For the last time: stock options are an expense

Should stock options be recorded as an expense on a company's income statement and balance sheet, or should they remain where they are, relegated to footnotes? The extraordinary boom in share prices during the Internet bubble made critics of option expensing look like spoilsports. But since the crash, the debate has returned with a vengeance. And no wonder: The authors believe the case for expensing options is overwhelming. In this article, Nobel Iaureate Robert Merton, one of the inventors of the Black-Scholes option-pricing model; his coauthor on the classic textbook Finance, Zvi Bodie; and Robert Kaplan, creator of the Balanced Scorecard, examine and dismiss the principal claims put forward by those who continue to oppose options expensing. They demonstrate that stock-option grants do indeed have real cash-flow implications that need to be reported. They show that effective ways certainly exist to quantify those implications. They detail the distortions that relegating stock-option accounting to footnotes creates. And they show why reporting option costs should in no way hamper young companies in their efforts to provide incentives. Options are indeed a powerful incentive, the authors agree, and failing to record a transaction that creates such powerful effects is economically indefensible. Worse, it encourages companies to favor options over alternative incentive systems. It is not the proper role of accounting standards, the authors argue, to distort executive and employee compensation by subsidizing one particular form of compensation and no other. Companies should choose compensation methods according to their economic benefits--not the way they are reported.     

Recognition versus Disclosure of Stock Option Compensation: An Analysis of Judgements and Decisions of Nonprofessional Investors*/CONSTATER OU PRÉSENTER PAR VOIE DE NOTE LA RÉMUNÉRATION SOUS FORME D'OPTIONS D'ACHAT D'ACTIONS: UNE ANALYSE DES JUGEMENTS ET DES DÉCISIONS DES INVESTISSEURS NON PROFESSIONNELS

Given the importance of stock options in the aggregate compensation of chief executive officers and other firm employees in the 1990s and early 2000s, the International Accounting Standards Board issued an International Financial Reporting Standard on stock‐based payments on February 19, 2004, requiring that all share‐based payment transactions be recognized at fair value in entities' financial statements. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants' Accounting Standards Board had already agreed to this principle and amended section 3870 of the CICA Handbook (stock‐based compensation) for financial periods beginning on or after January 1, 2004, making Canada the first major jurisdiction to require all public companies to expense employee stock‐based compensation awards. The revised section eliminated the possibility of disclosing pro forma net income and earnings per share only by way of a note. This research, conducted as a between‐subjects experiment with executive MBA students as nonprofessional investors, examines whether changes in the way stock option compensation is reported (recognition as an expense in the income statement or note disclosure of pro forma net income and earnings per share) affect financial statement users' judgements and investment decisions. Our results indicate that, consistent with the functional fixation hypothesis, the reporting method does indeed significantly influence subjects' judgement of the expected stock price direction, but has no material influence on their investment decisions.     

Expensing options solves nothing

The use of stock options for executive compensation has become a lightning rod for public anger, and it's easy to see why. Many top executives grew hugely rich on the back of the gains they made on their options, profits they've been able to keep even as the value they were supposed to create disappeared. The supposed scam works like this: Current accounting regulations let companies ignore the cost of option grants on their income statements, so they can award valuable option packages without affecting reported earnings. Not charging the cost of the grants supposedly leads to overstated earnings, which purportedly translate into unrealistically high share prices, permitting top executives to realize big gains when they exercise their options. If an accounting anomaly is the problem, then the solution seems obvious: Write off executive share options against the current year's revenues. The trouble is, Sahlman writes, expensing option grants won't give us a more accurate view of earnings, won't add any information not already included in the financial statements, and won't even lead to equal treatment of different forms of executive pay. Far worse, expensing evades the real issue, which is whether compensation (options and other-wise) does what it's supposed to do--namely, help a company recruit, retain, and provide the right people with appropriate performance incentives. Any performance-based compensation system has the potential to encourage cheating. Only ethical management, sensible governance, adequate internal control systems, and comprehensive disclosure will save the investor from disaster. If, Sahlman warns, we pass laws that require the expensing of options, thinking that's fixed the fundamental flaws in corporate America's accounting, we will have missed a golden opportunity to focus on the much more extensive defects in the present system.     

Simulation of the Impact of the Recognition of Stock Options on the Earnings: The case of Canadian Companies*

One of the most controversial accounting issues pertains to stock compensation. In Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) approved section 3870, Stock‐based Compensation and Other Stock‐Based Payments, on November 13, 2001, to take effect in January 2002. Section 3870 forces companies to “take a look at the real economic cost of most of the stock‐based compensation mechanisms” (AcSB Bulletin, October 2001, 1). The adoption of section 3870 was aimed at harmonizing Canadian accounting practice with U.S. standards. The new standard, which was initially based on two American accounting standards ‐ APB Opinion No. 25 and SFAS No. 123 ‐ gave companies the choice of using either the fair value method or the pro forma disclosure of net income and adjusted earnings per share to account for stock‐based compensation. The Accounting Standards Board (AcSB) nevertheless recommended that Canadian companies use the fair value method, which consists in estimating and recognizing the value of the stock options at the grant date.     

A Proposal for Expensing Employee Compensatory Stock Options for Financial Reporting Purposes

This article presents an accounting approach for employee stock options based on the insight that the currentperiod compensation expense should reflect only that part of the option value that is earned independent of the obligation of continued employment. Given that the maturity of vested options is typically shortened to 90 days when an employee resigns or is terminated, this method views the employee as owning a 90-day option (even if the stated maturity of the option is ten years) and earning a 90-day extension to that option each quarter as a result of the employee's continued employment. In the case of vested options, the compensation expense in each quarterly accounting period is thus the value of the 90-day extension of the option's maturity. There is no option expense in the quarter when the option is either exercised or expires.
In the case of unvested options, the expected option value at vesting should be estimated quarterly starting at the time of grant and the corresponding estimated expense should be revised and allocated as a pro rata accrual each quarter over the vesting period. The cumulative expense over the entire vesting period will equal the fair market value of the option at its vesting date.
Besides reflecting the economics of the exchange of value for labor involved in stock option grants, this approach has a number of practical advantages:

• •

  The 90-day maturity permits the use of publicly traded options to determine fair market value and makes Black-Scholes and other (lattice) pricing models more reliable.

       
  
  

Stock Option Expensing: The Role of Corporate Governance

Analysis of the corporate stock option expensing decision (before the practice became mandatory in 2006) continues to be of interest because it provides insight into the underlying factors affecting not only expense recognition, but the overall corporate decision‐making process. Using a sample of 207 companies that volunteered to expense options and more than 1,000 non‐expensing firms, the authors found that companies that provide more disclosure and appeared to have a stronger alignment of managerial and shareholder interests were also more likely to expense stock options—a finding that the authors view as indirect evidence that voluntary expensing was more likely to occur in companies that practiced effective corporate governance. And consistent with the prediction of efficient market theorists, the study also found no significant market reaction to announcements of these decisions to expense options. The study also found that companies that were the heaviest users of options—notably, smaller, high—growth, and less‐profitable firms—were least likely to expense them. And while this finding adds to the weight of evidence suggesting that companies often make accounting decisions designed to boost reported earnings, the authors also recognize that the possibility that the decision by other companies not to expense may have been a strategy designed primarily to preserve access to capital markets.     

Accounting for Option–based Compensation: The Economic Cost Approach

The intrinsic value approach amortizes over the life of the option, the difference between the stock price on the date of the grant and the exercise price of the option. The fair market value approach amortizes over the life of the option, the market value of stock options on the date of the grant. These approaches do not reflect the changes in the option–based compensation cost after the grant date. This paper proposes an economic cost approach that not only adjusts for the changes in the value of the options during its life but also records the issuance of the stock at fair market value on the exercise date.     

Finance, Politics, and the Accounting for Stock Options

The politics of option accounting crosses party lines, reflecting both the interests of the affected constituencies and the desire for power over standard setting. House Bill HR-3574, which mandates an assumption of zero stock price volatility, runs counter to the recently passed Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rule requiring fair-value expensing of stock options. For any option issued at or out of the money, where strike prices are normally set, expense recognition is zero under this bill's mandated assumption.
Besides excessive use of stock options, the lack of a "final peace" in the option accounting war appears to have encouraged another questionable corporate practice. This article examines a sample of "six-and-one restructurings," exchanges of options in which expensing of re-priced (deep out-of-the-money) options can be avoided if employees wait at least six months and one day before receiving new options. The authors found that market-adjusted stock prices tend to decrease during the six-month period before the strike price is reset. This result provides one more reason why companies should be required to use fair-value option pricing models to expense options.     

Expensing stock-based payments: A material concern?

Using SFAS 123 disclosures, Botosan and Plumlee [Botosan, C., & Plumlee, M. (2001). Stock option expense: The sword of Damocles Revealed. Accounting Horizons, 15, 311-327] find that if stock-based compensation were to be expensed rather than not recognised on the face of financial statements, the impact on key measures used to assess the performance of the fastest growing US firms would be material. Street and Cereola [Street, D. L., & Cereola, S. (2004). Stock option compensation: impact of expense recognition on performance indicators of non-domestic companies listed in the U.S. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 13, 21-37] subsequently also use SFAS 123 disclosures to determine that the average impact of expensing stock-based compensation on diluted EPS for non-US domiciled firms listed on US exchanges will be material and approximately 40%. In this paper, we examine whether these findings apply across international borders to firms that are required from 2005 to adopt IFRS 2 Share-Based Payment to expense stock-based payments, and across a broad range of industries and firms’ growth phases. Based on Australian Stock Exchange-listed firms’ 2002 stock-based compensation disclosures of the value of options granted to directors and the top 5 executives, the expensing of options will have a significant negative effect on approximately 20% of our sample firms’ financial performance ratios. It appears that the materiality of the impact is neither industry specific nor restricted to high growth firms. As the IFRS 2 expensing requirement extends to stock-based compensation issued to all employees, our findings are conservative estimates of the impact. The findings suggest that a stock-based compensation accounting policy change will affect recognised financial numbers and could have consequential ramifications for contractual specifications and valuations of firms across a range of industries and growth phases. Our sample of Australian firms provides an interesting context for the study, since these firms have neither traditionally expensed nor necessarily disclosed stock-based payments but from 2005, all stock-exchange listed Australian firms will be at the forefront of IFRS 2 adoption.     

Companies' Modest Claims About the Value of CEO Stock Option Awards

This paper analyzes company disclosures of CEO stock option values in compliance with the SEC's regulations for reporting executive compensation data to stockholders. Companies appear to exploit the flexibility of the regulations to reduce the apparent value of managerial compensation. Companies shorten the expected lives of stock options and unilaterally apply discounts to the Black-Scholes formula. Theoretical support for these adjustments is often thin, and companies universally ignore reasons that the Black-Scholes formula might underestimate the value of executive stock options. The findings not only cast light upon how corporations value executive stock options, but also provide a means of forecasting compliance with controversial new FASB requirements for firms to disclose the compensation expense represented by executive stock options.     

Valuing executive stock options: performance hurdles, early exercise and stochastic volatility

Accounting standards require companies to assess the fair value of any stock options granted to executives and employees. We develop a model for accurately valuing executive and employee stock options, focusing on performance hurdles, early exercise and uncertain volatility. We apply the model in two case studies and show that properly computed fair values can be significantly lower than traditional Black–Scholes values. We then explore the implications for pay-for-performance sensitivity and the design of effective share-based incentive schemes. We find that performance hurdles can require a much greater fraction of total compensation to be a fixed salary, if pre-existing incentive levels are to be maintained.     

Stock option compensation: impact of expense recognition on performance indicators of non-domestic companies listed in the U.S.

The IFRS 2, Share-based Payment, requires that companies recognize the fair value of employee stock options as an expense. To ascertain the impact recognition will have on companies domiciled in countries subject to accounting standards issued by the IASB’s liaison standard setting partners, this research examines the pro forma stock option disclosures provided in Form 20-F by Australian, British, Canadian, French, German, Japanese, and Irish companies.The findings indicate the average impact of expense recognition on diluted EPS will be approximately 40% and will be material at a 5% level for the majority of the companies. The impact varies significantly by country. On average the annual expense recognized will be approximately 15% of beginning stockholders equity. For the majority of the companies, the charge will represent less than 1% of beginning equity. Again the impact varies significantly by country.The findings indicate that absent requirements that stock compensation expense be recognized, a material upward bias will be reflected in performance indicators of many non-U.S. companies and cross-border comparability will be impaired. Since our analysis is based solely on data for the year 2000 for companies domiciled in seven countries, future research will be needed to ascertain the impact of expense recognition on a broader range of companies reporting under IFRS 2.     

An IFRS 2 and FASB 123 (R) Compatible Model for the Valuation of Employee Stock Options

In this paper, we show how employee stock options can be valued under the new reporting standards IFRS 2 and FASB 123 (revised) for share-based payments. Both standards require companies to expense employee stock options at fair value. We propose a new valuation model, referred to as Enhanced American model, that complies with the new standards and produces fair values often lower than those generated by traditional models such as the Black–Scholes model or the adjusted Black–Scholes model. We also provide a sensitivity analysis of model input parameters and analyze the impact of the parameters on the fair value of the option. The valuation of employee stock options requires an accurate estimation of the exercise behavior. We show how the exercise behavior can be modeled in a binomial tree and demonstrate the relevance of the input parameters in the calibration of the model to an estimated expected life of the option. JEL Classification G13, G30     

Executive Stock Options: To Expense or Not?

In analyzing the decision to expense stock options, we find a greater likelihood of options expensing for firms with greater transparency and a closer alignment of interests between managers and shareholders. These results provide indirect evidence that expensing is more likely in firms that practice good corporate governance. We show that firms are less likely to expense when option usage is higher and that this negative relation is stronger for firms that are smaller, have high growth, and are less profitable. We also find that the announcement period returns are not significantly different from zero.     

股权激励会计处理及其经济后果分析——以伊利股份为例

本文结合《企业会计准则第11号——股份支付》的相关规定,以伊利股份为例研究股权激励费用化的会计处理及其经济后果。研究结果表明,股权激励的费用化将对上市公司的业绩产生影响,且股权费用摊销集中程度的不同,对公司产生的影响也不同。股票市场对股权激励费用化的会计处理及公司业绩的变化有负向反应,而且反应的程度与激励费用对公司业绩的影响成正比。同时股权激励设计有福利之嫌,股权激励费用化的会计处理有可能导致上市公司修改其股权激励的方案。     

Which approach to accounting for employee stock options best reflects market pricing?

We use a residual income valuation framework to compare equity valuation implications of four approaches to employee stock options (ESOs) accounting: APB 25 “recognize nothing”, SFAS 123 (revised) “recognize ESO expense”, FASB Exposure Draft “recognize and expense ESO asset” and “recognize ESO asset and liability”. Theoretical analysis shows only grant date recognition of an asset and liability, and subsequent marking-to-market of the liability, results in accounting numbers that capture the dilution effects of ESOs on current shareholder value. Out-of-sample equity market value prediction tests and in-sample comparisons of model explanatory power also support the “recognize ESO asset and liability” method.     

How Do Quasi‐Random Option Grants Affect CEO Risk‐Taking?

We examine how an increase in stock option grants affects CEO risk‐taking. The overall net effect of option grants is theoretically ambiguous for risk‐averse CEOs. To overcome the endogeneity of option grants, we exploit institutional features of multiyear compensation plans, which generate two distinct types of variation in the timing of when large increases in new at‐the‐money options are granted. We find that, given average grant levels during our sample period, a 10% increase in new options granted leads to a 2.8% to 4.2% increase in equity volatility. This increase in risk is driven largely by increased leverage.     

Analyzing the Tax Benefits from Employee Stock Options

Employees tend to exercise stock options when corporate taxable income is high, shifting corporate tax deductions to years with higher tax rates. If firms paid employees the same dollar value in wages instead of stock options, the average annual tax bill for large U.S. companies would increase by $12.6 million, or 9.8%. These direct tax benefits of options increase in the convexity of the tax function. In addition, profitable firms can realize indirect tax benefits because stock options increase debt capacity. Although tax minimization is probably not the main motive for option grants, firms with larger potential tax benefits grant more options.     

The impact of SFAS No. 123(R) on financial statement conservatism

SFAS No. 123(R) requires firms to recognize the fair value of stock options as compensation expense over the vesting period of the options. Thus, SFAS No. 123(R) leads to an overall increase in financial statement conservatism. However, it is not known whether SFAS No. 123(R) increases conditional and/or unconditional conservatism. Because the different forms of conservatism have different implications for the quality of earnings, I investigate which types of conservatism are impacted by SFAS No. 123(R) to gain insight into the ramifications of the Standard. I find that SFAS No. 123(R) leads to an increase in both unconditional and conditional conservatism. I additionally find that the Standard causes an increased negative relation between contemporaneous economic gains and income. These findings hold outside of the sample period and under a non-priced based model of conservatism.     

Robust stock option plans

The main purpose of this paper is to address the issue of robustness of stock option plans, which is essential for reliable accounting valuations. The introduction of the accounting standards SFAS 123R and IFRS 2 for executive stock options has led to an important change. As companies are now forced to value their stock options at grant date for accounting purposes, the robustness of prices against the choice of certain valuation models and input parameters has become a very important issue. We address this issue by first analyzing certain building blocks of existing stock option plans with regard to their robustness properties. Based on our analysis, we then show how robustness of stock option plans can be achieved. The resulting stock option plans are both transparent in structure and reasonable in respect to the incentives they provide in order to increase shareholder value. We therefore conclude that stock options can be reliably expensed, if the corresponding plans are properly designed.