Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Careful what you click – FaceApp is all the rage, but should we be more careful with what we share?
You can’t avoid it…just about everywhere you venture this week on social media, you’ll see friends, family members and even celebrities posting pics of what they’ll supposedly look like as they age gracefully into the future. It’s done with a new downloadable app, FaceApp, and it seems harmless enough until you read the fine print. “You grant FaceApp a perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully-paid, transferable sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, publicly perform and display your User Content and any name, username or likeness provided in connection with your User Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed, without compensation to you. When you post or otherwise share User Content on or through our Services, you understand that your User Content and any associated information (such as your [username], location or profile photo) will be visible to the public.” – FaceApp terms of use For the more than 100 million people who have already used FaceApp, there are a few questions to be asked: Is this standard for downloadable apps or are these terms a new trend? What could FaceApp actually use this data for and what value does it hold? What are the concerns about privacy and protection of personal information? Is there a real reason to worry and can lawmakers take any recourse? If you are a reporter looking to learn more about FaceApp and data protection – let our experts help. Sarah Rees is the director of Augusta University’s Cyber Workforce Academy and she is an expert in the areas of cyber security and information protection. She’s available to speak to media regarding FaceApp – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
Tournament strategies: Collusion or competition?
As many as one-third of US corporations make use of tournament incentive schemes, where compensation is linked to employees’ performance and ranking. But how does the degree of mutual monitoring— the ability of employees to observe each other’s productive activities—affect effort? In a study on mutual monitoring and rank-order tournaments, Lynn Hannan (Tulane); Kristy Towry, Goizueta Term Chair and associate professor of accounting; and Yue (May) Zhang (Northeastern) conduct two experiments to determine whether employees are more likely to collude, resulting in lower effort, or to compete, resulting in higher effort, when they are able to monitor each other during a tournament. They find that mutual monitoring can actually work in either direction, and that it depends on the workplace culture. For example, when management practices are perceived to be unfair, this creates a general inclination for workers to collude against management. In this case, mutual monitoring will amplify the collusion, resulting in lower effort. Likewise, when the workplace culture encourages competition, mutual monitoring contribute to higher effort. Source:
CFOs & earnings misrepresentation
The quality of a company’s earnings is determined by controllable factors, such as internal controls and corporate governance, and noncontrollable factors, such as industry and economic conditions. But CFOs also have considerable influence over the communication and presentation of those earnings. In a new research study, Ilia Dichev, Goizueta Foundation Chair, professor of accounting, and coauthors John Graham (Duke U), Campbell R. Harvey (Duke U), and Shiva Rajgopal (Columbia U) note that discretion in accounting methods allows CFOs to misrepresent earnings. CFOs are motivated to misrepresent earnings in order to increase stock price and meet earnings targets, as well as boost their own compensation and career profile. The authors conducted a survey of 375 CFOs to explore their definition of earnings quality and ways to determine earnings misrepresentation. The authors concluded that “in any given period, a remarkable 20% of companies intentionally distort earnings, even while adhering to GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).” The study found a number of red flags for earnings misrepresentation, including “a lack of correspondence between GAAP earnings and cash flows from operations, and unexplained deviations from peer and industry norms.” Source:
Somewhere in California Mark Zuckerberg is smiling. That’s because earlier this week his company saw a $934 million reduction in its income-tax provision all coming from a new rule affecting the accounting for stock payments to employees. And Facebook isn’t alone. The new rules affect all companies like Microsoft and other corporations that rely on employee stock compensation as incentive. And with this week’s announcement of close to a billion dollars – expect more to get on board. But with accounting rules like this – who wins, who pays and obviously, someone out there must be making up the difference? Is this good for the economy or just another example of how enormous companies are finding ways of paying fewer and fewer taxes? Clever accounting is never simple to explain – that’s where the Kelly School of Business can help. Laureen Maynes is the Executive Associate Dean of Faculty and Research at The Indiana University’s Kelly School of Business. Laureen is an expert in the fields accounting and financial services and is a leading opinion on this topic. She can help explain how companies are reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits and why it is allowed. Simply click on her icon to arrange an interview. Source:
