IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sip/dpaper/03-007.html

Accounting for Stock Options

Author

Listed:
  • Jeremy Bulow

    (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University)

  • John B. Shoven

    (Department of Economics, Stanford University)

Abstract

Employee stock options differ substantially from traded options. Most expire within 90 days of the termination of employment, and are forfeited if the employee leaves before vesting. The major accounting standards boards are in agreement that options should be expensed, but companies have legitimate complaints about the proposed methods. For example, the proposals create accounting incentives for firms to lay off employees who hold unvested and nearly worthless options. We propose a simple accounting system, based on 90 day option prices, that addresses these legitimate objections. The system produces objective, transparent, and decision-relevant information. Firms are given significant flexibility regarding the amortization of unvested option expense. This flexibility is created, without distorting incentives, by our use of market-based prices whenever an option expense is recognized.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeremy Bulow & John B. Shoven, 2004. "Accounting for Stock Options," Discussion Papers 03-007, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:sip:dpaper:03-007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/repec/sip/03-007.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huddart, Steven & Lang, Mark, 1996. "Employee stock option exercises an empirical analysis," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 5-43, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul Oyer & Scott Schaefer, 2004. "Compensating Employees Below the Executive Ranks: A Comparison of Options, Restricted Stock, and Cash," NBER Working Papers 10221, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. de Meza, David & Webb, David C., 2003. "Principal agent problems under loss aversion: an application to executive stock options," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 24676, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Hodder, James E. & Jackwerth, Jens Carsten, 2011. "Managerial responses to incentives: Control of firm risk, derivative pricing implications, and outside wealth management," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 1507-1518, June.
    4. Lim, Terence & Lo, Andrew W. & Merton, Robert C. & Scholes, Myron S., 2006. "The Derivatives Sourcebook," Foundations and Trends(R) in Finance, now publishers, vol. 1(5–6), pages 365-572, April.
    5. Muurling, Rutger & Lehnert, Thorsten, 2004. "Option-based compensation: a survey," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 365-401.
    6. Pendleton, Andrew & Robinson, Andrew, 2021. "Why walk away from an easy gain in wealth? Evidence from a UK stock option plan," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    7. Huddart, Steven & Lang, Mark, 2003. "Information distribution within firms: evidence from stock option exercises," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-3), pages 3-31, January.
    8. James C. Sesil & Yu Peng Lin, 2011. "The Impact of Employee Stock Option Adoption and Incidence on Productivity: Evidence from U.S. Panel Data," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 514-534, July.
    9. Otto, Clemens A., 2014. "CEO optimism and incentive compensation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 366-404.
    10. Erwinna Chendra & Kuntjoro A. Sidarto, 2020. "An improved of Hull–White model for valuing Employee Stock Options (ESOs)," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 651-669, February.
    11. Atif Ellahie & Xiaoxia Peng, 2021. "Management forecasts of volatility," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 620-655, June.
    12. Kevin F. Hallock & Craig A. Olson, 2010. "New Data for Answering Old Questions Regarding Employee Stock Options," NBER Chapters, in: Labor in the New Economy, pages 149-180, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. repec:dau:papers:123456789/9550 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. J. Nellie Liang & Scott Weisbenner, 2001. "Who benefits from a bull market? an analysis of employee stock option grants and stock prices," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2001-57, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    15. Ingolf Dittmann & Ernst Maug, 2007. "Lower Salaries and No Options? On the Optimal Structure of Executive Pay," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(1), pages 303-343, February.
    16. Jin, Li & Kothari, S.P., 2008. "Effect of personal taxes on managers' decisions to sell their stock," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 23-46, September.
    17. Martin Widdicks & Jinsha Zhao, 2014. "A Model of Equity Based Compensation with Tax," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(7-8), pages 1002-1041, September.
    18. De Cesari, Amedeo & Ozkan, Neslihan, 2015. "Executive incentives and payout policy: Empirical evidence from Europe," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 70-91.
    19. Fich, Eliezer M. & Starks, Laura T. & Yore, Adam S., 2014. "CEO deal-making activities and compensation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 471-492.
    20. Oyer, Paul & Schaefer, Scott, 2005. "Accounting, Governance, and Broad-Based Stock Option Grants," Research Papers 1821r1, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    21. Vicky Henderson & David Hobson, 2008. "Perpetual American options in incomplete markets: the infinitely divisible case," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(5), pages 461-469.

    More about this item

    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:sip:dpaper:03-007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anne Shor The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Anne Shor to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cestaus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.