Will Accountants be Uberized? Part 2: Crowdsourcing and the rise of Pro-Ams

This is part 2 of a series of blogposts that I will write (aiming for 3 parts, but let's see) on how CPAs can be uberized. In this exciting installment, we explore how crowdsourcing and the rise of ProAms (professional amateurs) has altered other professionals, such as photography.

In the last installment, we explored how Uber was actually not a 1:1 replacement of the taxicab profession. Cab drivers fill a social function that ensures that people can from point A to point B safely, accommodates their disabilities and at a regulated rate. However, taxi cab still actively cash out now as we can expect Google to fill in the societal gaps that Uber appears to be unable to. Google could actually revolutionize car ownership by make their driverless cars they sell "ready-to-share" thereby enabling people to benefit from the share economy (imagine your car running around town earning money while work, sleep, play, engage in activism, etc!). Alternatively, they could go own a fleet of cars that people effectively rent in a way that's cheaper than owning a car altogether.

Crowdsourcing as Jeff Howe, who authored the original 2006 Wired article that brought notoriety to the concept, where he was trying to describe the phenomenon of using the Internet to outsource work to individuals, defines it as: “is the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call.”
 In his book he highlights the following uses to illustrate the impact of crowdsourcing on how companies do business:

• Threadless: Is a great example of how the crowdsourcing brought life into the commodity business of selling t-shirts. In a nutshell, the crowd submits t-shirts designs, then the crowd votes on what designs are best and the designs that win are sold to the same crowd who already voted on them being the best! (For more details see the wiki article on Threadless)   

• P&G hires scientists via Innocentive to solve problems that they can’t. As noted in the Wired article, Colgate-Palmolive "needed a way to inject fluoride powder into a toothpaste tube without it dispersing into the surrounding air". So the posted the challenge on Innocentive and Ed Melcarek, who has Master degree that is related to particle physics, "knew he had a solution by the time he’d finished reading the challenge: Impart an electric charge to the powder while grounding the tube. The positively charged fluoride particles would be attracted to the tube without any significant dispersion".  

• iStock Photo: Instead of hiring professional photographers to make stock photos, iStock solicits photos from the crowd. The Wired article explains how the Claudia Menashe, director at the National Health Museum, was about to buy $600 worth of stock photos from a professional photographer Mark Harmel. However, she bought the photos from iStockPhoto for a fraction of the price at $1 a piece. iStockPhoto was snatched up by GettyImages “the largest agency by far with more than 30 percent of the global market, purchased iStockphoto for $50 million”. 

• Howe's book (see pages 61-63) also discusses how NASA relied on the crowd to classify the age of craters. A professional had taken 2 years to complete a similar study that was done by these “clickworkers” over a month with results yielding a “comparable degree of accuracy”.

Can accountants/auditors be crowdsourced like the way professional photographers were? 

It seems were crowdsourcing works best is an arena where you find hobbyists who do such things out of passion instead of obligation. My dad was a hobby photographer and although I am no way near talented as he was, I love trying to capture those unique moments. For example, I was able to capture this unique division sunset with my Samsung Note 4

In other words, if I decided to put my mind to it, I could be potentially competing with Mark Harmel. 

However, are there hobby auditors or accountants out there that would compete with CPAs? 

I have yet to find one!

There's a case that can be made for the impact of David Weinberger's "networked knowledge" (book, YouTube video below) on the dilution of expert knowledge in general (law, medicine, accounting). What he proposes is that the ability to share, link and debate information on the Internet transforms knowledge into a more fluid state in contrast to the static nature of books. 

With respect to accounting, non-professional accountants can network with each other to get an understanding on how to account for stock provisions, but would management or the SEC find it acceptable that a company determining its accounting position by looking it up on Google Groups?

And that takes us back to the issue we discussed in the last blogpost: when disrupting a profession it's not just about the production of a good or service but also the social function that the profession was fulfilling. Public accountants have a fiduciary responsibility to the users of financial statements to ensure that they are free of material misstatements. Failure to fulfill this responsibility can result in fines, disciplinary measures or even loss of one's designation.

However, as Google's driverless cars could step in where Uber can't, could IBM's Watson step in and fulfill that societal function that accountants currently do?

To be concluded next time...

Will Accountants be Uberized? Part 1: Examining the Google-Uberization of the Taxi Profession

This is part 1 of a series of blogposts that I will write (aiming for 2 parts, but let's see) on how CPAs need to take lessons from the Uberization of taxi cab drivers and see whether CPAs can themselves be uberized.

A recent article in the Toronto Star highlighted the latest turn of events in the battle between taxi industry and those that want to bring Uber to Toronto

What is Uber? 
Uber enables the "sharing economy" by bringing together people who need a ride with those who have spare time and a spare ride via a mobile application. In other words, Uber does for car owners what Airbnb did for homeowners.

Who's resisting? 
Taxi cab owners have fiercely resisted the arrival of Uber into their cities as it can dramatically impact their ability to make a livelihood. The article attacks the position of the cab drivers as follows; "For decades, Toronto idled as taxi permits were traded among owners for obscene prices, pushing up meter rates while service declined". Taking the argument to the logical conclusion: Uber breaks the monopoly by enabling non-traditional competitors to enter into the marker.

The argument from the cab drivers side of things is that they are a profession: they have to pass examination standards that enables them to be qualified by the public to fulfill their duties. Furthermore, as noted in this article on the Walrus, taxis have a public duty in terms of assisting the handicap whereas Uber appears to be shirking this responsibility:

"Then there are disabled passengers, who don’t fare well at all with the Uber model of transportation. Indeed, nothing demonstrates the fundamental gulf between market-driven and civic-minded car services as much as the issue of accessibility. From a purely commercial point of view, passengers in wheelchairs represent a niche market. And unless compelled to by regulation or personal circumstance, most drivers are not going to invest the $60,000 needed to buy an accessible van.
For the most part, Uber pretends that the issue doesn’t even exist: In California, where a 2013 law requires ride-sharing services to report data about disabled passengers, the company has stonewalled the government. In July, a state judge recommended that Uber operations be suspended statewide and the company fined $7.3 million (US) for violating reporting requirements."

These protests are not limited to Toronto but are worldwide. Take for example the following video posted by Russell Brand actor-turned-activist who brings the issue of cab drivers in UK to light:



Other issues to note:

• Is Uber cheaper? Not always. As noted in this Forbes article and this article on Business Insider, Uber is not always cheaper. Business Insider notes how that Uber you pay for both the distance and the length of ride. Although there are certain times that it's cheaper to use a cab than Uber, the reality is that it's significantly different in price between the two options and you need an app . 
• Taxis have to charge standard pricing, Uber does not. The company engages in what it calls "surge pricing", which means "[a]t times of high demand, the number of drivers we can connect you with becomes limited. As a result, prices increase to encourage more drivers to become available." This is in contrast to taxis which are regulated in terms of how much they can charge.
• Tax implications of Uber: Beyond the licensing fees a cab driver would pay to the municipal and other governments, Uber uses transfer pricing techniques - like any multi-national corporation - to minimize the taxes it pays. As noted in this Fortune article, Uber takes a 20% cut - meaning governments stand to lose the income taxes associated with this revenue that could have been taxed as income as from the local cab driver or the company that owns the plate. 
• "Creative destruction" meets nest eggs, loans and food-beverage cart vendors. The disruption of Uber doesn't just impact taxi industry but also the retirement plans of drivers, financial institutions as well as tertiary industries that are ancillary to cabbies. In Toronto, plates were pricey costing as much as $360,000 (but are now selling for 120K). The logic of paying such an exorbitant amount was that it would provide a nest-egg for the purchaser and his or her family. But they weren't only ones betting on these assets. As noted in the Wall Street Journal, BankUnited Inc. lent $214 million against 577 cab licenses (also known as medallions). Finally, as noted by the cab driver in the video above, there are the food and beverage carts, restaurants, etc. that serve cab drivers who will also face a decline as cab drivers exit the business. 

Uber vs Taxis: What does the taxi-cab profession add to society?

Isn't it essentially trust? 

Prior to Uber, we had relied on municipal governments to license and vet cab drivers to ensure that they would get from us point A to point B in a safe, efficient (e.g. the fastest route possible) and cost-effective manner (e.g. fair pricing). 

Not to feed into the classical techno-phobic mantra of fear-uncertainty-doubt (FUD) but Uber drivers have violated that trust.

What Uber essentially proposes, is that municipal governments can be dis-intermediated in terms of oversight of the taxi profession. 

In terms of trust, what Uber purports is that the rating that drivers assign to passengers and passengers assign to drivers can serve as an effective substitute for the licensing and vetting function. Although this may work for the vast majority of time, it does not help those that have been victimized by Uber drivers. To use auditing-speak, the rules & regulations around cab drivers serve as a more effective control around cab drivers than Ubers rating system. 

The other issue is that Uber does not seem to be able to replace the public service function of the taxi profession: they openly "surge price" customers and are stone-walling the government around how they can serve the disabled community. 

Google's Driver-less Cars: Taking Uber to its logical conclusion 

Although the cab drivers can have a solid argument against Uber in terms of trust and public service, they may not fare so well at the next incarnation Uber: "Google's Uber". This is where we take Google's driverless cars to the concept of and apply it to Uber. I had mentioned the implication of Google's driverless car in a previous post - examining the impact on car insurance and the industry that has grown up around it. But I didn't explore how such a future will evolve. Google can effectively fill the role of cab services as follows:

• Getting us there the fastest: With its Maps offering, we all have come to trust Google to get us to our destination the fastest which incorporates live traffic data. 
• Safety:  Google's driverless cars have proven to be safer than human driven cars. Assuming it is not taken over by homicidal program like Skynet, the issue of assault basically is eliminated from the equation. 
• Cost effective: This perhaps the most important part of the value proposition: Google's advanced algorithms could bring a level of optimization that would take the sharing economy to unparalleled heights. Imagine if Google sold driverless cars that would be earning money while the people are working. In such a scenario, the cost of the service would not only reduced by the amount of by the amount of wages and benefits paid out (regardless if it's a cab driver or an Uber driver), but it would also effectively share the cost of capital with the owner of the car. Alternatively, Google could offer, or supplement such an offering, with its own fleet of cars. Ultimately, would such an offering cannibalize car ownership altogether? If it's cheaper and faster to Google-Uber it, why bother owning a car and being held ransom by some insurance-feudal-corporate overlord? 
• Public service: Given Google's experience with working with municipal government via its high speed internet offering, it is uniquely positioned to see such a service fulfill its public service role. As noted in the previous bullet, Google's own fleet of cars could be special purposed to serve the disabled.  In fact, Google openly advertises its driverless cars as something that will give the blind their independence (see video below as proof)

In the next installment (or set of installments), I will explore the prospects of how the CPA profession can be Uberized and what we can learn from the Uberization, and ultimately Google-Uberization, of the taxi cab profession. 

Did WSJ go too far in exposing Apple employee home purchasing habits?

The WSJ published an article discussing the cost of houses in the Bay Area. As per the title of the article, "Apple Paychecks—One Reason for High Home Prices", the key culprit they highlight are the significant salaries that the Apple employees are allegedly paid.

The the data for the findings were based on the work done by Zillow completed "at the request of The Wall Street Journal" who "used census data to track down where workers in the census tract that is dominated by Apple’s Cupertino, Calif., headquarters live—primarily neighborhoods in the San Jose and San Francisco metropolitan areas". It's not clear if they relied on their own data to complete this analysis. As per the graph below, Zillow tied the rising house prices to iPhone sales.

To be fair, and abide by full disclosure principles, the article does also blame "[z]oning laws and regulatory red tape are key factors as well". However, would it be the WSJ if it didn't lay such a charge?

Where to begin? The article raises a lot of issues in terms of the role of publicly available data - regardless if it is only the census data, data gathered by aggregators such as Zillow or social media sites.

As I had written a couple of years ago, the article actually is the promise of social media to "return us to the village". In the village privacy was limited because people knew each other and any deeds or misdeeds made by the individual were quickly found out by the community. A good example of how social media accomplishes this was role of public in identifying the rioters involved in the post-Stanley cup "celebrations". If such a riot had happened in the village, the rioters would be have been held accountable in a similar manner.

The Zillow-WSJ effort is really along similar lines: if employees of a company or members of a particular guild were buying up houses and driving up prices in particular area; wouldn't people in the village know?

Furthermore, it actually is village business. We need to understand how we will live with one another how we are going to make the most of living together in this shared space called community, which requires an understanding of how the actions of one group within the community will impact others especially when it relates to a basic need like housing.

That being said, it opens up the issue of big data and its ramifications on privacy.  Although the above rationale translates well into issues relating to communal benefit it doesn't translate well into issues relating to how private entities can handle the information they were given for a specific purposes. This of course refers to the concept of "consent" well-established within privacy parlance.

The authors of  Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think raised this issue in there book. As I had noted in a previous post:

"The authors, however, raise a much more interesting point when discussing privacy in the era of big data. They highlight the conflict between privacy and profiting from big data. They note how the value of big data emerges from the secondary uses of big data. However, privacy policies require the user to consent to a specific use of data at the time they sign up ahead. This would prohibit companies from big data. However, corporations in their drive to maximize profits will ultimately make privacy policies so loose (i.e. to cover secondary uses) that the user essentially has to give up all their privacy in order to use the service. What the authors propose is an accountability framework. Similar to how stock issuing companies are accountable to the security regulators, the idea is that organizations would be accountable to a privacy body of sorts that reviews the use of the big data and ensures that companies are accountable for the negative consequences of the data.

For those of use that have been involved in privacy compliance, such an approach would make it real for companies to deal with the privacy issues in proactive manner. We saw how companies attitudes towards controls over financial reporting shifted from mild interest (or indifference) to active concern with the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley. In contrast, no similar fervour could be found the business landscape when addressing privacy issues. Although the solution is not obvious, the reality is that companies will make their privacy notices meaningless in order to reap the ROI from investments made in big data."