IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v223y2012i1p188-202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does stock return predictability affect ESO fair value?

Author

Listed:
  • Carmona, Julio
  • León, Angel
  • Vaello-Sebastià, Antoni

Abstract

Executive Stock Options (ESOs) are modified American options that cannot be valued using standard methods. With a few exceptions, the literature has discussed the ESO fair value by assuming unpredictable stock returns which are not supported by the available empirical evidence. In this paper we obtain the fair value of American ESOs when stock returns are predictable and, specifically, driven by the trending Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process of Lo and Wang (1995). We solve the executive’s portfolio allocation problem for a simple buy-and-hold strategy when his wealth can be distributed between a risk-free asset and a market portfolio. This problem is jointly solved with the executive’s optimal exercise policy. We find that executives tend to wait longer the higher the predictability, independently of the composition of executive’s asset menu. We have also analyzed the implications under the FAS123R proposals for the ESO fair value and found that, even for low autocorrelations, there is a meaningful mispricing when unpredictable returns are erroneously assumed.

Suggested Citation

  • Carmona, Julio & León, Angel & Vaello-Sebastià, Antoni, 2012. "Does stock return predictability affect ESO fair value?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 188-202.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:223:y:2012:i:1:p:188-202
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.06.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221712004572
    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 below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Longstaff, Francis A & Schwartz, Eduardo S, 2001. "Valuing American Options by Simulation: A Simple Least-Squares Approach," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 14(1), pages 113-147.
    2. 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.
    3. Lo, Andrew W & Wang, Jiang, 1995. " Implementing Option Pricing Models When Asset Returns Are Predictable," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(1), pages 87-129, March.
    4. Manuel Moreno & Javier Navas, 2003. "On the Robustness of Least-Squares Monte Carlo (LSM) for Pricing American Derivatives," Review of Derivatives Research, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 107-128, May.
    5. Bergstrom, A.R., 1984. "Continuous time stochastic models and issues of aggregation over time," Handbook of Econometrics,in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 20, pages 1145-1212 Elsevier.
    6. Bruce D. Grundy, "undated". "Option Prices and the Underlying Asset's Return Distribution (Reprint 012)," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 11-91, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    7. Carpenter, Jennifer N., 1998. "The exercise and valuation of executive stock options," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 127-158, May.
    8. Jiang, George J. & Tian, Yisong S., 2010. "Forecasting Volatility Using Long Memory and Comovements: An Application to Option Valuation under SFAS 123R," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(02), pages 503-533, April.
    9. Tian, Yisong S., 2004. "Too much of a good incentive? The case of executive stock options," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1225-1245, June.
    10. Jonathan E. Ingersoll, Jr., 2006. "The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Incentive Stock Options," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(2), pages 453-488, March.
    11. Hafner, Christian M. & Herwartz, Helmut, 2001. "Option pricing under linear autoregressive dynamics, heteroskedasticity, and conditional leptokurtosis," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-34, March.
    12. Jennergren, L. Peter & Naslund, Bertil, 1996. "A class of options with stochastic lives and an extension of the Black-Scholes formula," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 229-234, June.
    13. Campbell, John Y. & Yogo, Motohiro, 2006. "Efficient tests of stock return predictability," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 27-60, July.
    14. Jin-Chuan Duan, 1995. "The Garch Option Pricing Model," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 13-32.
    15. Bettis, J. Carr & Bizjak, John M. & Lemmon, Michael L., 2005. "Exercise behavior, valuation, and the incentive effects of employee stock options," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 445-470, May.
    16. Len, Angel & Vaello-Sebasti, Antoni, 2009. "American GARCH employee stock option valuation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1129-1143, June.
    17. Grundy, Bruce D, 1991. " Option Prices and the Underlying Asset's Return Distribution," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(3), pages 1045-1069, July.
    18. Philip Brown & Alex Szimayer, 2008. "Valuing executive stock options: performance hurdles, early exercise and stochastic volatility," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(3), pages 363-389.
    19. Paschke, Raphael & Prokopczuk, Marcel, 2010. "Commodity derivatives valuation with autoregressive and moving average components in the price dynamics," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 2742-2752, November.
    20. Nicholas Barberis, 2000. "Investing for the Long Run when Returns Are Predictable," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(1), pages 225-264, February.
    21. Poterba, James M. & Summers, Lawrence H., 1988. "Mean reversion in stock prices : Evidence and Implications," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 27-59, October.
    22. León, Angel & Vaello-Sebastià, Antoni, 2010. "A simulation-based algorithm for American executive stock option valuation," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 14-23, March.
    23. Longstaff, Francis A & Schwartz, Eduardo S, 2001. "Valuing American Options by Simulation: A Simple Least-Squares Approach," University of California at Los Angeles, Anderson Graduate School of Management qt43n1k4jb, Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA.
    24. Kimura, Toshikazu, 2010. "Valuing executive stock options: A quadratic approximation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1368-1379, December.
    25. Grundy, R.D., 1991. "Option Prices and the Underlying Asset's Return Distribution," Weiss Center Working Papers 11-91, Wharton School - Weiss Center for International Financial Research.
    26. Lars Stentoft, 2004. "Assessing the Least Squares Monte-Carlo Approach to American Option Valuation," Review of Derivatives Research, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 129-168, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    G11; G13; G17; G35; M52; Executive stock options; Risk aversion; Undiversification; Predictability; FAS123R;

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G13 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Contingent Pricing; Futures Pricing
    • G17 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Financial Forecasting and Simulation
    • G35 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Payout Policy
    • M52 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ejores:v:223:y:2012:i:1:p:188-202. 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/eor .

    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.