The two sides of CEO option grants at the IPO

This paper examines the impact of CEO IPO option grants on IPO underpricing. Contrary to Lowry and Murphy (2007) who do not find a relationship between the two, this paper finds such a relationship when board independence, the power of the CEO and venture capitalists (VCs) are taken into account. The results are threefold. First, powerful CEOs are able to reap substantial gains from IPO options, to the detriment of the shareholders. Second, young, powerful VCs use IPO option grants to bribe the CEO to agree to an early IPO which will leave more of the existing shareholders' money on the table. Finally, IPO options only work as a value-enhancing incentive in the presence of strong boards.     

Underwater Options and the Dynamics of Executive Pay-to-Performance Sensitivities

We empirically analyze the dynamics of executives' pay‐to‐performance sensitivities. Option pay‐to‐performance sensitivities become weaker as options fall underwater, often leading to pressures to reprice options or restore pay‐to‐performance sensitivity in other ways. Building a detailed data set on executives' portfolios of stock and options, we find that the responsiveness of pay‐to‐performance sensitivities (created by all executive holdings of stock and options) to changes in stock price is large. The elasticity of pay‐to‐performance sensitivities with respect to stock price decreases is about 0.7 and is larger for high‐option executives and for executives with high percentages of options already underwater. The dominant mechanism through which companies offset declines in option pay‐to‐performance sensitivities is larger option grants following stock price declines; on average, these larger grants restore approximately 40% of the stock‐price‐induced pay‐to‐performance sensitivity declines. Option repricings are inconsequential in this regard, despite the attention they have attracted. In looking at positive returns, we find the reverse: higher returns both directly increase pay‐to‐performance sensitivities and lead to larger option grants, which raise pay‐to‐performance sensitivities further. Thus, option grants to executives tend to be largest following large stock price increases or large stock price decreases.     

Valuing and pricing IPOs

This paper investigates how underwriters set the IPO firm’s fair value, an ex-ante estimate of the market value, using a unique dataset of 228 reports from French underwriters. These reports are issued before the IPO shares start trading on the stock market and detail how underwriters determined fair value. We document that underwriters often employ multiples valuation, dividend discount models and discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis to determine fair value but that all of these valuation methods suffer from a positive bias with respect to equilibrium market value. We also analyze how this fair value estimate is subsequently used as a basis for IPO pricing. We report that underwriters deliberately discount the fair value estimate when setting the preliminary offer price. Part of the intentional price discount can be recovered by higher price updates. We find that, controlling for other factors such as investor demand, part of underpricing stems from this intentional price discount.     

Laddering in initial public offerings

Laddering is a practice whereby the allocating underwriter requires the ladderer to buy additional shares of the issuer in the aftermarket as a condition for receiving shares at the offer price. This paper identifies factors that create incentives to engage in this type of manipulation and models the effect of laddering on initial public offering (IPO) pricing. I show that laddering has a bigger effect on the market price of IPOs with greater expected underpricing (without laddering) and greater expected momentum in the aftermarket; laddering increases the IPO offer price, the aftermarket price, and the money left on the table but does not necessarily increase the percentage underpricing; laddering contributes to long-run underperformance and creates a negative correlation between short-run and long-run returns; and profit-sharing increases the extent of laddering and the percentage underpricing.     

Why are IPOs underpriced? Evidence from Japan's hybrid auction-method offerings

We document discretionary underpricing and partial adjustment of IPO prices in the public offer tranche of Japan's hybrid auction regime, in which investor information differences are not important, there are no roadshows, preferential allocations are negligible, institutional investing is low, and the public offer tranche cannot fail. The magnitude and variation of underpricing in our sample, which spans relatively hot and cold markets, are similar to those reported for US IPOs. The evidence is most consistent with underpricing arising from an implicit contract to allocate risk related to initial mispricing where, in exchange for guaranteeing a minimum price, the underwriter participates indirectly in upside performance. The results raise important questions about interpretations of IPO underpricing in the US.     

Regulatory underpricing: Determinants of Chinese extreme IPO returns

The Chinese stock market with its unique institutions is rather different from western stock markets. The average underpricing of Chinese IPOs is 247%, the highest of any major world market. We model this extreme underpricing with a supply-demand analytical framework that captures critical institutional features of China's primary market, and then empirically test this model using a sample of 1377 IPOs listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges between 1992 and 2004. We find that Chinese IPO underpricing is principally caused by government intervention with IPO pricing regulations and the control of IPO share supplies. Besides the regulatory underpricing, this paper also documents some specific investment risks of IPOs in China's stock market.     

THE DESIGN OF MULTI-YEAR STOCK OPTION PLANS

Despite the explosion in the corporate use of stock options, the incentives created by stock options are not well understood by either the boards who grant them or the executives who are meant to be motivated by them. A major source of confusion stems from the corporate practice of using multi-year stock option plans. Such multi-year grants create subtle, potentially important links between current performance and future grants that can significantly dilute incentives for better performance.
For example, so-called "fixed value" plans provide very weak, even perverse, incentives ex ante since the value of future option grants is completely insulated from current performance. Under such plans, an executive's reward for superior performance is to receive fewer options, and to receive more options for substandard performance. In contrast, the fixed number plan creates an intrinsic link between changes in this year's stock price and changes in the value of future option grants.
The author also reports the findings of new empirical research that shows that stock option plans, taken as a whole, have a pay-to-performance correlation that is eight times stronger than that of salary and bonus. But, consistent with the analysis above, fixed value option plans have pay-to-performance that is only six times that of salary and bonus, as compared to ten times for fixed number plans.     

Auctions vs. Bookbuilding and the Control of Underpricing in Hot IPO Markets

Market returns before the offer price is set affect the amountand variability of initial public offering (IPO) underpricing.Thus an important question is "What IPO procedure is best adaptedfor controlling underpricing in "hot" versus "cold" market conditions?"The French stock market offers a unique arena for empiricalresearch on this topic, since three substantially differentissuing mechanisms (auctions, bookbuilding, and fixed price)are used there. Using 1992–1998 data, we find that theauction mechanism is associated with less underpricing and lowervariance of underpricing. We show that the auction procedure'sability to incorporate more information from recent market conditionsinto the IPO price is an important reason.     

Overreaction in the thrift IPO aftermarket

We study the initial returns and long-run performance of a unique sample of thrifts that have recently converted from mutual to stock form. In addition to a full claim on all IPO proceeds, new investors in a converted thrift also receive a claim on all pre-conversion market value at no cost. Thus, the average firm in our sample has a degree of underpricing automatically built into its offer price. We find that after removing the large initial returns, cumulative excess returns for the firms in our sample are positive for 12 months after the IPO. Beginning in the second year after the IPO, the average firm in our sample undergoes a significant price correction that lasts approximately 18 months and which produces negative cumulative abnormal returns for up to 5 years post-issue. Differences in risk-adjusted returns also indicate negative long-run returns, with poor performance concentrated in the second and third years following the IPO. The return differences are most pronounced among the small thrifts in our sample, and are broadly consistent with investor overreaction at the time of the IPO that continues for 6–12 months before prices begin reverting back to fundamental value.     

Explaining underpricing of IPOs in frontier markets: Evidence from the Nigeria Stock Exchange

The paper provides empirical analyses of IPO underpricing on the Nigerian Stock Exchange, from the period 1990 to 2006. The results indicate an average abnormal initial day returns of 43.1%. There is evidence of long-run underperformance of 0.6%. Results from our regression model explaining initial abnormal returns for the IPOs of Nigeria show that size of firm and audit quality are important variables affecting underpricing. The results also show the presence of a non-linear relationship between the offer price and underpricing.     

SIX CHALLENGES IN DESIGNING EQUITY-BASED PAY

The past two decades have seen a dramatic increase in the equitybased pay of U.S. corporate executives, an increase that has been driven almost entirely by the explosion of stock option grants. When properly designed, equity‐based pay can raise corporate productivity and shareholder value by helping companies attract, motivate, and retain talented managers. But there are good reasons to question whether the current forms of U.S. equity pay are optimal. In many cases, substantial stock and option payoffs to top executives–particularly those who cashed out much of their holdings near the top of the market–appear to have come at the expense of their shareholders, generating considerable skepticism about not just executive pay practices, but the overall quality of U.S. corporate governance. At the same time, many companies that have experienced sharp stock price declines are now struggling with the problem of retaining employees holding lots of deep‐underwater options. This article discusses the design of equity‐based pay plans that aim to motivate sustainable, or long‐run, value creation. As a first step, the author recommends the use of longer vesting periods and other requirements on executive stock and option holdings, both to limit managers' ability to “time” the market and to reduce their incentives to take shortsighted actions that increase near‐term earnings at the expense of longer‐term cash flow. Besides requiring “more permanent” holdings, the author also proposes a change in how stock options are issued. In place of popular “fixed value” plans that adjust the number of options awarded each year to reflect changes in the share price (and that effectively reward management for poor performance by granting more options when the price falls, and fewer when it rises), the author recommends the use of “fixed number” plans that avoid this unintended distortion of incentives. As the author also notes, there is considerable confusion about the real economic cost of options relative to stock. Part of the confusion stems, of course, from current GAAP accounting, which allows companies to report the issuance of at‐the‐money options as costless and so creates a bias against stock and other forms of compensation. But, coming on top of the “opportunity cost” of executive stock options to the company's shareholders, there is another, potentially significant cost of options (and, to a lesser extent, stock) that arises from the propensity of executives and employees to place a lower value on company stock and options than well‐diversified outside investors. The author's conclusion is that grants of (slow‐vesting) stock are likely to have at least three significant advantages over employee stock options:

• ? they are more highly valued by executives and employees (per dollar of cost to shareholders);
• ? they continue to provide reasonably strong ownership incentives and retention power, regardless of whether the stock price rises or falls, because they don't go underwater; and
• ? the value of such grants is much more transparent to stockholders, employees, and the press.

     

Managerial Risk-Taking Incentives and Executive Stock Option Repricing: A Study of US Casino Executives

I examine the relation between managerial incentives from holdings of company stock and options and stock option repricing. Because options provide incentives to increase both risk and stock price, firms must realize that as options go underwater, executives might face incentives to invest in risky, negative NPV projects. Repricing may alleviate such incentives. I examine repricing activity by firms in the US gaming industry and find that risk-taking incentives from options are positively related to the incidence of executive option repricing. The results support the hypothesis that repricing assists firms in alleviating excessive risk-taking incentives of senior management.     

BACKDATING AND DIRECTOR INCENTIVES: MONEY OR REPUTATION?

We investigate how director incentives affect the occurrence of firms' backdating employee stock options. Directors with more wealth tied up in stock options may pursue activities that lead to personal gain, such as option backdating, which potentially increases the option recipient's compensation. We document a positive and significant association between director option compensation and the likelihood that firms backdate stock options. Our results question the effectiveness of director option compensation in aligning the interests with those of shareholders and help to explain the recent decline in the use of director option grants by many firms.     

基于并购视角的IPO动因实证研究

以2004-2010年沪深A股上市公司为研究样本,追踪企业IPO(首次公开募股,Initial Public Offerings,简称IPO)后5年,考察并购行为是否为企业进行IPO的重要动因之一.结果表明:现金对价方式的并购支出与IPO初始资金筹集量显著正相关,与SEO资金筹集量显著正相关;股票对价方式的并购支出与IPO抑价显著正相关,与Jensen指数显著正相关;并购总支出与IPO成本显著正相关,与企业债务资本筹集量显著正相关,与发行价格调整正相关但不显著.     

Uncertain Demand,Heterogeneous Expectations,and Unintentional IPO Underpricing

Distinguishing between intentional and unintentional incentives to underprice initial public offerings (IPOs), I develop sufficient conditions for the winners' curse postulated by Miller (1977) and implications for intertemporal changes in the magnitude of underpricing. Specifically, I show that unintentional underpricing (and occasional overpricing) of IPOs is a consequence of investors' heterogeneous expectations of the uncertain value of a stock when the supply is constrained and the underwriter's price discovery process only partially identifies aggregate demand. Moreover, an IPO that is oversubscribed in the premarket sale almost certainly will experience a short‐term price increase in the secondary market.     

西方IPO抑价理论及对中国IPO研究的启示

西方IPO抑价理论大多在信息不对称、委托代理、信号显示等信息经济学框架下,基于资本市场的有效性假设而提出的,即假定二级市场对股票的定价是合理的,IPO抑价是源于发行定价偏低.中国A股市场IPO抑价率长期高企但逐年下降,对该问题的研究,不能简单套用西方理论,而必须结合我国证券市场环境及IPO发行审核制度,将制度因素作为内生变量来考察.     

Ironing out the kinks in executive compensation: Linking incentive pay to average stock prices

Traditional stock option grant is the most common form of incentive pay in executive compensation. Applying a principal-agent analysis, we find this common practice suboptimal and firms are better off linking incentive pay to average stock prices. Among other benefits, averaging reduces volatility by about 42%, making the incentive pay more attractive to risk-averse executives. Holding the cost of the option grant to the firm constant, Asian stock options are more cost effective than traditional stock options and provide stronger incentives to increase stock price. More importantly, the improvement is achieved with little impact on the option grant’s risk incentives (after adjusting for option cost). Finally, averaging also improves the value and incentive effects of indexed stock options.     

Are share price levels informative? Evidence from the ownership, pricing, turnover and performance of IPO firms

We ask whether a firm's choice of IPO price is informative in the sense that it relates systematically to the firm's other choices and characteristics. We find that both institutional ownership and underwriter reputation increases monotonically with the chosen IPO price level. We also find that the relationship between IPO price and underpricing is U-shaped. In contrast, post-IPO turnover displays an inverted U-shaped relation to IPO price. Moreover, firms choosing a higher (lower) stock price level experience lower (higher) mortality rates. Our results are robust to controls for market liquidity and firm size, and for partial adjustment of IPO prices based on pre-market information.     

Executive Stock Options

Abstract

As a part of the compensation package many companies provide executives with executive stock options, which are call options with additional restrictions. They provide some financial advantages to the executives and help the company retain the service of the executives who improve the company’s earnings and management.

Until recently the values of the executive stock options were not required to be disclosed in the company?s financial reports. But recent statements from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) have made it necessary to value these executive stock options. The valuation of executive stock options is also required for investors and financial practitioners. This paper considers the award of performance-based executive stock options when the stock price at the time of stock option award exceeds a given preassigned value. It is assumed that the stock price follows a geometric Brownian motion, and that the number of stock options awarded at any time depends on the stock price at that time.

A valuation formula is derived using the method of Esscher transforms for a multiyear award plan. The closed-form formula derived is similar to the Black-Scholes formula for options and utilizes the standard bivariate normal distribution function, which is available in statistical software. In this paper the number of stock options awarded is assumed to be in a specific form, but the theory presented can be modified to suit other forms of award structure. Moreover, by suitable choice of parameters, a valuation formula is also presented for the award of fixed-value executive stock options grants; this formula is also in a closed form and involves cumulative distribution values of the standard normal random variable. Numerical illustrations of the use of the valuation formulas are presented.