Calories in, calories out – obesity and the energy imbalance gap — Hazhir Rahmandad

From The Conversation

The prevailing notion about obesity is that if we just work out harder and eat a little bit better, then perhaps the obesity trend will subside in a few years. However, the key to really making a difference is food – the number of calories we eat is the most important factor in obesity. But changing the way people eat will take a very long time.

Things like individual routines, menus, food access and affordability, and cultural practices all influence how we live and eat. All of these things can influence the energy imbalance gap (EIG). The EIG is essentially how many calories you consume versus how many calories you burn in a day. It controls the speed of change in body mass and is at the core of understanding obesity.

Read More »

Impressions of Seattle from an MBA trekker — Brittany Greenfield

Brittany Greenfield, MIT Sloan MBA '16

Brittany Greenfield, MIT Sloan MBA ’16

From GeekWire

When considering where to go on an MBA Technology Trek, Seattle was a no-brainer.

It wasn’t just that the city is home to some of the world’s leading technology companies, but Seattle has successfully created a technology innovation ecosystem — one that spawned many of the past few year’s largest tech IPOs. It is the philosophy of not resting on one’s laurels that has created longevity in Seattle’s companies, and provided important lessons for MBA students. My goal on a recent MIT Sloan Technology Trek was to understand the strategies, cultures, and goals that have propelled Seattle companies’ long-term success.

Read More »

Opinion: How you can use earnings release dates to predict stock movements — Eric So

MIT Sloan Asst. Prof. Eric So

From MarketWatch

If you have good news, you want to rush to tell people about it. If you have bad news, you tend to stall, hoping it will go away or that some good news will come along to dilute it. Companies, it turns out, behave similarly — and therein lies an extraordinary opportunity that most investors have been missing.

I recently studied whether the announcements companies make when they reschedule earnings reports contain important information about the firms. This earnings season, for instance, investors may notice that Apple Inc.AAPL, -0.53%   moved forward its expected earnings announcement date to Oct. 20 from Oct. 28. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola Co. KO, -0.64%   has delayed its expected reporting date to Oct. 21 from Oct. 14.

What can investors predict from such behavior? Often, quite a lot.

When companies shift a scheduled reporting date, the announcement typically appears routine. Some financial reporting dates are set by regulation, but firms have discretion in scheduling earnings reports.

In this study, I analyzed the corporate reporting calendars of some 19,000 companies from 2006 through 2013. Wall Street Horizon, Inc., a firm that collects events information of publicly traded companies, provided the data.

I discovered that firms which moved up their reporting dates were considerably more likely to report higher earnings, while those that delayed their reporting dates tended to announce earnings declines. The stock values of the companies tracked closely with the earnings trends.

Read More »

Google and the right to be forgotten — Catherine Tucker

MIT Sloan Assoc. Prof. Catherine Tucker

From Nikkei Business

The European Court of Justice’s ruling that Google must honor individuals’ requests to be removed from search results—the right to be forgotten, as it has come to be known—is a misguided attempt to address one of the more unfortunate aspects of the digital age.

Although digital technology has brought many wondrous advances, it also has spawned problems. Among the most serious is what I call digital persistence or the tendency of information in digital format to last for a very long time—regardless of its accuracy.

In the analog era, if a telephone directory listed a number incorrectly, the result would be missed calls and wrong numbers until a new directory was published a year later. But in the digital world, wrong information gets repeated again and again, often showing up long after the original mistake was made.

While digital technology can perpetuate the mistakes others make about us, it also has the same effect on the mistakes we make ourselves. For example, young people by nature do silly things. Sometimes they take digital photos of themselves doing these silly things. The pictures can resurface years or decades later, when the actions no longer seem so amusing.

An approach that addresses these problems by targeting Google is flawed in several respects. First, while Google may be a handy scapegoat, especially in Europe, the American search giant is far from the only source of digital data that threatens the right to be forgotten. Information persists also in government records, online newspapers, and social media, as well as other search engines. To rein in Google while leaving other major information sources unimpeded will have little effect on the overall problem.

Second, the European Court of Justice’s actions ignore the nature of search engines. They work so well because they are automated. The combination of sophisticated algorithms, high-speed networks, and the Internet’s vast stores of data is what produces Google’s instantaneous and usually on target results. Introduce humans into this formula via requests to be forgotten and Google’s performance will slow to a crawl.

A third problem with the ECJ’s approach is that the process of approving requests to be forgotten can have precisely the opposite effect of what the architects of the policy intended. When someone asks to be removed from search results—say, a politician concerned about rumors of an illicit affair—the request itself sparks interest. In the case of the politician combating damaging rumors, reports of a request to be forgotten prompt new speculation and more rumors, even if the politician isn’t mentioned by name.

Digital persistence unfortunately is a problem that will be with us for some time. There are no quick or easy answers. Aiming at one very big target may be a popular move, but it will not bring us any closer to resolution.

Catherine Tucker is the Mark Hyman Jr. Career Development Professor and Associate Professor of Management Science at the MIT Sloan School of Management.

Ben Shields — Thoughts on Patriots’ Deflategate

MIT Sloan Lecturer Ben Shields, the former director of social media and marketing at ESPN and co-author of The Sports Strategist, talks about deflate-gate, the investigation into whether the New England Patriots used deflated footballs in the Jan. 18 AFC championship game. Shields explains why the Patriots are prone to negative press and social media backlash and what the organization should do as a result.