong in hosting stock market flotations and other forms of capital raising. And the flow of financial jobs out of London has been a fraction of what remainers predicted. A four-year regulatory transition period for areas like data protection and electronic trade will undoubtedly be helping. London vs EU rivals is only half the story. James Padolsey/Unsplash, CC BY-SA Yet all this misses a bigger picture, namely that Europe’s ability to provide services may have been weakened overall. Imagine a group of US investors wants to invest £1 billion in European shares and other financial assets. In the past it might have set up a fund in London, making use of the city’s network of lawyers, accountants, bankers and other finance professionals, while filtering some of the work to specialists in, say, Paris and Frankfurt for issues related to France and Germany. But now Brexit means the fund can’t invest in certain EU securities from London. The investors would have to set up a second fund in, say, Dublin to get exposure to all the EU assets they want. The additional expense and time involved makes them decide it will be more lucrative to set up an Asia-focused fund in Singapore instead. When you multiply this effect across every sector, it is potentially huge. Certainly some investors will decide to either switch attention from the UK to EU countries, or to live with the extra cost of doing business across both the UK and EU. But others are deciding that an opportunity somewhere else in the world now looks more attractive. The danger is that this adds up to a global shift in economic weight over time. In fact, we could be seeing signs of this already. Winners and losers In follow-on research that we have yet to publish, we have been analysing the services exports of the major service providers in Europe and globally, using trade data jointly collected by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The data shows the UK was and is the biggest services exporter in Europe and second only to the US worldwide, but appears to have been losing ground since Brexit. Ireland and the Netherlands are the major growth stories in Europe, while China, India and Singapore are leading the way elsewhere. Services exports by country, 2019 vs 2015 Trends in services exports. Left: 2015 data in solid coloured bars; 2019 change in yellow markers. Right: Green bars represent accelerating service growth; red bars represent decelerating growth. BaTIS The UK’s services growth trend fell 11% in the 2016-2019 period compared to 2010-15. This backs up our recent published research finding that the UK’s global share of exported services fell from 8.9% in 2005 to 7% in 2019. Meanwhile, France, Spain, Italy and Belgium’s growth has also been declining, while Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Austria and also the US were static. Ireland was the fastest growing services exporter among all, but Singapore and India gained momentum too. Strikingly, we see increasing growth in Asia between 2016 and 2019 in sectors like travel, financial, IT and creative services. This includes extraordinary growth in Singapore in finance, business, insurance and pension provision, and also in China in numerous segments. It looks like nothing short of a boom. Shanghai has been on the up and up. Krzystsztof Kotkowicz, CC BY-SA This may partly reflect the industrial transformation taking place in the Asian developing world from manufacturing to services. It may also capture a long-term shift of services centres from the west to the east – a reshuffle on a truly global scale. But at the same time, it’s evidence that Brexit has weakened the UK as the European centre for services. Yes, business shifted to Ireland (and Luxembourg) to some extent, but that could be hiding a wider collective setback. The question for the years ahead, for the UK and its European services peers, is whether they can come up with arrangements that help maintain their collective strengths – and to what extent they can exploit opportunities elsewhere, particularly on developing countries, where US services providers have traditionally been far ahead. This article was co-written by Professor Jun Du and Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo.
Study of auto recalls shows carmakers delay announcements until they can 'hide in the herd'
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. - Automotive recalls are occurring at record levels, but seem to be announced after inexplicable delays. A research study of 48 years of auto recalls announced in the United States finds carmakers frequently wait to make their announcements until after a competitor issues a recall - even if it is unrelated to similar defects. This suggests that recall announcements may not be triggered solely by individual firms' product quality defect awareness or concern for the public interest, but may also be influenced by competitor recalls, a phenomenon that no prior research had investigated. Researchers analyzed 3,117 auto recalls over a 48-year period -- from 1966 to 2013 -- using a model to investigate recall clustering and categorized recalls as leading or following within a cluster. They found that 73 percent of recalls occurred in clusters that lasted 34 days and had 7.6 following recalls on average. On average, a cluster formed after a 16-day gap in which no recalls were announced. They found 266 such clusters over the period studied. "The implication is that auto firms are either consciously or unconsciously delaying recall announcements until they are able to hide in the herd," said George Ball, assistant professor of operations and decision technologies and Weimer Faculty Fellow at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. "By doing this, they experience a significantly reduced stock penalty from their recall." Ball is co-author of the study, "Hiding in the Herd: The Product Recall Clustering Phenomenon," recently published online in Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, along with faculty at the University of Illinois, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Minnesota and Michigan State University. Researchers found as much as a 67 percent stock market penalty difference between leading recalls, which initiate the cluster, and following recalls, who follow recalls and hide in the herd to experience a lower stock penalty. This indicates a "meaningful financial incentive for auto firms to cluster following recalls behind a leading recall announcement," researchers said. "This stock market penalty difference dissipates over time within a cluster. Additionally, across clusters, the stock market penalty faced by the leading recall amplifies as the time since the last cluster increases." The authors also found that firms with the highest quality reputation, in particular Toyota, triggered the most recall followers. "Even though Toyota announces some of the fewest recalls, when they do announce a recall, 31 percent of their recalls trigger a cluster and leads to many other following recalls," Ball said. "This number is between 5 and 9 percent for all other firms. This means that firms are likely to hide in the herd when the leading recall is announced by a firm with a stellar quality reputation such as Toyota. "A key recommendation of the study is for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require auto firms to report the specific defect awareness date for each recall, and to make this defect awareness date a searchable and publicly available data field in the auto recall dataset NHTSA provides online," Ball added. "This defect awareness date is required and made available by other federal regulators that oversee recalls in the U.S., such as the Food and Drug Administration. Making this defect awareness date a transparent, searchable and publicly available data field may discourage firms from hiding in the herd and prompt them to make more timely and transparent recall decisions." Co-authors of the study were Ujjal Mukherjee, assistant professor of business administration at the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois who was the lead author; Kaitlin Wowak, assistant professor of IT, analytics, and operations at the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame; Karthik Natarajan, assistant professor of supply chain and operations at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota; and Jason Miller, associate professor of supply chain management at the Broad College of Business at Michigan State University.
What Does the GameStop Buying Spree Tell Us?
Villanova School of Business assistant professor Keith Wright was in the chat rooms when individual investors were discussing pumping up the GameStop stock and forcing the hedge fund shorts to have to cover, losing millions of dollars. "At the time, David was clearly beating Goliath," says Wright, adding that some of the young people on Reddit had done extremely well. "They made significant money on their investments. Some of them were a little late; you don’t want to be the last one in who takes the position at the top." He adds, "I have a feeling that this may actually be something revolutionary, and we're seeing the bottom of the pyramid—which is Generation Z, the Millennials, the Robin Hood investors—really changing the game." "Going forward, you've got this group that's collaborating, and that makes them extremely powerful," says Wright. "If they all follow each other into a position, they can really move markets in any direction they choose... Are they powerful enough as a group to defeat the hedge funds? Now, maybe they win this battle and they lose the war. Or maybe they win this battle and they decide to try a couple of others. This is not the only occurrence; this is one stock, but it's happening in a couple of other positions as well." As to whether a group of people should have this type of an effect on the stock market, Wright suggests that maybe it's a good thing. "We live in an economy where wealth is very unbalanced. You have a lot of people at the very top who are doing extremely well. But there is some inequity, and these short sellers used to crush the average retail investor, but no longer. Maybe this will create some equity, and maybe it will even the playing field a little bit."
It’s here and it’s time America got serious about Covid-19, known as coronavirus. The CDC is working overtime, and leading government health officials are scrambling to ensure hospitals are equipped, front-line health providers are ready and the public is informed. But with any emergency, there comes the risk of misinformation and unnecessary worry. As the new coronavirus outbreak becomes an ever-looming threat in the United States, state infectious disease specialists say the first step to staying safe is this: Remain calm. Also, don’t worry about buying a mask. “You really have to make sure you get the accurate information and not … ‘Lock your doors, close the windows, buy a generator and hope for the best,’” said Dr. Peter Gulick, an infectious disease expert at the Michigan State University's College of Osteopathic Medicine and director of the MSU Internal Medicine Osteopathic Residency program. That’s not only alarmist and bad advice, he said, it’s a waste of energy. The best advice — like these tips from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — is tried-and-true, Gulick said: Wash hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. It’s especially important after using the bathroom, before eating, and after blowing your nose, coughing or sneezing. No soap and water? Use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60 percent alcohol. Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth with unwashed hands. Avoid close contact with people who are sick. If you’re sick, stay home. Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash. Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces using a regular household cleaning spray or wipe. If you think you’ve come in contact with someone with the virus (there have been no confirmed cases yet in Michigan) contact your health provider immediately. February 26 – The Bridge Regrettably, that too can often lead to financial reactions that can ripple across the economy. Lately, the surging stock market has plunged with worries from investors and Wall Street about how America’s workforce will be impacted if the virus spreads. Friday ended the worst week the stock market has had since 2008. NBC News 6 sat down with the Dean of the Broad College of Business at Michigan State University, Sanjay Gupta, to talk more about the stocks and what to expect after this week. “The stock market is clearly spooked, and it has become nervous with whatever is going on in the business world,” said Gupta. What has ‘spooked’ the business world, is COVID-19. “The coronavirus is quarantined lots of factories, in fact the whole country,” said Gutpa. Gutpa says the halt in Chinese manufacturing also limits businesses and goods here in the United States. “In our day to day lives, either there will be some things that we count on that may not be available. It might be that the priciest of those things that we count on change, or go up dramatically because we are so dependent on a foreign source,” said Gutpa. February 29 – WLNS TV Covering an outbreak like Covid-19 isn’t easy, there are multiple angles to explore and it is vital that only the correct facts are shared by media to the millions of viewers, readers and listeners that are waiting for the latest information – and that’s where our experts can help. Sanjay Gupta is the Eli and Edythe L. Broad Dean of the Eli Broad College of Business. He is an expert in the areas of corporate and individual tax policy issues and finance. Peter Gulick is currently an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Both experts have already been sought out by the media for their expert insight on this issue – if you are interested in arranging an interview, simply click on either expert’s profile to arrange a time today.
Smooth Operator: When earnings management is a good thing
New research from the Kelley School of Business makes the case that smoothing the numbers can be beneficial – if you’ve got the right team in place to handle the job. Smoothing, in this case, means adjusting accounting reserves up or down. And contrary to the common wisdom that all earnings management is bad, researchers have identified a setting in which it can be good. In a paper titled “Managerial Ability and Income Smoothing,” David Farber, associate professor of accounting at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business at IUPUI, and fellow researchers Bok Baik of Seoul National University and Sunhwa Choi of Sungkyunkwan University find that when high ability management teams use their discretion to smooth bumps in earnings, future earnings and cash flows become more predictable and a firm’s stock price improves. “We found that more capable managers who use discretionary accounting choices to signal future performance provide more useful financial reporting,” said Farber. “Firms with high ability managers who smooth earnings have more predictable earnings and cash flows, and the stock market incorporates that information into a firm’s stock price. High ability management teams are better able to anticipate changes in their firms’ prospects and can therefore better estimate accrual adjustments necessary to smooth their earnings. These managers are trying to communicate to the market by saying, essentially, ‘We had some volatility in earnings this period, but going forward, we expect earnings to follow the path based on the smoother earnings.’” The study also showed that if a firm’s management team is not high ability and they attempt to smooth earnings, the firm will likely see negative implications, like less predictable earnings and lower stock prices. Additionally, the reputations of managers in these firms will likely suffer. A final version of the paper will be published in The Accounting Review, one of the top scholarly accounting journals in the world, in July 2020.