IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v52y2016icp32-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The accuracy of disclosures for complex estimates: Evidence from reported stock option fair values

Author

Listed:
  • Bratten, Brian
  • Jennings, Ross
  • Schwab, Casey M.

Abstract

In this study, we exploit the unique reporting requirements for employee stock options to provide large sample evidence on the accuracy of footnote disclosures related to a specific complex estimate, the fair value of options granted. We first document the frequency and magnitude of differences between (1) the reported weighted-average fair value of options granted and (2) the calculated option fair value using the disclosed weighted-average valuation model inputs and the Black-Scholes option pricing model. In a sample of 23,358 firm-year observations between 2004 and 2011, we find that 23.9 percent have reported and calculated option fair values that differ by more than ten percent, and that these differences are sticky and are frequently significant as a percentage of net income. We also find that fair value differences are larger for firms that (1) exhibit anomalous stock option footnote disclosures that likely result from disclosure errors, (2) have more complex and hence error-prone stock option programs, and (3) have lower quality financial reporting. Taken together this evidence is consistent with large fair value differences that are primarily due to unintentional errors in the stock option footnote disclosures. To document the consequences of these fair value differences, we provide evidence that errors in the reported fair values prevent financial statement users from using the reported values to reliably estimate future stock option expense for many firms. Consistent with this result, we also find that analyst forecasts are less accurate and more disperse for firms with larger fair value differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Bratten, Brian & Jennings, Ross & Schwab, Casey M., 2016. "The accuracy of disclosures for complex estimates: Evidence from reported stock option fair values," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 32-49.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:52:y:2016:i:c:p:32-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2015.09.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368215000847
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hall, Brian J. & Murphy, Kevin J., 2002. "Stock options for undiversified executives," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-42, February.
    2. Peecher, Mark E. & Schwartz, Rachel & Solomon, Ira, 2007. "It's all about audit quality: Perspectives on strategic-systems auditing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 463-485.
    3. Choudhary, Preeti, 2011. "Evidence on differences between recognition and disclosure: A comparison of inputs to estimate fair values of employee stock options," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 77-94.
    4. Choudhary, Preeti, 2011. "Evidence on differences between recognition and disclosure: A comparison of inputs to estimate fair values of employee stock options," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 77-94, February.
    5. Bebchuk, Lucian Arye & Fried, Jesse & Walker, David I, 2002. "Managerial Power and Rent Extraction in the Design of Executive Compensation," CEPR Discussion Papers 3558, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Himmelberg, Charles P. & Hubbard, R. Glenn & Palia, Darius, 1999. "Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 353-384, September.
    7. Hanlon, Michelle & Slemrod, Joel, 2009. "What does tax aggressiveness signal? Evidence from stock price reactions to news about tax shelter involvement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 126-141, February.
    8. Charles Chang & Li-jiun Chen & Cheng-der Fuh, 2013. "The Pricing of Risk and Sentiment: A Study of Executive Stock Options," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 42(1), pages 79-99, March.
    9. Doyle, Jeffrey & Ge, Weili & McVay, Sarah, 2007. "Determinants of weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 193-223, September.
    10. William R. Kinney & Zoe‐Vonna Palmrose & Susan Scholz, 2004. "Auditor Independence, Non‐Audit Services, and Restatements: Was the U.S. Government Right?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 561-588, June.
    11. Ashbaugh-Skaife, Hollis & Collins, Daniel W. & Kinney Jr., William R., 2007. "The discovery and reporting of internal control deficiencies prior to SOX-mandated audits," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 166-192, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:aosoci:v:73:y:2019:i:c:p:35-49 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:52:y:2016:i:c:p:32-49. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.