Financial reporting for employee stock options: liabilities or equity?
- 1.9k Downloads
This study seeks to determine whether employee stock options share key characteristics of liabilities or equity. Consistent with warrant pricing theory, we find that common equity risk and expected return are negatively associated with the extent to which a firm has outstanding employee stock options, which is opposite to the association for liabilities. We also find the following. (1) The association is positive for firms that reprice options and less negative for firms that have options with longer remaining terms to maturity, which indicates that some employee stock options have characteristics that make them more similar to liabilities. (2) Leverage measured based on treating options as equity has a stronger positive relation with common equity risk than leverage measured based on treating options as liabilities. (3) The sensitivity of employee stock option value to changes in asset value mirrors that of common equity value and is opposite to that of liability value. Also, we find that, unlike liabilities, employee stock options have substantially higher risk and expected return than common equity. Our findings are not consistent with classifying employee stock options as liabilities for financial reporting if classification were based on the directional association of a claim with common equity risk and expected return. Rather, our findings suggest the options act more like another type of equity.
KeywordsEmployee stock options Warrant pricing Liabilities versus equity
JEL ClassificationM41 M48 G13
We wish to thank Stephen Cooper, Patrick Finnegan, Patrick Hopkins, Michael Kirschenheiter, James Leisenring, Stephen Penman, Jim Wahlen, an anonymous reviewer, and workshop participants at the 2012 Review of Accounting Studies Conference (especially discussant Kenneth Peasnell), Brigham Young University, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Florida International University, Harvard Business School, Maastricht University, Ohio State University, Oklahoma University, Singapore Management University, University of Texas at Austin, Utah State University, Washington University in St. Louis, and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania for helpful discussions and comments. Leslie Hodder gratefully acknowledges financial support from Ernst & Young, LLC.
- Balsam, S. (1994). Extending the method of accounting for stock appreciation rights to employee stock options. Accounting Horizons, 8, 52–60.Google Scholar
- Beaver, W., Kettler, P., & Scholes, M. (1970). The Association between Market-determined and Accounting-determined Risk Measures. The Accounting Review, 4, 654–681.Google Scholar
- Carrizosa, R. (2010). Market participants’ evaluation of the economic substance of convertible debt. Working paper. New York University.Google Scholar
- Cheng, C. S. A., Liu, C. Z., Newberry, K., & Reichelt, K. J. (2007). Should preferred stock be classified as a liability?—Evidence from implied cost of equity capital. Working paper. Louisana State University.Google Scholar
- Cheng, C. S. A., Liu, C. Z., & Reichelt, K. J. (2011). An empirical analysis of risk and liability components. Working paper. Louisana State University.Google Scholar
- Clark, M. W. (1993). Entity theory, modern capital structure theory, and the distinction between debt and equity. Accounting Horizons, 7(3), 14–31.Google Scholar
- Financial Accounting Standards Board. (1985). Statement of financial accounting concepts no. 6 elements of financial statements. Norwalk, CT: FASB.Google Scholar
- Financial Accounting Standards Board. (1990). Distinguishing between liabilities and equity instruments and accounting for instruments with characteristics of both. Norwalk, CT: FASB Discussion Memorandum, FASB.Google Scholar
- Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2007). Preliminary views: Financial instruments with characteristics of equity. Financial accounting series no. 1550–100. Norwalk, CT: FASB.Google Scholar
- Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2010). Statement of financial accounting concepts no. 8 conceptual framework for financial reporting. Norwalk, CT: FASB.Google Scholar
- Hanlon, M., Rajgopal, S., & Shevlin, T. (2004). Large sample evidence on the relation between stock options and risk taking. Working paper, University of Washington. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=427260.
- Hopkins (chair and principal co-author), P., Botosan, C., Bradshaw (principal co-author), M., Callahan, C., Ciesielski, J., Farber, D., et al. (2009). Response to the FASB’s preliminary views on financial instruments with the characteristics of equity file no. 1550–100. 2008. Accounting Horizons, 23(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hull, J., & White, A. (2003). Accounting for employee stock options. Working paper, University of Toronto. http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~hull/DownloadablePublications/AccountingforStockOptions.pdf.
- International Accounting Standards Board. (2003). International accounting standard 32 financial instruments: Presentation. London, UK: International Accounting Standards Board.Google Scholar
- International Accounting Standards Board. (2004). International financial reporting standard 2 share-based payment. London, UK: International Accounting Standards Board.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. C. (1974). On the pricing of corporate debt: The risk structure of interest rates. The Journal of Finance, 29, 449–470.Google Scholar
- Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of equity, corporate finance, and the theory of investment. American Economic Review, 48(3), 261–297.Google Scholar
- Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1963). Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: A correction. American Economic Review, 53(3), 433–443.Google Scholar
- Ohlson, J., & Penman, S. (2005). Debt vs. equity: Accounting for claims contingent on firms’ common stock performance with particular attention to employee compensation options. Working Paper, Columbia Business School.Google Scholar