IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

The non-uniform pricing effect of employee stock options using quantile regression

  • Kuo, Chii-Shyan
  • Yu, Shih-Ti

Issuing employee stock options (ESOs) transfers equity claims from current stockholders to employees, and thereby dilutes existing shareholder interests. Because employees are motivated to exert additional effort toward better performance, the value of transferred ownership claims proxied by ESO expense represents a cost of generating firm value. There are several econometric issues, most notably including the fact that the disclosed ESO expense is an endogenous variable. Without controlling for the simultaneity problem, inferences based on results from OLS analyses may be misleading. More importantly, a considerable amount of ESO expense data is censored at zero. Such a censoring problem can make the population distribution severely skewed, resulting in estimation bias. Therefore, we need to take into account the censored data issue. No prior studies have considered these two issues simultaneously. Failure to control for both censoring problem and endogeneity could explain the inconsistent results documented in prior studies. In this paper, we use the two-stage quantile regression (QR) proposed by Amemiya (1982) and Powell (1983) to examine possible nonlinear relationships, especially whether conditionally higher-stock price (or better performing) firms show a stronger negative pricing effect of ESO expense (that is, the relation between ESO expense and share price) than conditionally lower-share price firms. Our results suggest that the linear regression model greatly underestimates this negative pricing effect at higher quantiles, so the nonlinear relationship is obscure when using the standard linear model. We also consider alternative interpretations as to why heterogeneity exists in the pricing effect of ESO expense and assess whether our results concur with these explanations.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal The North American Journal of Economics and Finance.

Volume (Year): 26 (2013)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 400-415

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecofin:v:26:y:2013:i:c:p:400-415
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. José Mata & José A. F. Machado, 2005. "Counterfactual decomposition of changes in wage distributions using quantile regression," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 445-465.
  2. Koenker,Roger, 2005. "Quantile Regression," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521845731, October.
  3. A Gosling & Stephen Machin, 1995. "The Changing Distribution of Male Wages in the UK," CEP Discussion Papers dp0271, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  4. Hanlon, Michelle & Rajgopal, Shivaram & Shevlin, Terry, 2003. "Are executive stock options associated with future earnings?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-3), pages 3-43, December.
  5. Brian J. Hall & Jeffrey B. Liebman, 1998. "Are CEOs Really Paid Like Bureaucrats?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 113(3), pages 653-691, August.
  6. Omar Arias & Walter Sosa-Escudero & Kevin F. Hallock, 2001. "Individual heterogeneity in the returns to schooling: instrumental variables quantile regression using twins data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 7-40.
  7. Joao Ricardo Faria & Le Wang & Zhongmin Wu, 2009. "Debts on debts," Working Papers 2009/7, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham Business School, Economics Division.
  8. Kato, Hideaki Kiyoshi & Lemmon, Michael & Luo, Mi & Schallheim, James, 2005. "An empirical examination of the costs and benefits of executive stock options: Evidence from Japan," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 435-461, November.
  9. Bryan, Stephen & Hwang, LeeSeok & Lilien, Steven, 2000. "CEO Stock-Based Compensation: An Empirical Analysis of Incentive-Intensity, Relative Mix, and Economic Determinants," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(4), pages 661-93, October.
  10. DeFusco, Richard A & Johnson, Robert R & Zorn, Thomas S, 1990. " The Effect of Executive Stock Option Plans on Stockholders and Bondholders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 45(2), pages 617-27, June.
  11. John, Teresa A & John, Kose, 1993. " Top-Management Compensation and Capital Structure," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(3), pages 949-74, July.
  12. Powell, James L., 1986. "Censored regression quantiles," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 143-155, June.
  13. Yermack, David, 1995. "Do corporations award CEO stock options effectively?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 237-269.
  14. Smith, Clifford Jr. & Watts, Ross L., 1992. "The investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend, and compensation policies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 263-292, December.
  15. Oyer, Paul & Schaefer, Scott, 2004. "Why Do Some Firms Give Stock Options To All Employees?: An Empirical Examination of Alternative Theories," Research Papers 1772r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  16. Murphy, Kevin J., 1999. "Executive compensation," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 38, pages 2485-2563 Elsevier.
  17. Koenker, Roger W & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1978. "Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 33-50, January.
  18. Feng Li & M. H. Franco Wong, 2005. "Employee Stock Options, Equity Valuation, and the Valuation of Option Grants Using a Warrant-Pricing Model," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 97-131, 03.
  19. Moshe Buchinsky, 1998. "Recent Advances in Quantile Regression Models: A Practical Guideline for Empirical Research," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(1), pages 88-126.
  20. Aboody, David, 1996. "Market valuation of employee stock options," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1-3), pages 357-391, October.
  21. Jensen, M.C. & Murphy, K.J., 1988. "Performance Pay And Top Management Incentives," Papers 88-04, Rochester, Business - Managerial Economics Research Center.
  22. Powell, James L, 1983. "The Asymptotic Normality of Two-Stage Least Absolute Deviations Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(5), pages 1569-75, September.
  23. Nelson, Forrest & Olson, Lawrence, 1978. "Specification and Estimation of a Simultaneous-Equation Model with Limited Dependent Variables," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 19(3), pages 695-709, October.
  24. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
  25. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1982. "Two Stage Least Absolute Deviations Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 689-711, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecofin:v:26:y:2013:i:c:p:400-415. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.