The impact of accounting rule and economic differences on the firm’s choice of cash and share-puts

While prior literature has sought to explain why firms issue put options on their own stock (Gibson et al., 2006), no one has focused on examining why some firms choose to structure put contracts in a way that provides them the ability to settle future put obligations with their own common equity rather than cash. FAS 150, which changed the reporting requirements, highlights that under the prior rules firms included share-settlement terms in their put contracts to avoid showing their open put position as a balance sheet obligation. However, some evidence suggests that the choice between including cash or share settlement terms may be economically driven by the potential impact that each settlement-type has on firm solvency and equity holdings. Our results support the economic-based motivation for put-type choice by showing that firms elect to include share-settlement terms in their put contracts to provide themselves payment flexibility in the event internally generated cash flows are not sufficient to meet future contractual put obligations. These results support the FASB’s announcement that it is reconsidering homogeneous liability classification of cash and share-settled puts in its re-examination of FAS 150.