ABC av personaloptionsplaner Att attrahera, belöna och motivera en begåvad medarbetare är de främsta syftet med Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOP). För att behålla det mänskliga kapitalet investerar företagen i Indien idag mycket pengar. Ett sådant medium är att motivera medarbetaren med hjälp av ESOP. Enligt detta system ges ett alternativ till arbetstagaren att förvärva aktier i bolaget. Dessa aktier är kända som aktieoptioner och beviljas av arbetsgivaren baserat på anställdas prestation. Företagen erbjuder aktier som anställningsförmån och som uppskjuten ersättning. Enligt SEBI: s riktlinjer bör en anställd vara fast anställd bosatt i Indien eller utanför Indien. Det ingår också företagsledaren som han kan eller inte kan vara en heltidsledare. Den grundläggande idén att ge personaloptioner i tidiga dagar var att spara kontantkompensationer. Det var ett sätt att motivera medarbetaren och till och med för att spara pengar för några av de kontantbandade företagen. Dessa planer är utöver lönen för den anställde men inte i monetär form direkt. Senare ledde begreppet motivation upp och uppehåll till att spridas av ESOP över företagets vertikaler. Detta är i princip låsetiden för arbetstagaren. Det är ett bestämt datum då aktieoptionen kan utnyttjas. Till exempel: Mr. Deepak har fått ett optionsoption från hans bolag för en intjäningsperiod om 3 år under året 2 februari 2012. Det innebär att intjänandedatumet är 2 februari 2015. Priset varav 500 aktier erbjöds till Deepak var Rs 250 vardera. Detta pris är fastighetspriset. Det innebär att den 2 februari 2015 kan utöva sin rätt att köpa aktierna, beroende på villkoren. Låt oss säga att priset på aktie den 2 februari, 2015 är 650, vilket kommer att leda till en vinst på Rs 400, vilket ger en vinst på Rs 2,00,000 till arbetstagaren, om han utövar alternativet efter 3 år. Skatteeffekter av optionsoptionsplaner: Fram till 1995 fanns det ingen avsättning att beskatta ESOP. Men under året klargjorde inkomstskattemyndigheterna med hjälp av ett cirkulär att dessa alternativ som gör aktierna i företaget tillgängliga för anställda till lägre än marknadspriset kommer att locka skatt. Först och främst är arbetstagarens diskretion. Utövande av alternativ eller dess avslag är helt beroende av arbetstagaren. ESOP-förmåner utgör en del av arbetstagarlönen och är skattepliktiga som perquisite. Beräkningen är baserad på marknadsvärdet av aktien vid tidpunkten för utnyttjande av option och det upplupna priset. Vanliga invånare är skyldiga att betala dessa skatter på grundval av global inkomst. För företag som är noterade i Indien För alla de bolag som är noterade i Indien debiteras 15 procent av skatten under kortfristiga kapitalvinster (STCG). Långfristig kapitalvinstskatt (LTCG) uppkommer inte i detta fall. För företag som är noterade utanför Indien: För företagen är de inte noterade i Indien men listade i andra börser över hela världen, den kortfristiga realisationsvinsten kommer att läggas till som en del av lön och skatt tas ut utifrån löneskiktet. LTCG laddad är 20 procent tillsammans med indexering. Till exempel: Arbetsgivare har gett möjlighet att tilldela totalt 400 aktier för de närmaste 4 åren för alla berättigade anställda. Inlösenpriset är Rs 100 och startdatumet för tilldelningen är 1 juli 2010. Raj, en av de anställda i bolaget tilldelas 100 aktier den 1 juli 2010, vid bolagsdagen är priset på aktier Rs 500. Han säljer dessa aktier till Rs 1500 den 1 december 2011. Skatt vid tidpunkten för tilldelning: STCG kommer att vara (500-100) 100 20 Rs 8000 (Med tanke på att Raj är i 20 procent fäste). SKATT vid tidpunkten för försäljningen: (1500-500) 10015 Rs 15000 InvestmentYogi är en ledande personalportal. Ansvarsbegränsning: All information i denna artikel har tillhandahållits av InvestmentYogi och NDTV. Resultatet är inte ansvarigt för exaktheten och fullständigheten av samma. För sista gången: Aktieoptionerna är en kostnad Det är dags att avsluta debatten om redovisning av aktieoptioner kontroversen har pågått alldeles för länge. Faktum är att regeln för rapportering av verkställande aktieoptioner går tillbaka till 1972, när Redovisningsprincipen, föregångaren till FASB, utfärdat APB 25. Regeln angav att kostnaden för optioner vid beviljandet Datumet ska mätas med deras inneboende värdering av skillnaden mellan aktiens nuvarande verkliga marknadsvärde och aktiekursen. Enligt denna metod tilldelades ingen kostnad till optioner när deras lösenpris fastställdes till det aktuella marknadspriset. Grunden för regeln var ganska enkel: Eftersom inga pengar byter händer när bidraget görs är det inte en ekonomiskt signifikant transaktion att utfärda aktieoptioner. Det var vad många tänkte på tiden. Vad mer var, var lite teori eller övning tillgänglig 1972 för att styra företag för att bestämma värdet av sådana orörda finansiella instrument. APB 25 var föråldrad inom ett år. Publiceringen 1973 av Black-Scholes-formulären utlöste en enorm boom på marknaderna för offentligt handlade alternativ, en rörelse förstärkt genom öppnandet, även 1973, av Chicago Board Options Exchange. Det var helt klart ingen slump att tillväxten på de handlade optionsmarknaderna speglades av en ökande användning av aktieoptionsbidrag i ersättning för ledande befattningshavare och anställda. National Center for Employee Ownership uppskattar att nästan 10 miljoner anställda fick aktieoptioner år 2000 mindre än 1 miljon år 1990. Det blev snart klart i både teori och praktik att alternativ av något slag var värda långt mer än det inneboende värdet definierat av APB 25. FASB inledde en översyn av aktieoptionsbokföring 1984 och efter mer än ett decennium av uppvärmd kontrovers slutgavs slutligen SFAS 123 i oktober 1995. Det rekommenderades inte att företag skulle redovisa kostnaden för optioner som beviljats och för att bestämma deras rättvisa marknadsvärde med hjälp av options-pricing modeller. Den nya standarden var en kompromiss som återspeglar intensiv lobbying av affärsmän och politiker mot obligatorisk rapportering. De hävdade att de verkställande aktieoptionerna var en av de avgörande komponenterna i den extraordinära ekonomiska renässansen i Amerika, så varje försök att ändra redovisningsreglerna för dem var en attack på Americas enormt framgångsrik modell för att skapa nya företag. De flesta företag valde oundvikligen att ignorera den rekommendation som de motsatte sig så starkt och fortsatte att registrera endast det inneboende värdet vid beviljande datum, vanligtvis noll, av sina optionsoptioner. Därefter gjorde den extraordinära uppsvinget i aktiekurser kritikerna av optionsutgifterna ut som spoilsports. Men sedan kraschen har debatten återvänt med en hämnd. Skenet av företagens bokföringskandaler har i synnerhet visat hur orealistiskt en bild av deras ekonomiska resultat många företag har målat i sina finansiella rapporter. I ökande grad har investerare och tillsynsmyndigheter kommit att erkänna att optionsbaserad kompensation är en stor snedvridande faktor. Hade AOL Time Warner 2001 till exempel rapporterade personaloptionsutgifter enligt rekommendation av SFAS 123 skulle ha visat en rörelseförlust på cirka 1,7 miljarder i stället för de 700 miljoner i rörelseresultat som det faktiskt rapporterade. Vi anser att fallet för kostnadsutnyttjande är överväldigande och på de följande sidorna undersöker och avvisar vi de huvudsakliga påståenden som framförts av dem som fortsätter att motsätta sig det. Vi visar att, i motsats till dessa experters argument, aktieoptionsbidrag har reella kassaflödesimplikationer som måste rapporteras, att sättet att kvantifiera dessa konsekvenser är tillgängligt, att fotnotupplysning inte är ett acceptabelt ersättning för att rapportera transaktionen i inkomst redogörelse och balansräkning och att fullständigt erkännande av optionskostnader inte behöver emasculate incitamenten för entreprenörsföretag. Vi diskuterar då bara hur företag kan gå om att redovisa kostnaden för optioner på sina resultaträkningar och balansräkningar. Fallacy 1: Aktieoptioner representerar inte en reell kostnad Det är en grundläggande bokföringsprincip att finansiella rapporter ska registrera ekonomiskt betydande transaktioner. Ingen tvivlar på att handlade alternativ uppfyller det kriteriet miljarder dollar som värderas köps och säljs varje dag, antingen i diskoteksmarknaden eller på börser. För många människor är dock företagsoptionsbidrag en annan historia. Dessa transaktioner är inte ekonomiskt signifikanta, argumentet går, eftersom inga pengar ändrar händer. Som tidigare amerikanska direktör Harvey Golub uttryckte den i en 8 augusti 2002, Wall Street Journal artikel, är optionsoptioner aldrig en kostnad för företaget och bör därför aldrig redovisas som en kostnad i resultaträkningen. Den ställningen trotsar den ekonomiska logiken, för att inte tala om sunt förnuft, i flera avseenden. För en början behöver värdetransporter inte innebära överföring av kontanter. Även om en transaktion med ett kvitto eller betalning är tillräckligt för att generera en inspelningsbar transaktion, är det inte nödvändigt. Händelser som utbyte av aktier för tillgångar, tecknande av ett leasingavtal, tillhandahållande av framtida pension eller semesterförmåner för nuvarande anställning eller förvärv av material på kredit alla utlösande bokföringstransaktioner, eftersom de innebär värdeöverföringar, även om inga pengar ändras händer vid den tidpunkt då transaktionen sker. Även om inga kontanter byter händer, utfärdar aktieoptioner till anställda ett kontantoffert, en möjlighetskostnad, som måste redovisas. Om ett företag skulle ge aktier i stället för alternativ till anställda, skulle alla vara överens om att företagens kostnader för denna transaktion skulle vara det pengar det annars skulle ha fått om de hade sålt aktierna till nuvarande marknadspris till investerare. Det är exakt detsamma med aktieoptioner. När ett företag ger optioner till anställda, ger det möjlighet att ta emot pengar från försäkringsgivare som kan ta samma alternativ och sälja dem på en konkurrensutsatt marknad för investerare. Warren Buffett gjorde denna punkt grafiskt i en kolumn i Washington Post den 9 april 2002, när han uppgav: Berkshire Hathaway kommer gärna att få alternativ i stället för pengar för många av de varor och tjänster som vi säljer Amerika. Att ge optioner till anställda snarare än att sälja dem till leverantörer eller investerare via försäkringsgivare innebär en faktisk förlust av pengar till företaget. Det kan givetvis vara mer rimligt argumenterat för att kontanter som försvunnits genom att utfärda optioner till anställda, istället för att sälja dem till investerare, kompenseras av de pengar som bolaget sparar genom att betala sina anställda mindre pengar. Som två allmänt respekterade ekonomer, Burton G. Malkiel och William J. Baumol, noterade i en 4 april 2002 Wall Street Journalartikel: Ett nytt företagande företag kanske inte kan tillhandahålla den kontanta ersättning som behövs för att locka utestående arbetstagare. Istället kan det erbjuda aktieoptioner. Men Malkiel och Baumol följer tyvärr inte sin observation till sin logiska slutsats. För om kostnaden för optionsoptioner inte införlivas universellt i mätningen av nettoresultatet, kommer företag som beviljar optioner att underreda kompensationskostnader och det går inte att jämföra deras lönsamhet, produktivitet och kapitaltillskott med ekonomiskt likvärdiga företag som bara har strukturerat sitt kompensationssystem på ett annat sätt. Följande hypotetiska illustration visar hur det kan hända. Tänk dig två företag, KapCorp och MerBod, som konkurrerar i exakt samma bransch. De två skiljer sig endast från strukturen i deras ersättningspaket. KapCorp betalar sina anställda 400 000 totalt ersättning i form av kontanter under året. Vid årets början utfärdar den också genom 100.000 teckningsoptioner på kapitalmarknaden, som inte kan utnyttjas under ett år, och det krävs att anställda använder 25 av sina ersättningar för att köpa de nyemitterade optionerna. Nettokassaflödet till KapCorp är 300 000 (400 000 i kompensationsutgifter minus 100 000 från försäljningen av optionerna). MerBods tillvägagångssätt är bara lite annorlunda. Det betalar sina anställda 300 000 i kontanter och ger dem direkt 100 000 valmöjligheter i början av året (med samma ettåriga övningsbegränsningar). Ekonomiskt sett är de två positionerna identiska. Varje företag har betalat totalt 400 000 i ersättning, varje har utfärdat 100 000 värden av optioner, och för varje nettokassaflöde uppgår 300 000 efter det att kontanter som erhållits från utfärdandet av optionerna subtraheras från kontanter som används till ersättning. Anställda hos båda företagen håller samma 100 000 alternativ under året, vilket ger samma motivation, incitament och kvarhållande effekter. Hur legitim är en redovisningsstandard som gör det möjligt för två ekonomiskt identiska transaktioner att producera radikalt olika siffror. Vid utarbetandet av bokslutskommunikén kommer KapCorp att boka kompensationsutgifter på 400.000 och visar 100.000 i optioner på balansräkningen på aktieägarkonto. Om kostnaden för teckningsoptioner emitterade till anställda inte redovisas som en kostnad, kommer MerBod dock att boka en kompensationskostnad på endast 300 000 och inte visa några optioner som emitterats i balansräkningen. Om man antar annorlunda intäkter och kostnader, kommer det att se ut som om MerBods vinst var 100 000 högre än KapCorps. MerBod verkar också ha en lägre kapitalbas än KapCorp, även om ökningen av antalet utestående aktier i slutändan kommer att vara densamma för båda bolagen om alla optioner utnyttjas. Till följd av den lägre kompensationsutgiften och den lägre kapitalpositionen visar MerBods prestanda med de flesta analytiska åtgärder att vara långt överlägsen KapCorps. Denna snedvridning uppges naturligtvis varje år att de två företagen väljer olika former av ersättning. Hur berättigad är en redovisningsstandard som tillåter två ekonomiskt identiska transaktioner att producera radikalt olika siffror. Fallacy 2: Kostnaden för anställdas aktieoptioner kan inte uppskattas Vissa motståndare till optionskostnader försvarar sin position på praktiska, inte konceptuella grunder. Alternativ-prissättningsmodeller kan fungera, säger de, som en vägledning för värdering av köpoptioner. Men de kan inte fånga värdet på personaloptioner som är privata avtal mellan företaget och medarbetaren för illikvida instrument som inte kan fritt säljas, bytas, ställas som säkerhet eller säkras. Det är verkligen sant att i allmänhet ett instrument som saknar likviditet kommer att minska sitt värde för innehavaren. Men innehavarnas likviditetsförlust spelar ingen roll för vad det kostar emittenten att skapa instrumentet om emittenten på något sätt dra nytta av bristen på likviditet. Och för aktieoptioner har avsaknaden av en likvida marknad liten inverkan på deras värde för innehavaren. Den stora skönheten av alternativ-prissättningsmodeller är att de bygger på egenskaperna hos det underliggande lageret. Det är just därför de har bidragit till den extraordinära tillväxten av optionsmarknader de senaste 30 åren. Black-Scholes-priset på ett alternativ motsvarar värdet på en portfölj av aktier och kontanter som hanteras dynamiskt för att replikera utbetalningarna till det alternativet. Med en helt likvida aktiekapital kunde en annars obestridd investerare helt säkra en optionsrisk och extrahera sitt värde genom att sälja kort den återkommande portföljen av aktier och kontanter. I så fall skulle likviditetsrabatten på optionsvärdet vara minimal. Och det gäller även om det inte fanns någon marknad för handel alternativet direkt. Därför leder likviditetsmaktens avsaknad av marknader i aktieoptioner inte i sig en rabatt i optionsvärdet till innehavaren. Investeringsbanker, affärsbanker och försäkringsbolag har nu gått långt bortom den grundläggande 30-årige Black-Scholes-modellen för att utveckla metoder för prissättning av alla möjliga alternativ: Standard. Exotiska. Optioner som handlas via mellanhänder, över disken och på utbyten. Alternativ kopplade till valutafluktuationer. Alternativ inbäddade i komplexa värdepapper, såsom konvertibel skuld, preferenslagret eller inkaldningsbar skuld som bolån med förskottsegenskaper eller räntehattar och - golv. En hel delindustri har utvecklats för att hjälpa individer, företag och penningmarknadschefer att köpa och sälja dessa komplexa värdepapper. Nuvarande finansiell teknik tillåter visserligen att företagen införlivar alla funktioner hos personaloptioner i en prissättningsmodell. Några investeringsbanker kommer till och med att citera priser för ledande befattningshavare som vill säkra eller sälja sina optionsrätter före uppgörelse, om deras företags optionsplan tillåter det. Självklart uppskattar formelbaserade eller försäkringsgivare om kostnaden för personaloptioner är mindre exakta än kontantutbetalningar eller delaktigheter. Men finansiella rapporter bör sträva efter att vara ungefär rätt i att återspegla den ekonomiska verkligheten snarare än exakt fel. Chefer beräknar rutinmässigt uppskattningar av viktiga kostnadsposter, såsom avskrivningar på anläggningstillgångar och avsättningar mot ansvarsförbindelser, såsom framtida miljöanvändningar och uppgörelser från produktansvar och andra processer. Vid beräkningen av kostnaderna för anställdas pensioner och andra pensionsförmåner använder chefer till exempel aktuarmässiga uppskattningar av framtida räntor, anställningsuppehållsräntor, anställdas pensioneringsdatum, anställdas livslängd och deras makar samt eskalering av framtida medicinska kostnader. Prissättningsmodeller och lång erfarenhet gör det möjligt att beräkna kostnaden för optioner som emitterats under en viss period med en precision som är jämförbar med eller större än många av dessa andra poster som redan finns på företagens resultaträkningar och balansräkningar. Inte alla invändningar mot att använda Black-Scholes och andra optionsvärderingsmodeller bygger på svårigheter att beräkna kostnaden för de tilldelade optionerna. Till exempel hävdade John DeLong, i ett paper of Competitive Enterprise Institute i juni 2002 med titeln Stock Options Controversy och New Economy, att även om ett värde beräknades enligt en modell skulle beräkningen kräva justering för att återspegla värdet för arbetstagaren. Han är bara hälften rätt. Genom att betala anställda med egna aktier eller optioner tvingar företaget dem att hålla höga icke-diversifierade finansiella portföljer, en risk som ytterligare förvärras av investeringen av den anställdas egna humankapital i företaget också. Eftersom nästan alla individer är riskfyllda kan vi förvänta oss att anställda lägger betydligt mindre värde på deras optionspaket än andra, bättre diversifierade investerare skulle. Uppskattningar av omfattningen av denna riskfaktor för dödvikt för anställda, eftersom det ibland kallas från 20 till 50, beroende på volatiliteten hos den underliggande aktien och graden av diversifiering av de anställdas portfölj. Förekomsten av denna dödviktskostnad används ibland för att motivera den uppenbarligen stora omfattningen av optionsbaserad ersättning utdelad till toppledare. Ett företag som till exempel vill belöna sin VD med 1 miljon i alternativ som är värda 1.000 vardera på marknaden kan (kanske perversivt) anledningen att det ska utfärda 2000 i stället för 1.000 alternativ, eftersom det är från VD: s perspektiv alternativen är värda bara 500 vardera. (Vi vill påpeka att denna resonemang bekräftar vår tidigare punkt att alternativ är en ersättning för kontanter.) Men samtidigt som det rimligen kan vara rimligt att ta hänsyn till dödviktskostnaden när man bestämmer hur mycket aktiebaserad ersättning (som alternativ) ska inkluderas i en ledningspaket för verkställande direktörer är det verkligen inte rimligt att låta kostnaden för dödsbeloppet påverka hur företag registrerar kostnaderna för paketen. Bokslutet speglar företagets ekonomiska perspektiv, inte de enheter (inklusive anställda) som det handlar om. När ett företag säljer en produkt till en kund, t ex behöver den inte verifiera vad produkten är värd för den personen. Det räknar den förväntade kontantbetalningen i transaktionen som dess intäkter. På samma sätt när företaget köper en produkt eller tjänst från en leverantör undersöker den inte huruvida det betalade priset var större eller mindre än leverantörerna kostade eller vad leverantören kunde ha fått om den sålde produkten eller tjänsten på annat håll. Företaget registrerar köpeskillingen som den kontanta eller kontanta motsvarigheten den offrade för att förvärva godet eller tjänsten. Antag att en klädtillverkare skulle bygga ett gym för sina anställda. Företaget skulle inte göra det för att konkurrera med gymklubbar. Det skulle bygga upp centret för att generera högre intäkter från ökad produktivitet och kreativitet hos hälsosammare, lyckligare anställda och för att minska kostnaderna för arbetstagarnas omsättning och sjukdom. Kostnaden för företaget är klart kostnaden för att bygga och bibehålla anläggningen, inte det värde som de enskilda anställda kan placera på den. Kostnaden för fitnesscentret redovisas som en periodisk kostnad, som är löst anpassad till förväntad omsättningsökning och minskning av anställningsrelaterade kostnader. Den enda rimliga motiveringen vi har sett för att kosta verkställande alternativ under deras marknadsvärde härrör från observationen att många alternativ förverkas när anställda lämnar eller utövas för tidigt på grund av riskaversion för anställda. I dessa fall utspäds det befintliga eget kapitalet mindre än vad det annars skulle vara, eller inte alls, vilket leder till att företagets kompensationskostnad minskar. Medan vi håller med den grundläggande logiken i detta argument kan effekterna av förverkande och tidig övning på teoretiska värden vara grovt överdrivna. (Se den verkliga effekten av förverkande och tidig övning i slutet av den här artikeln.) Den verkliga effekten av förverkande och tidig övning Till skillnad från kontantlön kan aktieoptioner inte överföras från individen tilldelade dem till någon annan. Nontransferability har två effekter som kombinerar för att göra anställningsalternativ mindre värdefulla än konventionella alternativ som handlas på marknaden. För det första förlorar sina anställda sina möjligheter om de lämnar företaget innan optionerna har inneburit. För det andra tenderar anställda att minska risken genom att utnyttja innehavna aktieoptioner mycket tidigare än en väl diversifierad investerare skulle, vilket skulle minska potentialen för en mycket högre utdelning om de hade alternativen till förfallodagen. Anställda med inlånade optioner som finns i pengarna kommer också att utöva dem när de slutar, eftersom de flesta företag kräver att anställda använder eller förlorar sina alternativ vid avgång. I båda fallen reduceras den ekonomiska påverkan på bolaget att utfärda optionerna, eftersom värdet och den relativa storleken på de befintliga aktieägarnas insatser utspäds mindre än de kunde ha varit eller inte alls. Med tanke på den ökade sannolikheten för att företagen kommer att behöva bekosta aktieoptioner, bekämpar vissa motståndare en rearguard-åtgärd genom att försöka övertyga standard setter att avsevärt minska de redovisade kostnaderna för dessa alternativ, diskontera deras värde från det som mäts av finansiella modeller för att återspegla den starka sannolikhet för förverkande och tidig träning. Nuvarande förslag som dessa personer lägger fram för FASB och IASB skulle göra det möjligt för företagen att uppskatta andelen optioner som förverkats under intjänandeperioden och minska kostnaden för optionsbidrag med detta belopp. I stället för att använda utgångsdatumet för optionslivet i en optionsprissättningsmodell, försöker förslagen att tillåta företag att använda ett förväntat liv för möjligheten att spegla sannolikheten för tidig träning. Att använda ett förväntat liv (vilka företag kan uppskatta nära intjänandeperioden, säg fyra år) istället för kontraktsperioden, t ex tio år, skulle avsevärt minska den uppskattade kostnaden för optionen. Vissa justeringar bör göras för förverkande och tidig träning. Men den föreslagna metoden överstiger avsevärt kostnadsminskningen, eftersom den försummar omständigheterna under vilka möjligheter som mest sannolikt förverkas eller utövas tidigt. När hänsyn tas till dessa omständigheter är minskningen av kostnader för personaloptioner sannolikt mycket mindre. Först betrakta förverkande. Om du använder en tom andel för förverkan baserat på historisk eller potentiell anställd är omsättningen endast giltig om förverkande är en slumpmässig händelse, som ett lotteri, oberoende av aktiekursen. I verkligheten är sannolikheten för förverkande emellertid negativt relaterad till värdet av de förverkade optionerna och därmed själva aktiekursen. Människor är mer benägna att lämna ett företag och förlora alternativ när aktiekursen har minskat och alternativen är värda lite. Men om företaget har gjort det bra och aktiekursen har ökat betydligt sedan tilldelningsdatumet, kommer alternativen att bli mycket mer värdefulla, och anställda blir mycket mindre benägna att lämna. Om anställdas omsättning och förverkande är mer sannolikt när alternativen är minst värdefulla, reduceras lite av alternativen totala kostnaden vid tilldelningsdatum på grund av sannolikheten för förverkande. Argumentet för tidig träning är liknande. Det beror också på framtida aktiekurs. Anställda tenderar att träna tidigt om de flesta av deras förmögenhet är bunden i företaget, de måste diversifiera och de har inget annat sätt att minska riskrisken mot bolagets aktiekurs. Ledande befattningshavare, dock med de största optionsinnehav, är osannolikt att träna tidigt och förstöra optionsvärdet när aktiekursen har ökat väsentligt. Ofta har de obegränsat lager, vilket de kan sälja som ett effektivare sätt att minska riskrisken. Eller de har tillräckligt med pengar för att komma i kontakt med en investeringsbank för att säkra sina optionspositioner utan att utöva för tidigt. Precis som med förverkandefunktionen skulle beräkningen av ett förväntat optionsliv utan hänsyn till omfattningen av innehav av anställda som utövar tidigt eller på grund av deras förmåga att säkra deras risker på annat sätt väsentligt underskatta kostnaden för de beviljade optionerna. Alternativ-prissättningsmodeller kan modifieras för att inkludera inflytandet av aktiekurserna och omfattningen av anställdas option och aktieinnehav på sannolikheten för förverkande och tidig övning. (Se till exempel Mark Rubinsteins Fall 1995-artikel i Journal of Derivatives. På Redovisningsvärdering av Personaloptioner.) Den faktiska storleken på dessa justeringar måste baseras på specifika företagsdata, såsom uppskattning av börskurs och distribution av optionsbidrag bland anställda. De justeringar som korrekt bedömdes kan visa sig vara betydligt mindre än de föreslagna beräkningarna (som uppenbarligen godkändes av FASB och IASB) skulle producera. Faktum är att för vissa företag kan en beräkning som ignorerar förverkande och tidig övning helt och hållet komma närmare den verkliga kostnaden för alternativ än en som helt ignorerar de faktorer som påverkar anställdas förverkande och tidiga övningsbeslut. Fallacy 3: Lageroptionskostnaderna är redan tillräckligt avslöjade Ett annat argument för att försvara det befintliga tillvägagångssättet är att företagen redan lämnar information om kostnaden för optionsbidrag i fotnoterna till bokslutet. Investerare och analytiker som vill justera resultaträkningar för kostnaden för optioner har därför de nödvändiga uppgifterna lättillgängliga. Vi finner det argumentet svårt att svälja. Som vi har påpekat är det en grundläggande princip för redovisning att resultaträkningen och balansräkningen ska skildra en företags underliggande ekonomi. Att förnedra en sak av så stor ekonomisk betydelse som anställningsoptioner till fotnoter skulle systematiskt snedvrida dessa rapporter. Men även om vi skulle acceptera principen att fotnotupplysning är tillräckligt, skulle vi i verkligheten finna det en dålig ersättare för att redovisa utgiften direkt på de primära uttalandena. I början använder investeringsanalytiker, advokater och tillsynsmyndigheter nu elektroniska databaser för att beräkna lönsamhetsförhållandena baserat på siffrorna i företagens reviderade resultaträkningar och balansräkningar. En analytiker som följer ett enskilt företag, eller till och med en liten grupp av företag, kan göra justeringar för information som beskrivs i fotnoter. Men det skulle vara svårt och dyrt att göra för en stor grupp företag som hade lagt olika typer av data i olika icke-standardformat i fotnoter. Det är uppenbart att det är mycket lättare att jämföra företag på lika villkor, där alla ersättningskostnader har införlivats i inkomstnumren. Vad mer är, siffror som anges i fotnoter kan vara mindre tillförlitliga än de som redovisas i de primära finansiella rapporterna. För en sak granskar chefer och revisorer oftast kompletterande fotnoter sist och ägnar mindre tid till dem än vad de gör till siffrorna i de primära uttalandena. Som ett exempel visar fotnoten i eBays FY 2000 årsredovisning ett vägt genomsnittligt tilldelningsvärde på de optioner som beviljades under 1999 av 105,03 för ett år, där det vägda genomsnittliga lösenpriset för de beviljade aktierna var 64,59. Just hur värdet av de tilldelade optionerna kan vara 63 mer än värdet av det underliggande lagret är inte uppenbart. I juli 2000 rapporterades samma effekt: ett verkligt värde på optioner beviljade 103,79 med ett genomsnittligt lösenpris på 62,69. Tydligen upptäcktes detta fel äntligen, eftersom FY 2001-rapporten retroaktivt justerade de genomsnittliga tilldelningsdagarna 1999 och 2000 till 40,45 respektive 41,40. Vi tror att chefer och revisorer kommer att utöva större noggrannhet och bryr sig om att uppnå tillförlitliga uppskattningar av kostnaden för aktieoptioner om dessa siffror ingår i företagens resultaträkningar än vad de för närvarande gör för fotnotupplysning. Vår kollega William Sahlman i sin HBR-artikel i december 2002, utgiftsoptioner löser ingenting, har uttryckt oro för att mängden användbar information i fotnoterna om de optioner som beviljas skulle gå vilse om alternativen kostnadsförs. Men säkerställande av kostnaden för optioner i resultaträkningen utesluter inte att fortsätta att ge en fotnot som förklarar den underliggande fördelningen av bidrag och metoden och parametervärdena som används för att beräkna kostnaden för optionsoptionerna. Vissa kritiker av aktieoptionsutgifter argumenterar, som venturekapitalist John Doerr och FedEx VD Frederick Smith gjorde i en kolumn från 5 april 2002, New York Times, att om utgifter skulle krävas skulle effekterna av optioner räknas två gånger i vinst per aktie : Först som en potentiell utspädning av resultatet genom att öka utestående aktier och andra som avgift mot redovisat resultat. Resultatet skulle vara felaktigt och vilseledande vinst per aktie. Vi har flera svårigheter med detta argument. För det första uppgår optionskostnaderna endast till en (GAAP-baserad) utspädd vinst per aktieberäkning när det aktuella marknadspriset överstiger optionsutnyttjandepriset. Således ignorerar helt utspädda EPS-nummer alla kostnader för alternativ som är nästan i pengarna eller kan bli i pengarna om aktiekursen ökat betydligt på kort sikt. Second, relegating the determination of the economic impact of stock option grants solely to an EPS calculation greatly distorts the measurement of reported income, would not be adjusted to reflect the economic impact of option costs. These measures are more significant summaries of the change in economic value of a company than the prorated distribution of this income to individual shareholders revealed in the EPS measure. This becomes eminently clear when taken to its logical absurdity: Suppose companies were to compensate all their suppliersof materials, labor, energy, and purchased serviceswith stock options rather than with cash and avoid all expense recognition in their income statement. Their income and their profitability measures would all be so grossly inflated as to be useless for analytic purposes only the EPS number would pick up any economic effect from the option grants. Our biggest objection to this spurious claim, however, is that even a calculation of fully diluted EPS does not fully reflect the economic impact of stock option grants. The following hypothetical example illustrates the problems, though for purposes of simplicity we will use grants of shares instead of options. The reasoning is exactly the same for both cases. Lets say that each of our two hypothetical companies, KapCorp and MerBod, has 8,000 shares outstanding, no debt, and annual revenue this year of 100,000. KapCorp decides to pay its employees and suppliers 90,000 in cash and has no other expenses. MerBod, however, compensates its employees and suppliers with 80,000 in cash and 2,000 shares of stock, at an average market price of 5 per share. The cost to each company is the same: 90,000. But their net income and EPS numbers are very different. KapCorps net income before taxes is 10,000, or 1.25 per share. By contrast, MerBods reported net income (which ignores the cost of the equity granted to employees and suppliers) is 20,000, and its EPS is 2.00 (which takes into account the new shares issued). Of course, the two companies now have different cash balances and numbers of shares outstanding with a claim on them. But KapCorp can eliminate that discrepancy by issuing 2,000 shares of stock in the market during the year at an average selling price of 5 per share. Now both companies have closing cash balances of 20,000 and 10,000 shares outstanding. Under current accounting rules, however, this transaction only exacerbates the gap between the EPS numbers. KapCorps reported income remains 10,000, since the additional 10,000 value gained from the sale of the shares is not reported in net income, but its EPS denominator has increased from 8,000 to 10,000. Consequently, KapCorp now reports an EPS of 1.00 to MerBods 2.00, even though their economic positions are identical: 10,000 shares outstanding and increased cash balances of 20,000. The people claiming that options expensing creates a double-counting problem are themselves creating a smoke screen to hide the income-distorting effects of stock option grants. The people claiming that options expensing creates a double-counting problem are themselves creating a smoke screen to hide the income-distorting effects of stock option grants. Indeed, if we say that the fully diluted EPS figure is the right way to disclose the impact of share options, then we should immediately change the current accounting rules for situations when companies issue common stock, convertible preferred stock, or convertible bonds to pay for services or assets. At present, when these transactions occur, the cost is measured by the fair market value of the consideration involved. Why should options be treated differently Fallacy 4: Expensing Stock Options Will Hurt Young Businesses Opponents of expensing options also claim that doing so will be a hardship for entrepreneurial high-tech firms that do not have the cash to attract and retain the engineers and executives who translate entrepreneurial ideas into profitable, long-term growth. This argument is flawed on a number of levels. For a start, the people who claim that option expensing will harm entrepreneurial incentives are often the same people who claim that current disclosure is adequate for communicating the economics of stock option grants. The two positions are clearly contradictory. If current disclosure is sufficient, then moving the cost from a footnote to the balance sheet and income statement will have no market effect. But to argue that proper costing of stock options would have a significant adverse impact on companies that make extensive use of them is to admit that the economics of stock options, as currently disclosed in footnotes, are not fully reflected in companies market prices. More seriously, however, the claim simply ignores the fact that a lack of cash need not be a barrier to compensating executives. Rather than issuing options directly to employees, companies can always issue them to underwriters and then pay their employees out of the money received for those options. Considering that the market systematically puts a higher value on options than employees do, companies are likely to end up with more cash from the sale of externally issued options (which carry with them no deadweight costs) than they would by granting options to employees in lieu of higher salaries. Even privately held companies that raise funds through angel and venture capital investors can take this approach. The same procedures used to place a value on a privately held company can be used to estimate the value of its options, enabling external investors to provide cash for options about as readily as they provide cash for stock. Thats not to say, of course, that entrepreneurs should never get option grants. Venture capital investors will always want employees to be compensated with some stock options in lieu of cash to be assured that the employees have some skin in the game and so are more likely to be honest when they tout their companys prospects to providers of new capital. But that does not preclude also raising cash by selling options externally to pay a large part of the cash compensation to employees. We certainly recognize the vitality and wealth that entrepreneurial ventures, particularly those in the high-tech sector, bring to the U. S. economy. A strong case can be made for creating public policies that actively assist these companies in their early stages, or even in their more established stages. The nation should definitely consider a regulation that makes entrepreneurial, job-creating companies healthier and more competitive by changing something as simple as an accounting journal entry. But we have to question the effectiveness of the current rule, which essentially makes the benefits from a deliberate accounting distortion proportional to companies use of one particular form of employee compensation. After all, some entrepreneurial, job-creating companies might benefit from picking other forms of incentive compensation that arguably do a better job of aligning executive and shareholder interests than conventional stock options do. Indexed or performance options, for example, ensure that management is not rewarded just for being in the right place at the right time or penalized just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A strong case can also be made for the superiority of properly designed restricted stock grants and deferred cash payments. Yet current accounting standards require that these, and virtually all other compensation alternatives, be expensed. Are companies that choose those alternatives any less deserving of an accounting subsidy than Microsoft, which, having granted 300 million options in 2001 alone, is by far the largest issuer of stock options A less distorting approach for delivering an accounting subsidy to entrepreneurial ventures would simply be to allow them to defer some percentage of their total employee compensation for some number of years, which could be indefinitelyjust as companies granting stock options do now. That way, companies could get the supposed accounting benefits from not having to report a portion of their compensation costs no matter what form that compensation might take. What Will Expensing Involve Although the economic arguments in favor of reporting stock option grants on the principal financial statements seem to us to be overwhelming, we do recognize that expensing poses challenges. For a start, the benefits accruing to the company from issuing stock options occur in future periods, in the form of increased cash flows generated by its option motivated and retained employees. The fundamental matching principle of accounting requires that the costs of generating those higher revenues be recognized at the same time the revenues are recorded. This is why companies match the cost of multiperiod assets such as plant and equipment with the revenues these assets produce over their economic lives. In some cases, the match can be based on estimates of the future cash flows. In expensing capitalized software-development costs, for instance, managers match the costs against a predicted pattern of benefits accrued from selling the software. In the case of options, however, managers would have to estimate an equivalent pattern of benefits arising from their own decisions and activities. That would likely introduce significant measurement error and provide opportunities for managers to bias their estimates. We therefore believe that using a standard straight-line amortization formula will reduce measurement error and management bias despite some loss of accuracy. The obvious period for the amortization is the useful economic life of the granted option, probably best measured by the vesting period. Thus, for an option vesting in four years, 148 of the cost of the option would be expensed through the income statement in each month until the option vests. This would treat employee option compensation costs the same way the costs of plant and equipment or inventory are treated when they are acquired through equity instruments, such as in an acquisition. In addition to being reported on the income statement, the option grant should also appear on the balance sheet. In our opinion, the cost of options issued represents an increase in shareholders equity at the time of grant and should be reported as paid-in capital. Some experts argue that stock options are more like contingent liability than equity transactions since their ultimate cost to the company cannot be determined until employees either exercise or forfeit their options. This argument, of course, ignores the considerable economic value the company has sacrificed at time of grant. Whats more, a contingent liability is usually recognized as an expense when it is possible to estimate its value and the liability is likely to be incurred. At time of grant, both these conditions are met. The value transfer is not just probable it is certain. The company has granted employees an equity security that could have been issued to investors and suppliers who would have given cash, goods, and services in return. The amount sacrificed can also be estimated, using option-pricing models or independent estimates from investment banks. There has to be, of course, an offsetting entry on the asset side of the balance sheet. FASB, in its exposure draft on stock option accounting in 1994, proposed that at time of grant an asset called prepaid compensation expense be recognized, a recommendation we endorse. FASB, however, subsequently retracted its proposal in the face of criticism that since employees can quit at any time, treating their deferred compensation as an asset would violate the principle that a company must always have legal control over the assets it reports. We feel that FASB capitulated too easily to this argument. The firm does have an asset because of the option grantpresumably a loyal, motivated employee. Even though the firm does not control the asset in a legal sense, it does capture the benefits. FASBs concession on this issue subverted substance to form. Finally, there is the issue of whether to allow companies to revise the income number theyve reported after the grants have been issued. Some commentators argue that any recorded stock option compensation expense should be reversed if employees forfeit the options by leaving the company before vesting or if their options expire unexercised. But if companies were to mark compensation expense downward when employees forfeit their options, should they not also mark it up when the share price rises, thereby increasing the market value of the options Clearly, this can get complicated, and it comes as no surprise that neither FASB nor IASB recommends any kind of postgrant accounting revisions, since that would open up the question of whether to use mark-to-market accounting for all types of assets and liabilities, not just share options. At this time, we dont have strong feelings about whether the benefits from mark-to-market accounting for stock options exceed the costs. But we would point out that people who object to estimating the cost of options granted at time of issue should be even less enthusiastic about reestimating their options cost each quarter. We recognize that options are a powerful incentive, and we believe that all companies should consider them in deciding how to attract and retain talent and align the interests of managers and owners. But we also believe that failing to record a transaction that creates such powerful effects is economically indefensible and encourages companies to favor options over alternative compensation methods. It is not the proper role of accounting standards to distort executive and employee compensation by subsidizing one form of compensation relative to all others. Companies should choose compensation methods according to their economic benefitsnot the way they are reported. It is not the proper role of accounting standards to distort executive and employee compensation by subsidizing one form of compensation relative to all others. A version of this article appeared in the March 2003 issue of Harvard Business Review. Accounting for Employee Stock Option Plan ESOP Securities and Exchange Board of India issued ESOP guidelines in 1999. The idea behind this was to reward and motivate employees for their commitment and hard work. SEBI defines employee stock options as option given to the whole-time directors, officers or employees of a company which gives such Directors, officers or employees, the benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future date, the securities offered by the company at a predetermined price. Before we go in the detail of ESOP accounting let us understand a few terms. Vesting means the process by which the employee gets the right to apply for and be issued Shares of the company under the options granted to him. Vesting period means the period over which the vesting of the options of the employee Takes place Exercise period means the time period after vesting within which the employee should Exercise his right to buy the shares by payment of the option price on the options vested in Him. If the exercise period lapses the vested option lapses and no right shall accrue to the Employee thereafter The act of exercise implies an application being made by the employee to the company to Have the options vested in him issued as shares upon payment of the option price. Exercise can take place as specified after vesting The trust route is often adopted to route the ESOS scheme. It works like this: a company creates a trust for the employees and the trust receives its stock either by fresh allotment or by purchase from shareholders or the owner may sell shares of his holding to the trust. The trust obtains its finds through loans and allots shares to employees on exercise of their right in exchange for cash and repays its loans. These Guidelines applies to any company whose shares are listed on any stock exchange in India and came into force with immediate effect from 19 th of June 1999. The stock exchanges were advised that the shares issued pursuant to ESOP would be eligible for listing only if such instruments were in accordance with these Guidelines. In respect of options granted during any Accounting period, the Accounting value of the options shall be treated as another form of employee compensation in the financial statements of the company. The Accounting value of options shall be equal to the maximum of: a) The aggregate over all employee stock options granted during any Accounting period of the excess of the fair value of the option over the specified percentage of the market value of the share on the date of grant of the option or b) Excess of the aggregate of the option discounts on all employee stock options granted during any Accounting period over 20 of the total employee compensation as reported in the profit and loss account of that period. For this purpose: 1. Fair value means the option discount, or, if the company so chooses, the value of the option using the Black Scholes formula or other similar valuation method. 2. Option discount means the excess of the market price of the share at the time of grant of the option over the exercise price of the option (including up-front payment if any) 3. Specified percentage means 25 in case of options granted within 12 months of the effective date, 20 in case of options granted during the 13 to 24 months after the effective date, and 15 in case of options granted after 24 months of the effective date. Effective date is the date on which these guidelines come into effect. Where the Accounting value is accounted for as employee compensation in accordance with the above stated. the amount should be amortized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period. When an unvested employee stock option lapses by virtue of the employee not conforming to the vesting conditions after the Accounting value of the option has already been accounted for as employee compensation, this Accounting treatment shall be reversed by a credit to employee compensation expense equal to the amortized portion of the Accounting value of the lapsed options and a credit to deferred employee compensation expense equal to the unamortized portion. When a vested employee stock option lapses on expiry of the exercise period, after the Accounting value of the option has already been accounted for as employee compensation, this Accounting treatment shall be reversed by a credit to employee compensation expense. The Accounting treatment prescribed above can be illustrated by the following numerical example. Suppose a company grants 500 options on 141999 at Rs 40 when the market price is Rs 160, the vesting period is two and a half years, the maximum exercise period is one year and the total employee compensation for the year 1999- 2000 is Rs 900,000. Also supposed that 150 unvested options lapse on 152001, 300 options are exercised on 3062002 and 50 vested options lapse at the end of the exercise period. The Accounting value of the option being the maximum of: a) 500 x (160-40) - 25 x 160 500 x 120 - 40 500 x 80 40,000 b) 500 x (160-40) - 10 x 900,000 60,000 - 90,000 -30,000 would be equal to Rs 40,000. The Accounting entries would be as follows: 141999 Deferred Employee Compensation Expense 40,000 Employee Stock Options Outstanding 40,000 (Grant of 500 options at an Accounting value of Rs 80 each) 3132000 Employee Compensation Expense 16,000 Deferred Employee Compensation Expense 16,000 (Amortisation of the deferred compensation over two and a half years on straight-line basis) 3132001 Employee Compensation Expense 16,000 Deferred Employee Compensation Expense 16,000 (Amortisation of the deferred compensation over two and a half years on straight-line basis) 152001 Employee Stock Options Outstanding 12,000 Employee Compensation Expense 9,600 Deferred Employee Compensation Expense 2,400 (Reversal of compensation Accounting on lapse of 150 unvested options) 3132002 Employee Compensation Expense 5,600 Deferred Employee Compensation Expense 5,600 (Amortisation of the deferred compensation over two and a half years on straight-line basis) 3062002 Cash 12,000 Employee Stock Options Outstan ding 24,000 Paid Up Equity Capital 3,000 Share Premium Account 33,000 (Exercise of 300 options at an exercise price of Rs 40 each and an Accounting value of Rs 80 each) 1102002 Employee Stock Options Outstanding 4,000 Employee Compensation Expense 4,000 (Reversal of compensation Accounting on lapse of 50 vested options at end of exercise period) Employee stock option outstanding will appear in the Balance Sheet as part of net worth or share holders equity. Deferred employee compensation will appear in the Balance Sheet as a negative item as part of net worth or share holders equity. Disclosure in Directors Report The Board of Directors shall disclose either in the Directors Report or in the annexure to the Directors Report, the following details of the Stock option plan: a) The total number of shares covered by the Employee Stock Option scheme as approved by the shareholders b) The Pricing formula c) Options granted d) Options vested e) Options exercised f) Options forfeited g) Extinguishment or modification of options h) Money realised by exercise of options i) Total number of options in force j) Employee wise details of options granted to i) Senior managerial personnel nnnnii) any other employee who receives a grant in any one year of options amounting to 5 or more of options granted during that year. k) Diluted Earnings Per Share (EPS) calculated in accordance with International Accounting Standard (IAS) In todays world ESOPs have been increasingly used as a motivating weapon by the management to retain its most efficient employees. Employees of blue chip companies like Infosys, Wipro, ITC and others become millionaires overnight. But the tool meant for rewarding employees commitment is being misused by few senior managers to serve their self-interest by manipulating the market price. Some investors are unhappy with the scheme as it dilutes their level of participation in companys affairs. Also the very purpose of ESOPs will get defeated if the employees sell their shares in the market. The scheme also has an uncertainty hidden due to the fluctuating stock prices. Despite the disadvantages ESOPs is still a popular tool to attract and retain the best talent and hence the management must draw a scheme suiting the employees expectations and must study the dynamic changes in stock market to ensure its success. For the Last Time: Stock Options Are an Expense The time has come to end the debate on accounting for stock options the controversy has been going on far too long. In fact, the rule governing the reporting of executive stock options dates back to 1972, when the Accounting Principles Board, the predecessor to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), issued APB 25. The rule specified that the cost of options at the grant date should be measured by their intrinsic valuethe difference between the current fair market value of the stock and the exercise price of the option. Under this method, no cost was assigned to options when their exercise price was set at the current market price. The rationale for the rule was fairly simple: Because no cash changes hands when the grant is made, issuing a stock option is not an economically significant transaction. Thats what many thought at the time. Whats more, little theory or practice was available in 1972 to guide companies in determining the value of such untraded financial instruments. APB 25 was obsolete within a year. The publication in 1973 of the Black-Scholes formula triggered a huge boom in markets for publicly traded options, a movement reinforced by the opening, also in 1973, of the Chicago Board Options Exchange. It was surely no coincidence that the growth of the traded options markets was mirrored by an increasing use of share option grants in executive and employee compensation. The National Center for Employee Ownership estimates that nearly 10 million employees received stock options in 2000 fewer than 1 million did in 1990. It soon became clear in both theory and practice that options of any kind were worth far more than the intrinsic value defined by APB 25. FASB initiated a review of stock option accounting in 1984 and, after more than a decade of heated controversy, finally issued SFAS 123 in October 1995. It recommendedbut did not requirecompanies to report the cost of options granted and to determine their fair market value using option-pricing models. The new standard was a compromise, reflecting intense lobbying by businesspeople and politicians against mandatory reporting. They argued that executive stock options were one of the defining components in Americas extraordinary economic renaissance, so any attempt to change the accounting rules for them was an attack on Americas hugely successful model for creating new businesses. Inevitably, most companies chose to ignore the recommendation that they opposed so vehemently and continued to record only the intrinsic value at grant date, typically zero, of their stock option grants. Subsequently, the extraordinary boom in share prices made critics of option expensing look like spoilsports. But since the crash, the debate has returned with a vengeance. The spate of corporate accounting scandals in particular has revealed just how unreal a picture of their economic performance many companies have been painting in their financial statements. Increasingly, investors and regulators have come to recognize that option-based compensation is a major distorting factor. Had AOL Time Warner in 2001, for example, reported employee stock option expenses as recommended by SFAS 123, it would have shown an operating loss of about 1.7 billion rather than the 700 million in operating income it actually reported. We believe that the case for expensing options is overwhelming, and in the following pages we examine and dismiss the principal claims put forward by those who continue to oppose it. We demonstrate that, contrary to these experts arguments, stock option grants have real cash-flow implications that need to be reported, that the way to quantify those implications is available, that footnote disclosure is not an acceptable substitute for reporting the transaction in the income statement and balance sheet, and that full recognition of option costs need not emasculate the incentives of entrepreneurial ventures. We then discuss just how firms might go about reporting the cost of options on their income statements and balance sheets. Fallacy 1: Stock Options Do Not Represent a Real Cost It is a basic principle of accounting that financial statements should record economically significant transactions. No one doubts that traded options meet that criterion billions of dollars worth are bought and sold every day, either in the over-the-counter market or on exchanges. For many people, though, company stock option grants are a different story. These transactions are not economically significant, the argument goes, because no cash changes hands. As former American Express CEO Harvey Golub put it in an August 8, 2002, Wall Street Journal article, stock option grants are never a cost to the company and, therefore, should never be recorded as a cost on the income statement. That position defies economic logic, not to mention common sense, in several respects. For a start, transfers of value do not have to involve transfers of cash. While a transaction involving a cash receipt or payment is sufficient to generate a recordable transaction, it is not necessary. Events such as exchanging stock for assets, signing a lease, providing future pension or vacation benefits for current-period employment, or acquiring materials on credit all trigger accounting transactions because they involve transfers of value, even though no cash changes hands at the time the transaction occurs. Even if no cash changes hands, issuing stock options to employees incurs a sacrifice of cash, an opportunity cost, which needs to be accounted for. If a company were to grant stock, rather than options, to employees, everyone would agree that the companys cost for this transaction would be the cash it otherwise would have received if it had sold the shares at the current market price to investors. It is exactly the same with stock options. When a company grants options to employees, it forgoes the opportunity to receive cash from underwriters who could take these same options and sell them in a competitive options market to investors. Warren Buffett made this point graphically in an April 9, 2002, Washington Post column when he stated: Berkshire Hathaway will be happy to receive options in lieu of cash for many of the goods and services that we sell corporate America. Granting options to employees rather than selling them to suppliers or investors via underwriters involves an actual loss of cash to the firm. It can, of course, be more reasonably argued that the cash forgone by issuing options to employees, rather than selling them to investors, is offset by the cash the company conserves by paying its employees less cash. As two widely respected economists, Burton G. Malkiel and William J. Baumol, noted in an April 4, 2002, Wall Street Journal article: A new, entrepreneurial firm may not be able to provide the cash compensation needed to attract outstanding workers. Instead, it can offer stock options. But Malkiel and Baumol, unfortunately, do not follow their observation to its logical conclusion. For if the cost of stock options is not universally incorporated into the measurement of net income, companies that grant options will underreport compensation costs, and it wont be possible to compare their profitability, productivity, and return-on-capital measures with those of economically equivalent companies that have merely structured their compensation system in a different way. The following hypothetical illustration shows how that can happen. Imagine two companies, KapCorp and MerBod, competing in exactly the same line of business. The two differ only in the structure of their employee compensation packages. KapCorp pays its workers 400,000 in total compensation in the form of cash during the year. At the beginning of the year, it also issues, through an underwriting, 100,000 worth of options in the capital market, which cannot be exercised for one year, and it requires its employees to use 25 of their compensation to buy the newly issued options. The net cash outflow to KapCorp is 300,000 (400,000 in compensation expense less 100,000 from the sale of the options). MerBods approach is only slightly different. It pays its workers 300,000 in cash and issues them directly 100,000 worth of options at the start of the year (with the same one-year exercise restriction). Economically, the two positions are identical. Each company has paid a total of 400,000 in compensation, each has issued 100,000 worth of options, and for each the net cash outflow totals 300,000 after the cash received from issuing the options is subtracted from the cash spent on compensation. Employees at both companies are holding the same 100,000 of options during the year, producing the same motivation, incentive, and retention effects. How legitimate is an accounting standard that allows two economically identical transactions to produce radically different numbers In preparing its year-end statements, KapCorp will book compensation expense of 400,000 and will show 100,000 in options on its balance sheet in a shareholder equity account. If the cost of stock options issued to employees is not recognized as an expense, however, MerBod will book a compensation expense of only 300,000 and not show any options issued on its balance sheet. Assuming otherwise identical revenues and costs, it will look as though MerBods earnings were 100,000 higher than KapCorps. MerBod will also seem to have a lower equity base than KapCorp, even though the increase in the number of shares outstanding will eventually be the same for both companies if all the options are exercised. As a result of the lower compensation expense and lower equity position, MerBods performance by most analytic measures will appear to be far superior to KapCorps. This distortion is, of course, repeated every year that the two firms choose the different forms of compensation. How legitimate is an accounting standard that allows two economically identical transactions to produce radically different numbers Fallacy 2: The Cost of Employee Stock Options Cannot Be Estimated Some opponents of option expensing defend their position on practical, not conceptual, grounds. Option-pricing models may work, they say, as a guide for valuing publicly traded options. But they cant capture the value of employee stock options, which are private contracts between the company and the employee for illiquid instruments that cannot be freely sold, swapped, pledged as collateral, or hedged. It is indeed true that, in general, an instruments lack of liquidity will reduce its value to the holder. But the holders liquidity loss makes no difference to what it costs the issuer to create the instrument unless the issuer somehow benefits from the lack of liquidity. And for stock options, the absence of a liquid market has little effect on their value to the holder. The great beauty of option-pricing models is that they are based on the characteristics of the underlying stock. Thats precisely why they have contributed to the extraordinary growth of options markets over the last 30 years. The Black-Scholes price of an option equals the value of a portfolio of stock and cash that is managed dynamically to replicate the payoffs to that option. With a completely liquid stock, an otherwise unconstrained investor could entirely hedge an options risk and extract its value by selling short the replicating portfolio of stock and cash. In that case, the liquidity discount on the options value would be minimal. And that applies even if there were no market for trading the option directly. Therefore, the liquidityor lack thereofof markets in stock options does not, by itself, lead to a discount in the options value to the holder. Investment banks, commercial banks, and insurance companies have now gone far beyond the basic, 30-year-old Black-Scholes model to develop approaches to pricing all sorts of options: Standard ones. Exotic ones. Options traded through intermediaries, over the counter, and on exchanges. Options linked to currency fluctuations. Options embedded in complex securities such as convertible debt, preferred stock, or callable debt like mortgages with prepay features or interest rate caps and floors. A whole subindustry has developed to help individuals, companies, and money market managers buy and sell these complex securities. Current financial technology certainly permits firms to incorporate all the features of employee stock options into a pricing model. A few investment banks will even quote prices for executives looking to hedge or sell their stock options prior to vesting, if their companys option plan allows it. Of course, formula-based or underwriters estimates about the cost of employee stock options are less precise than cash payouts or share grants. But financial statements should strive to be approximately right in reflecting economic reality rather than precisely wrong. Managers routinely rely on estimates for important cost items, such as the depreciation of plant and equipment and provisions against contingent liabilities, such as future environmental cleanups and settlements from product liability suits and other litigation. When calculating the costs of employees pensions and other retirement benefits, for instance, managers use actuarial estimates of future interest rates, employee retention rates, employee retirement dates, the longevity of employees and their spouses, and the escalation of future medical costs. Pricing models and extensive experience make it possible to estimate the cost of stock options issued in any given period with a precision comparable to, or greater than, many of these other items that already appear on companies income statements and balance sheets. Not all the objections to using Black-Scholes and other option valuation models are based on difficulties in estimating the cost of options granted. For example, John DeLong, in a June 2002 Competitive Enterprise Institute paper entitled The Stock Options Controversy and the New Economy, argued that even if a value were calculated according to a model, the calculation would require adjustment to reflect the value to the employee. He is only half right. By paying employees with its own stock or options, the company forces them to hold highly non-diversified financial portfolios, a risk further compounded by the investment of the employees own human capital in the company as well. Since almost all individuals are risk averse, we can expect employees to place substantially less value on their stock option package than other, better-diversified, investors would. Estimates of the magnitude of this employee risk discountor deadweight cost, as it is sometimes calledrange from 20 to 50, depending on the volatility of the underlying stock and the degree of diversification of the employees portfolio. The existence of this deadweight cost is sometimes used to justify the apparently huge scale of option-based remuneration handed out to top executives. A company seeking, for instance, to reward its CEO with 1 million in options that are worth 1,000 each in the market may (perhaps perversely) reason that it should issue 2,000 rather than 1,000 options because, from the CEOs perspective, the options are worth only 500 each. (We would point out that this reasoning validates our earlier point that options are a substitute for cash.) But while it might arguably be reasonable to take deadweight cost into account when deciding how much equity-based compensation (such as options) to include in an executives pay packet, it is certainly not reasonable to let dead-weight cost influence the way companies record the costs of the packets. Financial statements reflect the economic perspective of the company, not the entities (including employees) with which it transacts. When a company sells a product to a customer, for example, it does not have to verify what the product is worth to that individual. It counts the expected cash payment in the transaction as its revenue. Similarly, when the company purchases a product or service from a supplier, it does not examine whether the price paid was greater or less than the suppliers cost or what the supplier could have received had it sold the product or service elsewhere. The company records the purchase price as the cash or cash equivalent it sacrificed to acquire the good or service. Suppose a clothing manufacturer were to build a fitness center for its employees. The company would not do so to compete with fitness clubs. It would build the center to generate higher revenues from increased productivity and creativity of healthier, happier employees and to reduce costs arising from employee turnover and illness. The cost to the company is clearly the cost of building and maintaining the facility, not the value that the individual employees might place on it. The cost of the fitness center is recorded as a periodic expense, loosely matched to the expected revenue increase and reductions in employee-related costs. The only reasonable justification we have seen for costing executive options below their market value stems from the observation that many options are forfeited when employees leave, or are exercised too early because of employees risk aversion. In these cases, existing shareholders equity is diluted less than it would otherwise be, or not at all, consequently reducing the companys compensation cost. While we agree with the basic logic of this argument, the impact of forfeiture and early exercise on theoretical values may be grossly exaggerated. (See The Real Impact of Forfeiture and Early Exercise at the end of this article.) The Real Impact of Forfeiture and Early Exercise Unlike cash salary, stock options cannot be transferred from the individual granted them to anyone else. Nontransferability has two effects that combine to make employee options less valuable than conventional options traded in the market. First, employees forfeit their options if they leave the company before the options have vested. Second, employees tend to reduce their risk by exercising vested stock options much earlier than a well-diversified investor would, thereby reducing the potential for a much higher payoff had they held the options to maturity. Employees with vested options that are in the money will also exercise them when they quit, since most companies require employees to use or lose their options upon departure. In both cases, the economic impact on the company of issuing the options is reduced, since the value and relative size of existing shareholders stakes are diluted less than they could have been, or not at all. Recognizing the increasing probability that companies will be required to expense stock options, some opponents are fighting a rearguard action by trying to persuade standard setters to significantly reduce the reported cost of those options, discounting their value from that measured by financial models to reflect the strong likelihood of forfeiture and early exercise. Current proposals put forth by these people to FASB and IASB would allow companies to estimate the percentage of options forfeited during the vesting period and reduce the cost of option grants by this amount. Also, rather than use the expiration date for the option life in an option-pricing model, the proposals seek to allow companies to use an expected life for the option to reflect the likelihood of early exercise. Using an expected life (which companies may estimate at close to the vesting period, say, four years) instead of the contractual period of, say, ten years, would significantly reduce the estimated cost of the option. Some adjustment should be made for forfeiture and early exercise. But the proposed method significantly overstates the cost reduction since it neglects the circumstances under which options are most likely to be forfeited or exercised early. When these circumstances are taken into account, the reduction in employee option costs is likely to be much smaller. First, consider forfeiture. Using a flat percentage for forfeitures based on historical or prospective employee turnover is valid only if forfeiture is a random event, like a lottery, independent of the stock price. In reality, however, the likelihood of forfeiture is negatively related to the value of the options forfeited and, hence, to the stock price itself. People are more likely to leave a company and forfeit options when the stock price has declined and the options are worth little. But if the firm has done well and the stock price has increased significantly since grant date, the options will have become much more valuable, and employees will be much less likely to leave. If employee turnover and forfeiture are more likely when the options are least valuable, then little of the options total cost at grant date is reduced because of the probability of forfeiture. The argument for early exercise is similar. It also depends on the future stock price. Employees will tend to exercise early if most of their wealth is bound up in the company, they need to diversify, and they have no other way to reduce their risk exposure to the companys stock price. Senior executives, however, with the largest option holdings, are unlikely to exercise early and destroy option value when the stock price has risen substantially. Often they own unrestricted stock, which they can sell as a more efficient means to reduce their risk exposure. Or they have enough at stake to contract with an investment bank to hedge their option positions without exercising prematurely. As with the forfeiture feature, the calculation of an expected option life without regard to the magnitude of the holdings of employees who exercise early, or to their ability to hedge their risk through other means, would significantly underestimate the cost of options granted. Option-pricing models can be modified to incorporate the influence of stock prices and the magnitude of employees option and stock holdings on the probabilities of forfeiture and early exercise. (See, for example, Mark Rubinsteins Fall 1995 article in the Journal of Derivatives . On the Accounting Valuation of Employee Stock Options.) The actual magnitude of these adjustments needs to be based on specific company data, such as stock price appreciation and distribution of option grants among employees. The adjustments, properly assessed, could turn out to be significantly smaller than the proposed calculations (apparently endorsed by FASB and IASB) would produce. Indeed, for some companies, a calculation that ignores forfeiture and early exercise altogether could come closer to the true cost of options than one that entirely ignores the factors that influence employees forfeiture and early exercise decisions. Fallacy 3: Stock Option Costs Are Already Adequately Disclosed Another argument in defense of the existing approach is that companies already disclose information about the cost of option grants in the footnotes to the financial statements. Investors and analysts who wish to adjust income statements for the cost of options, therefore, have the necessary data readily available. We find that argument hard to swallow. As we have pointed out, it is a fundamental principle of accounting that the income statement and balance sheet should portray a companys underlying economics. Relegating an item of such major economic significance as employee option grants to the footnotes would systematically distort those reports. But even if we were to accept the principle that footnote disclosure is sufficient, in reality we would find it a poor substitute for recognizing the expense directly on the primary statements. For a start, investment analysts, lawyers, and regulators now use electronic databases to calculate profitability ratios based on the numbers in companies audited income statements and balance sheets. An analyst following an individual company, or even a small group of companies, could make adjustments for information disclosed in footnotes. But that would be difficult and costly to do for a large group of companies that had put different sorts of data in various nonstandard formats into footnotes. Clearly, it is much easier to compare companies on a level playing field, where all compensation expenses have been incorporated into the income numbers. Whats more, numbers divulged in footnotes can be less reliable than those disclosed in the primary financial statements. For one thing, executives and auditors typically review supplementary footnotes last and devote less time to them than they do to the numbers in the primary statements. As just one example, the footnote in eBays FY 2000 annual report reveals a weighted average grant-date fair value of options granted during 1999 of 105.03 for a year in which the weighted average exercise price of shares granted was 64.59. Just how the value of options granted can be 63 more than the value of the underlying stock is not obvious. In FY 2000, the same effect was reported: a fair value of options granted of 103.79 with an average exercise price of 62.69. Apparently, this error was finally detected, since the FY 2001 report retroactively adjusted the 1999 and 2000 average grant-date fair values to 40.45 and 41.40, respectively. We believe executives and auditors will exert greater diligence and care in obtaining reliable estimates of the cost of stock options if these figures are included in companies income statements than they currently do for footnote disclosure. Our colleague William Sahlman in his December 2002 HBR article, Expensing Options Solves Nothing, has expressed concern that the wealth of useful information contained in the footnotes about the stock options granted would be lost if options were expensed. But surely recognizing the cost of options in the income statement does not preclude continuing to provide a footnote that explains the underlying distribution of grants and the methodology and parameter inputs used to calculate the cost of the stock options. Some critics of stock option expensing argue, as venture capitalist John Doerr and FedEx CEO Frederick Smith did in an April 5, 2002, New York Times column, that if expensing were required, the impact of options would be counted twice in the earnings per share: first as a potential dilution of the earnings, by increasing the shares outstanding, and second as a charge against reported earnings. The result would be inaccurate and misleading earnings per share. We have several difficulties with this argument. First, option costs only enter into a (GAAP-based) diluted earnings-per-share calculation when the current market price exceeds the option exercise price. Thus, fully diluted EPS numbers still ignore all the costs of options that are nearly in the money or could become in the money if the stock price increased significantly in the near term. Second, relegating the determination of the economic impact of stock option grants solely to an EPS calculation greatly distorts the measurement of reported income, would not be adjusted to reflect the economic impact of option costs. These measures are more significant summaries of the change in economic value of a company than the prorated distribution of this income to individual shareholders revealed in the EPS measure. This becomes eminently clear when taken to its logical absurdity: Suppose companies were to compensate all their suppliersof materials, labor, energy, and purchased serviceswith stock options rather than with cash and avoid all expense recognition in their income statement. Their income and their profitability measures would all be so grossly inflated as to be useless for analytic purposes only the EPS number would pick up any economic effect from the option grants. Our biggest objection to this spurious claim, however, is that even a calculation of fully diluted EPS does not fully reflect the economic impact of stock option grants. The following hypothetical example illustrates the problems, though for purposes of simplicity we will use grants of shares instead of options. The reasoning is exactly the same for both cases. Lets say that each of our two hypothetical companies, KapCorp and MerBod, has 8,000 shares outstanding, no debt, and annual revenue this year of 100,000. KapCorp decides to pay its employees and suppliers 90,000 in cash and has no other expenses. MerBod, however, compensates its employees and suppliers with 80,000 in cash and 2,000 shares of stock, at an average market price of 5 per share. The cost to each company is the same: 90,000. But their net income and EPS numbers are very different. KapCorps net income before taxes is 10,000, or 1.25 per share. By contrast, MerBods reported net income (which ignores the cost of the equity granted to employees and suppliers) is 20,000, and its EPS is 2.00 (which takes into account the new shares issued). Of course, the two companies now have different cash balances and numbers of shares outstanding with a claim on them. But KapCorp can eliminate that discrepancy by issuing 2,000 shares of stock in the market during the year at an average selling price of 5 per share. Now both companies have closing cash balances of 20,000 and 10,000 shares outstanding. Under current accounting rules, however, this transaction only exacerbates the gap between the EPS numbers. KapCorps reported income remains 10,000, since the additional 10,000 value gained from the sale of the shares is not reported in net income, but its EPS denominator has increased from 8,000 to 10,000. Consequently, KapCorp now reports an EPS of 1.00 to MerBods 2.00, even though their economic positions are identical: 10,000 shares outstanding and increased cash balances of 20,000. The people claiming that options expensing creates a double-counting problem are themselves creating a smoke screen to hide the income-distorting effects of stock option grants. The people claiming that options expensing creates a double-counting problem are themselves creating a smoke screen to hide the income-distorting effects of stock option grants. Indeed, if we say that the fully diluted EPS figure is the right way to disclose the impact of share options, then we should immediately change the current accounting rules for situations when companies issue common stock, convertible preferred stock, or convertible bonds to pay for services or assets. At present, when these transactions occur, the cost is measured by the fair market value of the consideration involved. Why should options be treated differently Fallacy 4: Expensing Stock Options Will Hurt Young Businesses Opponents of expensing options also claim that doing so will be a hardship for entrepreneurial high-tech firms that do not have the cash to attract and retain the engineers and executives who translate entrepreneurial ideas into profitable, long-term growth. This argument is flawed on a number of levels. For a start, the people who claim that option expensing will harm entrepreneurial incentives are often the same people who claim that current disclosure is adequate for communicating the economics of stock option grants. The two positions are clearly contradictory. If current disclosure is sufficient, then moving the cost from a footnote to the balance sheet and income statement will have no market effect. But to argue that proper costing of stock options would have a significant adverse impact on companies that make extensive use of them is to admit that the economics of stock options, as currently disclosed in footnotes, are not fully reflected in companies market prices. More seriously, however, the claim simply ignores the fact that a lack of cash need not be a barrier to compensating executives. Rather than issuing options directly to employees, companies can always issue them to underwriters and then pay their employees out of the money received for those options. Considering that the market systematically puts a higher value on options than employees do, companies are likely to end up with more cash from the sale of externally issued options (which carry with them no deadweight costs) than they would by granting options to employees in lieu of higher salaries. Even privately held companies that raise funds through angel and venture capital investors can take this approach. The same procedures used to place a value on a privately held company can be used to estimate the value of its options, enabling external investors to provide cash for options about as readily as they provide cash for stock. Thats not to say, of course, that entrepreneurs should never get option grants. Venture capital investors will always want employees to be compensated with some stock options in lieu of cash to be assured that the employees have some skin in the game and so are more likely to be honest when they tout their companys prospects to providers of new capital. But that does not preclude also raising cash by selling options externally to pay a large part of the cash compensation to employees. We certainly recognize the vitality and wealth that entrepreneurial ventures, particularly those in the high-tech sector, bring to the U. S. economy. A strong case can be made for creating public policies that actively assist these companies in their early stages, or even in their more established stages. The nation should definitely consider a regulation that makes entrepreneurial, job-creating companies healthier and more competitive by changing something as simple as an accounting journal entry. But we have to question the effectiveness of the current rule, which essentially makes the benefits from a deliberate accounting distortion proportional to companies use of one particular form of employee compensation. After all, some entrepreneurial, job-creating companies might benefit from picking other forms of incentive compensation that arguably do a better job of aligning executive and shareholder interests than conventional stock options do. Indexed or performance options, for example, ensure that management is not rewarded just for being in the right place at the right time or penalized just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A strong case can also be made for the superiority of properly designed restricted stock grants and deferred cash payments. Yet current accounting standards require that these, and virtually all other compensation alternatives, be expensed. Are companies that choose those alternatives any less deserving of an accounting subsidy than Microsoft, which, having granted 300 million options in 2001 alone, is by far the largest issuer of stock options A less distorting approach for delivering an accounting subsidy to entrepreneurial ventures would simply be to allow them to defer some percentage of their total employee compensation for some number of years, which could be indefinitelyjust as companies granting stock options do now. That way, companies could get the supposed accounting benefits from not having to report a portion of their compensation costs no matter what form that compensation might take. What Will Expensing Involve Although the economic arguments in favor of reporting stock option grants on the principal financial statements seem to us to be overwhelming, we do recognize that expensing poses challenges. For a start, the benefits accruing to the company from issuing stock options occur in future periods, in the form of increased cash flows generated by its option motivated and retained employees. The fundamental matching principle of accounting requires that the costs of generating those higher revenues be recognized at the same time the revenues are recorded. This is why companies match the cost of multiperiod assets such as plant and equipment with the revenues these assets produce over their economic lives. In some cases, the match can be based on estimates of the future cash flows. In expensing capitalized software-development costs, for instance, managers match the costs against a predicted pattern of benefits accrued from selling the software. In the case of options, however, managers would have to estimate an equivalent pattern of benefits arising from their own decisions and activities. That would likely introduce significant measurement error and provide opportunities for managers to bias their estimates. We therefore believe that using a standard straight-line amortization formula will reduce measurement error and management bias despite some loss of accuracy. The obvious period for the amortization is the useful economic life of the granted option, probably best measured by the vesting period. Thus, for an option vesting in four years, 148 of the cost of the option would be expensed through the income statement in each month until the option vests. This would treat employee option compensation costs the same way the costs of plant and equipment or inventory are treated when they are acquired through equity instruments, such as in an acquisition. In addition to being reported on the income statement, the option grant should also appear on the balance sheet. In our opinion, the cost of options issued represents an increase in shareholders equity at the time of grant and should be reported as paid-in capital. Some experts argue that stock options are more like contingent liability than equity transactions since their ultimate cost to the company cannot be determined until employees either exercise or forfeit their options. This argument, of course, ignores the considerable economic value the company has sacrificed at time of grant. Whats more, a contingent liability is usually recognized as an expense when it is possible to estimate its value and the liability is likely to be incurred. At time of grant, both these conditions are met. The value transfer is not just probable it is certain. The company has granted employees an equity security that could have been issued to investors and suppliers who would have given cash, goods, and services in return. The amount sacrificed can also be estimated, using option-pricing models or independent estimates from investment banks. There has to be, of course, an offsetting entry on the asset side of the balance sheet. FASB, in its exposure draft on stock option accounting in 1994, proposed that at time of grant an asset called prepaid compensation expense be recognized, a recommendation we endorse. FASB, however, subsequently retracted its proposal in the face of criticism that since employees can quit at any time, treating their deferred compensation as an asset would violate the principle that a company must always have legal control over the assets it reports. We feel that FASB capitulated too easily to this argument. The firm does have an asset because of the option grantpresumably a loyal, motivated employee. Even though the firm does not control the asset in a legal sense, it does capture the benefits. FASBs concession on this issue subverted substance to form. Finally, there is the issue of whether to allow companies to revise the income number theyve reported after the grants have been issued. Some commentators argue that any recorded stock option compensation expense should be reversed if employees forfeit the options by leaving the company before vesting or if their options expire unexercised. But if companies were to mark compensation expense downward when employees forfeit their options, should they not also mark it up when the share price rises, thereby increasing the market value of the options Clearly, this can get complicated, and it comes as no surprise that neither FASB nor IASB recommends any kind of postgrant accounting revisions, since that would open up the question of whether to use mark-to-market accounting for all types of assets and liabilities, not just share options. At this time, we dont have strong feelings about whether the benefits from mark-to-market accounting for stock options exceed the costs. But we would point out that people who object to estimating the cost of options granted at time of issue should be even less enthusiastic about reestimating their options cost each quarter. We recognize that options are a powerful incentive, and we believe that all companies should consider them in deciding how to attract and retain talent and align the interests of managers and owners. But we also believe that failing to record a transaction that creates such powerful effects is economically indefensible and encourages companies to favor options over alternative compensation methods. It is not the proper role of accounting standards to distort executive and employee compensation by subsidizing one form of compensation relative to all others. Companies should choose compensation methods according to their economic benefitsnot the way they are reported. It is not the proper role of accounting standards to distort executive and employee compensation by subsidizing one form of compensation relative to all others. A version of this article appeared in the March 2003 issue of Harvard Business Review .
No comments:
Post a Comment