Professor Bill Mayew explores whether public companies have visibility into the macroeconomy to filter errors in GDP data—and what that means for economic forecasting

Every quarter, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis releases its initial GDP estimate—a flagship measure of economic health that influences corporate boardrooms, Federal Reserve policy, and investor portfolios. But there’s a catch: these early numbers are often wrong.

In this episode, Professor Bill Mayew of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business discusses his research, published in the Journal of Accounting and Economics, on how corporations respond when government economic data contains errors. Mayew explains why concerns about a potential “macro data crisis” have gained traction and why errors in economic data are not necessarily signs of dysfunction.

Initial GDP estimates rely on incomplete survey data—less than half from actual three-month surveys—with the rest from extrapolations. The Bureau of Economic Analysis refines these estimates at the one-year and five-year marks as more data arrives. Revisions are therefore expected and necessary.

Mayew’s research examined whether large public companies with a unique pulse on the economy could see through the errors inherent in initial GDP estimates. Analyzing firm-level behavior, he and his coauthors found firms tend to take preliminary GDP figures at face value, failing to filter out the inherent noise. When GDP data signals strength in one quarter, companies increase investment, production, and inventory the next — and the same pattern occurs whether the GDP signal reflects real economic change or statistical error.

For policymakers, the findings underscore the need for caution when substituting government data with private sector sources like ADP payroll information. While private data may complement government releases in some cases, Mayew emphasizes government data from agencies like the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics still has substantial value.

Instead, he concludes, “we need to think of other ways to improve government data, which may be increasingly possible as new and creative ways of measuring economic activity occur.”

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.

Professor Tong Guo explains how mandated transparency didn't reduce pharmaceutical payments to physicians—instead, it taught companies to optimize them.

When the federal government mandated that pharmaceutical companies publicly disclose every payment to physicians—from conference sponsorships to consulting fees—policymakers expected transparency to reduce potential conflicts of interest. Instead, the payments kept flowing, and companies learned to optimize them.

In this episode, Professor Tong Guo, an associate professor of Marketing at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, discusses her study of the Sunshine Act—a federal law requiring pharmaceutical and medical device companies to publicly disclose payments to healthcare providers. Published in the Journal of Marketing Research (2021), Guo's research using advanced machine learning methods called causal forests analyzed $100 million in payments between 16 antidiabetic brands and 50,000 physicians. Her findings reveal a nuanced reality: while total payments did not decline significantly, they shifted toward physicians who prescribe more expensive drugs and generate higher ROI for firms.

As Guo explains, most disclosed payments are legal, including sponsorships for events, conference travel, and educational presentations. "Much of these expenditures are considered legal," she notes, "so it's natural that it doesn't come with much pressure to cut it down."

"For firms, the number one rule for them to run their business is always to think about their ROI model," she explains. The transparency regulation gave firms information about which competitors were reaching out to which physicians and when, allowing them to optimize their existing relationships for maximum return. When transparency gives all competitors access to the same information, firms don't retreat—they optimize.

For MBA students and professionals, Guo's findings offer critical lessons extending beyond healthcare. Transparency doesn't always lead to restraint. Understanding who benefits from newly available information—and how—is essential across industries, from healthcare to digital marketing. As Guo points out, similar disclosure regulations now apply across industries —from TikTok influencers required to disclose brand sponsorships to financial services and beyond. "Transparency regulations would not necessarily lead to drastic changes of how people practice their business," she says. Different parties have different capabilities to leverage disclosed information, potentially creating new competitive advantages rather than leveling the playing field.

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.

Professor Ali Makhdoumi reveals why your friend's social media activity might be compromising your privacy, even when you share nothing at all

Every time your colleague shares their location data or a friend posts their workout routine, they're inadvertently exposing details about you–even if you've never agreed to share your data. This hidden web of data spillovers means companies can predict your preferences, behaviors, and personal information simply by analyzing the digital footprints of people in your network.

In this episode, Professor Ali Makhdoumi of Duke University's Fuqua School of Business discusses his research on personal data markets, based on his paper "Too Much Data: Prices and Inefficiencies in Data Markets," co-authored with 2024 Nobel Prize winner Daron Acemoglu. He explains that what we think of as personal, private data is actually more like a public good. Platforms can infer your information indirectly through your connections, creating what economists call "data externalities."

Makhdoumi explores why current data markets are so structurally inefficient. When your data can be predicted from others' sharing decisions, you lose bargaining power and companies acquire personal information at depressed prices. This creates market dynamics where users share more data than is socially optimal, often receiving compensation that doesn't reflect the full social costs.

The implications extend beyond individual privacy concerns. Makhdoumi's research shows that under certain conditions, shutting down data markets entirely would improve societal welfare. For business leaders, this challenges conventional thinking about data as a valuable corporate asset and raises questions about sustainable data strategies.

Makhdoumi proposes innovative solutions, including "decorrelation" techniques that could allow beneficial data sharing while protecting privacy. He also outlines policy approaches that could help realign market incentives with social benefits. The research offers a framework for companies thinking more strategically about data acquisition, user trust, and the long-term sustainability of data-driven business models.

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.

Ronnie Chatterji, Professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of
Business and Chief Economist at OpenAI, joins Jenny Laurence, MBA '26 to discuss his recent research paper analyzing over a million ChatGPT conversations to uncover patterns in where artificial intelligence is making impacts in our homes, our work, and our lives.

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.

Trump's push to end quarterly reporting could reshape American business. Professor Rahul Vashishtha explains what research shows about the trade-offs.

When companies report earnings more frequently, they make different investment choices, often abandoning profitable long-term projects that don't pay off quickly. This behavioral shift sits at the heart of President Trump's renewed call to end quarterly reporting requirements in favor of six-month reporting cycles.

In this episode, Professor Rahul Vashishtha discusses his research examining what happened during the historical shift from annual to semi-annual to quarterly reporting between 1950 and 1970.

Vashishtha found that when companies were required to report more often, they significantly reduced their investments in long-term projects. More concerning, this investment decline was accompanied by lower productivity, reduced sales growth, and weaker financial performance. This suggests companies weren't just eliminating waste, but abandoning profitable opportunities.

This "managerial myopia" was most pronounced in industries where investments take years to pay off, precisely where quarterly earnings reports are least effective at capturing true value creation. As Vashishtha explains, "When you start increasing the frequency of your performance measures, what you do really is create a premature evaluation of decisions which are best considered over a much longer horizon."

The episode explores both sides of the reporting frequency debate, examining the trade-offs between transparency and long-term value creation. Vashishtha also offers practical advice for corporate leaders and investors on encouraging long-term thinking, including cultivating patient capital, strategic communications, and thoughtful incentive design.

Record date: September 16, 2025

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.

When a CEO speaks during an earnings call, investors typically focus on the numbers being reported. But studies suggest they should also be listening to how those numbers are delivered. The emotional undertones, vocal pitch, and subtle inflections that executives unconsciously broadcast may reveal as much about a company's future as the financial data itself.

In this episode, Professor Bill Mayew of Duke's Fuqua School of Business reflects on his research analyzing CEO voices and how vocal cues can predict market reactions and executive success. His paper, The Power of Voice: Managerial Affective States and Future Firm Performance, published in the Journal of Finance, shows that layered voice analysis can detect emotional cues in CEO communication during earnings calls. These subtle vocal signals—particularly expressions of positive or negative emotion—predict both immediate market reactions and longer-term firm performance.

Mayew's second study, Voice Pitch and the Labor Market Success of Male CEOs, analyzed the voices of nearly 800 male corporate executives and found that deeper-voiced CEOs consistently manage larger firms, earn higher compensation, and enjoy longer tenures. This correlation raises complex questions about leadership perception: Do deeper voices signal better leadership capabilities, or do early-life biases create advantages that compound over decades?

As Mayew explains, it’s difficult to disentangle perception from reality. If those with deeper voices are perceived as more authoritative beginning in childhood, they may receive more opportunities to develop actual leadership skills, making initial perceptions self-fulfilling over time.

Today, academic findings about vocal cues are driving company decision making. Some hedge funds now deploy algorithms that analyze vocal patterns in real-time during earnings calls, executing trades based on emotional cues that human listeners might miss. Recent advances in AI voice analysis are pushing this technology even further, with platforms now capable of detecting "emotional peaks" to enhance portfolio performance. Meanwhile, the same voice analysis technology originally developed for police interrogations is being repurposed to help managers craft more confident communication.

The conversation spans finance, psychology, linguistics and leadership — and will change the way you think about the most human element of communication: your voice.

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.

A casual conversation about a coworker's side business could be the spark that launches your own entrepreneurial journey. But whether that inspiration leads to action depends on factors you might not expect—including your race, gender, and workplace environment.

In this episode, Professor Melanie Wallskog shares insights from her research into how workplace exposure to entrepreneurial coworkers affects an individual’s likelihood of launching a new venture. Her work sheds light on how “entrepreneurial spillovers” occur—when simply working with someone who has previously started a business can increase your own chance of doing so.

Yet, this inspiration isn’t evenly distributed. Wallskog finds that white and Asian men are far more likely to benefit from these spillovers than women or Black workers. Women tend to be positively influenced only when the entrepreneurial coworker is also a woman. Black employees face compounded disadvantages: they’re less likely to work in entrepreneur-rich environments and less likely to be influenced even when they do.

Her findings are especially relevant for “everyday entrepreneurship”—small businesses like local stores or services, not venture-backed tech startups. These enterprises make up a large share of the U.S. economy and are often launched with personal savings. Wallskog argues that understanding the social dynamics behind who starts these businesses can help policymakers build a more inclusive entrepreneurial economy.

Companies also have a role to play. Rather than suppress entrepreneurial drive to retain talent, Wallskog suggests supporting internal innovation through flexible time, collaboration, and space to explore ideas. For aspiring entrepreneurs, the key takeaway is: learn from your peers but remember their experiences may not be your own.

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.

Our brains are wired to seek order when we feel out of control. A framed logo, an organized grocery store, and a well-designed website all provide unconscious signals of stability to consumers navigating uncertainty.

In this episode, Professor Keisha Cutright of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business discusses her research on how consumers respond to instability. In her widely cited paper, The Beauty of Boundaries: When and Why We Seek Structure in Consumption (Journal of Consumer Research), Cutright reveals that when people feel like they cannot control the outcomes in their lives, even subtle design cues become psychologically reassuring.

Cutright traces her insights back to her days at Procter & Gamble, where she first observed consumer segments deeply focused on orderly living. Her subsequent academic research revealed that this wasn’t just a preference, it was a psychological response to feeling powerless. When people believe things happen randomly in their environment, subtle cues that reflect intentionality can be comforting. These findings have proven consistent across major disruptions, from post-9/11 shopping behaviors to the surge in structured activities like baking during COVID-19.

The conversation covers practical applications for business leaders, from packaging to retail layouts and digital interfaces. Cutright explains how structured environments can serve as substitutes for community support, particularly for vulnerable populations, and why brands that understand this dynamic appeal to customers.

More than a decade after its publication, Cutright's research remains strikingly relevant as consumers navigate an increasingly uncertain world.

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.