ESOs: Regnskap for ansattes opsjonsopsjoner Av David Harper Relevans over Pålitelighet Vi vil ikke revidere den oppvarmede debatten om hvorvidt selskapene skal bekostne opsjoner på ansatte. Vi bør imidlertid etablere to ting. For det første har ekspertene i Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) ønsket å kreve opsjonsutgifter siden tidlig på 1990-tallet. Til tross for politisk press ble utgifter mer eller mindre uunngåelig da International Accounting Board (IASB) påkrevde det på grunn av bevisst press for konvergens mellom amerikanske og internasjonale regnskapsstandarder. (For beslektet lesing, se Overvåkning over alternativutgifter.) For det andre er det en lovlig debatt om de to primære kvaliteter av regnskapsinformasjon: relevans og pålitelighet. Regnskapet viser standarden som er relevant når de inkluderer alle materielle kostnader som selskapet pådrar seg - og ingen seriøst nekter at opsjoner er en kostnad. Rapporterte kostnader i regnskapet oppnår standarden på pålitelighet når de måles på en objektiv og nøyaktig måte. Disse to kvaliteter av relevans og pålitelighet kolliderer ofte i regnskapsrammen. Eiendom er for eksempel båret til historisk kost, fordi historisk kost er mer pålitelig (men mindre relevant) enn markedsverdi - det vil si at vi kan måle med pålitelighet hvor mye som ble brukt til å erverve eiendommen. Motstandere av utgifter prioriterer pålitelighet, og insisterer på at opsjonskostnader ikke kan måles med konsistent nøyaktighet. FASB ønsker å prioritere relevans, å tro at det er omtrent riktig å fange en kostnad er viktigere enn å være nettopp feil ved å utelate det helt. Opplysning nødvendig men ikke anerkjennelse for nå I mars 2004 krever den nåværende regelen (FAS 123) opplysning, men ikke anerkjennelse. Dette betyr at opsjonskostnadsestimatene må opplyses som en fotnote, men de må ikke regnskapsføres som en kostnad i resultatregnskapet, der de vil redusere rapportert resultat (inntjening eller nettoinntekt). Dette betyr at de fleste selskaper faktisk rapporterer fire inntekter per aksje (EPS) - med mindre de frivillig velger å gjenkjenne opsjoner som hundrevis allerede har gjort: På resultatregnskapet: 1. Grunnleggende EPS 2. Utvannet EPS 1. Pro Forma Basic EPS 2. Pro Forma fortynnet EPS Fortynnet EPS fanger noen alternativer - de som er gamle og i penger En viktig utfordring i beregning av EPS er potensiell fortynning. Spesielt hva gjør vi med utestående, men ikke-utøvde opsjoner, gamle opsjoner gitt i tidligere år som enkelt kan konverteres til vanlige aksjer når som helst (Dette gjelder ikke bare aksjeopsjoner, men også konvertible gjeld og enkelte derivater.) Fortynnet EPS forsøker å fange denne potensielle fortynningen ved bruk av treasury-stock-metoden som er illustrert nedenfor. Vårt hypotetiske selskap har utestående 100.000 aksjer, men har også 10.000 utestående alternativer som er alle i pengene. Det vil si at de ble gitt med en kurs på 7, men aksjen har siden steget til 20: Grunnleggende EPS (netto inntektsandeler) er enkelt: 300.000 100.000 3 per aksje. Utvannet EPS bruker treasury-stock-metoden til å svare på følgende spørsmål: hypotetisk, hvor mange vanlige aksjer vil være utestående hvis alle alternativer i penger er utøvd i dag. I eksemplet som er diskutert ovenfor, vil øvelsen alene legge til 10.000 felles aksjer til utgangspunkt. Den simulerte øvelsen vil imidlertid gi selskapet ekstra penger: Opptjeningsutbytte på 7 per opsjon, pluss en skattefordel. Skattefordelen er ekte kontant fordi selskapet får redusert skattepliktig inntekt ved opsjonsgevinsten - i dette tilfellet 13 per opsjon utøvet. Hvorfor Fordi IRS skal samle inn skatt fra opsjonshaverne som betaler alminnelig inntektsskatt på samme gevinst. (Vær oppmerksom på at skattefordelen refererer til ikke-kvalifiserte aksjeopsjoner. Såkalte incentivaksjoner (ISOs) kan ikke være fradragsberettigede for selskapet, men færre enn 20 av de tildelte opsjonene er ISOs.) Leter se hvordan 100 000 vanlige aksjer blir 103.900 utvannede aksjer under treasury-stock-metoden, som husker, er basert på en simulert øvelse. Vi antar utøvelsen av 10 000 penger i pengene, dette legger til 10 000 vanlige aksjer til basen. Men selskapet får tilbake opptjeningsutbytte på 70.000 (7 utøvelseskurs per opsjon) og en kontant skattefordel på 52.000 (13 gevinst x 40 skattesats 5,20 per opsjon). Det er en kjapp 12,20 kontantrabatt, så å si, per opsjon for en total rabatt på 122.000. For å fullføre simuleringen antar vi at alle de ekstra pengene er vant til å kjøpe tilbake aksjer. Til nåværende pris på 20 per aksje kjøper selskapet 6,100 aksjer. I sammendraget oppretter konverteringen av 10 000 opsjoner kun 3.900 netto tilleggsaksjer (10 000 opsjoner konvertert minus 6.100 tilbakekjøpsaksjer). Her er den faktiske formelen, hvor (M) nåværende markedspris, (E) utøvelseskurs, (T) skattesats og (N) antall opsjoner utøvet: Pro Forma EPS Fanger opp de nye opsjonene som er gitt i løpet av året Vi har gjennomgått hvordan fortynnet EPS fanger effekten av utestående eller gamle opsjoner som er gitt i tidligere år. Men hva gjør vi med opsjoner gitt i inneværende regnskapsår som har null egenkapital (det vil si, forutsatt at utøvelseskursen er lik aksjekursen), men er kostbare likevel fordi de har tidsverdi. Svaret er at vi bruker en opsjonsprisemodell for å estimere en kostnad for å skape en ikke-kontantutgift som reduserer rapporterte nettoinntekter. Mens treasury-stock-metoden øker nivån til EPS-kvoten ved å legge til aksjer, reduserer proforma-utgiftene telleren til EPS. (Du kan se hvordan utgifter ikke dobler, som noen har foreslått: Utvannet EPS inkorporerer gamle opsjonsbidrag mens proforma utgifter inneholder nye tilskudd.) Vi vurderer de to ledende modellene, Black-Scholes og binomial, i de neste to delene av dette serier, men deres effekt er vanligvis å gi et virkelig verdi estimat på kostnaden som er hvor som helst mellom 20 og 50 av aksjekursen. Selv om den foreslåtte regnskapsregelen som krever utgifter, er svært detaljert, er overskriften en virkelig verdi på tildelingsdagen. Dette innebærer at FASB ønsker å kreve at selskapene estimerer opsjonens virkelig verdi på tidspunktet for tilskudd og registrerer (regnskapsfører) denne regnskapet i resultatregnskapet. Tenk på illustrasjonen nedenfor med det samme hypotetiske selskapet vi så på: (1) Utvannet EPS er basert på å dele justert nettoinntekt på 290.000 i en utvannet aksjebase på 103.900 aksjer. Men under pro forma kan den utvannede aksjebasen være forskjellig. Se vårt tekniske notat nedenfor for ytterligere detaljer. For det første kan vi se at vi fortsatt har vanlige aksjer og fortynnede aksjer, hvor fortynnede aksjer simulerer utøvelsen av tidligere innvilgede opsjoner. For det andre har vi videre antatt at det er gitt 5000 opsjoner i inneværende år. La oss anta at vår modell estimerer at de er verdt 40 av 20 aksjekurs, eller 8 per opsjon. Den totale utgiften er derfor 40.000. For det tredje, siden opsjonene våre skjer i fire år, vil vi amortisere utgiften de neste fire årene. Dette er samsvar med prinsippene i praksis: ideen er at vår medarbeider skal levere tjenester over opptjeningsperioden, slik at utgiften kan spredes over den perioden. (Selv om vi ikke har illustrert det, kan selskapene redusere kostnadene i påvente av opsjonsfeil på grunn av ansattes oppsigelser. For eksempel kan et selskap forutsi at 20 av de tildelte opsjonene vil bli fortapt og redusere kostnadene tilsvarende.) Vår nåværende årlige Kostnaden for opsjonsbeløpet er 10.000, den første 25 av de 40.000 utgiftene. Vår justerte nettoinntekt er derfor 290.000. Vi deler dette i både vanlige aksjer og fortynnede aksjer for å produsere det andre settet med proforma EPS-tall. Disse må oppgis i en fotnote og vil sannsynligvis kreve innregning (i resultatregnskapet) for regnskapsår som begynner etter 15. desember 2004. En endelig teknisk notat for de modige Det er en tekniskitet som fortjener noe omtale: Vi brukte samme fortynnede aksjebase for begge utvannede EPS-beregninger (rapportert utvannet EPS og pro forma fortynnet EPS). Teknisk sett økes aksjekursen under proforma utvannet ESP (pkt. Iv på ovennevnte finansregnskap) med antall aksjer som kan kjøpes med den avskrivne kompensasjonskostnaden (det vil si i tillegg til utbytteutbytte og skattefordel). I løpet av det første året, da bare 10 000 av de 40 000 opsjonsutgiftene er blitt belastet, kan de andre 30 000 hypotetisk tilbakekjøpe ytterligere 1.500 aksjer (30 000 20). Dette - i første år - produserer totalt utvannet aksjer på 105.400 og fortynnet EPS på 2,75. Men i det fjerde året, alt annet var like, ville 2,79 ovenfor være riktig som vi allerede hadde fullført utgifter på 40.000. Husk at dette bare gjelder for proforma fortynnet EPS der vi koster kostnader i telleren Konklusjon Utgifter for utgifter er bare et forsøk på å estimere opsjonskostnad. Forstandere har rett til å si at alternativene er en kostnad, og å telle noe er bedre enn å telle ingenting. Men de kan ikke kreve at kostnadsoverslagene er nøyaktige. Vurder vårt firma ovenfor. Hva om aksjeduven til 6 neste år, og ble der da. Alternativene ville være helt verdiløse, og våre kostnadsoverslag ville vise seg å være betydelig overvurdert mens vårt EPS var undervurdert. Omvendt, hvis aksjen gjorde det bedre enn forventet, ville våre EPS-numre vært overbelastet fordi vår utgift ville vise seg å være undervurdert. For siste gang: Aksjeopsjoner er en kostnad Tiden er kommet for å avslutte debatten om regnskapsmessig for aksjeopsjoner de Kontroversen har gått altfor lenge. Faktisk reglene for rapportering av aksjeopsjoner dateres tilbake til 1972, da regnskapsprinsippstyret, forgjengeren til Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), utstedte APB 25. Regelen angav at kostnaden av opsjoner ved bevilgningen datoen skal måles ved egen vurdering av forskjellen mellom dagens nåværende markedsverdi av aksjene og oppløsningsprisen på opsjonen. Under denne metoden ble det ikke tildelt opsjoner når opsjonsprisen ble satt til dagens markedspris. Begrunnelsen for regelen var ganske enkel: Fordi ingen kontanter skifter hender når tilskuddet er gjort, er utstedelse av aksjeopsjon ikke en økonomisk signifikant transaksjon. Det var mange som tenkte på det tidspunktet. Hva mer var, var lite teori eller praksis tilgjengelig i 1972 for å veilede selskaper i å bestemme verdien av slike uutviklede finansielle instrumenter. APB 25 var foreldet innen et år. Publikasjonen i 1973 av Black-Scholes-formelen utløste en stor boom i markeder for børsnoterte opsjoner, en bevegelse forsterket av åpningen, også i 1973, av Chicago Board Options Exchange. Det var absolutt ingen tilfeldighet at veksten i de handlede opsjonsmarkedene ble speilet av en økende bruk av aksjeopsjonsstipendier i leder - og ansattes kompensasjon. Nasjonalt senter for ansattes eierskap anslår at nesten 10 millioner ansatte mottok aksjeopsjoner i 2000 mindre enn 1 million i 1990. Det ble snart klart i både teori og praksis at opsjoner av noe slag var verdt langt mer enn egenverdien definert av APB 25. FASB initierte en gjennomgang av opsjonsregnskapsregnskapet i 1984, og etter mer enn et tiår med oppvarmet kontrovers, utgitt SFAS 123 i oktober 1995. Det anbefalte ikke at selskapene skulle rapportere kostnaden for opsjoner gitt og for å bestemme sin rettferdige markedsverdi ved hjelp av alternativ-prismodeller. Den nye standarden var et kompromiss som gjenspeiler intensiv lobbyvirksomhet av forretningsfolk og politikere mot obligatorisk rapportering. De hevdet at utøvende aksjeopsjoner var en av de avgjørende komponentene i amerikansk ekstraordinær økonomisk renessanse, så ethvert forsøk på å endre regnskapsreglene for dem var et angrep på Americas enormt vellykket modell for å skape nye virksomheter. De fleste selskaper valgte uunngåelig å ignorere anbefalingen om at de motsatte seg så voldsomt og fortsatte å registrere kun egenverdien ved tildelingsdato, typisk null, av deres opsjoner på stock options. Deretter gjorde den ekstraordinære bremsen i aksjekursene kritikere av opsjonsutgiftene, ligner spoilsports. Men siden ulykken har debatten returnert med hevn. Skarpheten av bedriftens regnskapskandaler spesielt har avdekket hvor uvirkelig et bilde av deres økonomiske resultater mange selskaper har malt i sine regnskap. I økende grad har investorer og regulatorer kommet for å innse at opsjonsbasert kompensasjon er en stor forvrengende faktor. Hadde AOL Time Warner i 2001 for eksempel rapportert ansatteopsjonsutgifter som anbefalt av SFAS 123, ville det ha vist et driftsunderskudd på rundt 1,7 milliarder i stedet for de 700 millioner i driftsinntektene som det faktisk rapporterte. Vi mener at saken for kostnadsutgifter er overveldende, og i de følgende sidene undersøker og avviser vi hovedkravene fremsatt av de som fortsetter å motsette seg det. Vi demonstrerer at, i motsetning til disse ekspertsargumentene, aksjeopsjonsstipendier har virkelige kontantstrømimplikasjoner som må rapporteres, at måten å kvantifisere disse implikasjonene er tilgjengelig, er at fotnoteopplysning ikke er en akseptabel erstatning for å rapportere transaksjonen i inntektene oppstilling og balanse, og at full anerkjennelse av opsjonskostnader ikke trenger å emasculate incentiver av entreprenørskapsvirksomheter. Vi diskuterer da bare hvordan bedrifter kan gå om å rapportere kostnaden av opsjoner på resultatregnskap og balanser. Fallacy 1: Aksjeopsjoner representerer ikke en reell kostnad Det er et grunnleggende prinsipp for regnskapsføring at regnskap skal registrere økonomisk vesentlige transaksjoner. Ingen tviler på at handlede alternativer møter det kriteriet tusenvis av dollar verdt er kjøpt og solgt hver dag, enten i over-the-counter markedet eller på utveksling. For mange er imidlertid aksjeselskapsstipendier en annen historie. Disse transaksjonene er ikke økonomisk signifikante, argumentet går fordi ingen kontanter skifter hender. Som tidligere amerikanske eksekutivdirektør Harvey Golub satte den i en 8. august 2002, Wall Street Journal artikkel, er opsjonsopsjoner aldri en kostnad for selskapet, og derfor bør det aldri bli regnskapsført som en kostnad i resultatregnskapet. Den stillingen tåler økonomisk logikk, for ikke å nevne sunn fornuft, på flere måter. For en start trenger verdioverføringer ikke å innebære overføring av kontanter. Mens en transaksjon som involverer en kvittering eller betaling er tilstrekkelig til å generere en opptakbar transaksjon, er det ikke nødvendig. Hendelser som utveksling av aksjer for eiendeler, signering av en leieavtale, tilveiebringelse av fremtidig pensjon eller feriefordeler for inneværende periode ansettelse, eller kjøp av materiale på kreditt alle utløser regnskapstransaksjoner fordi de innebærer overføringer av verdi, selv om ingen kontanter skifter hender på det tidspunktet transaksjon oppstår. Selv om ingen kontanter skifter hender, utstedes aksjeopsjoner til ansatte med et offer av kontanter, en mulighetskostnad, som må regnskapsføres. Hvis et selskap skulle gi aksjer, i stedet for opsjoner, til ansatte, ville alle være enige om at selskapets kostnader for denne transaksjonen ville være det kontanter det ellers ville ha fått hvis det hadde solgt aksjene til dagens markedspris til investorer. Det er akkurat det samme med aksjeopsjoner. Når et selskap gir opsjoner til ansatte, gir det muligheten til å motta kontanter fra garantistene som kan ta de samme alternativene og selge dem i et konkurransedyktig marked for valg til investorer. Warren Buffett gjorde dette poenget grafisk i en kolonne i Washington Post 9 april 2002 da han sa: Berkshire Hathaway vil gjerne motta alternativer i stedet for kontanter for mange av de varer og tjenester vi selger Amerika. Å gi opsjoner til ansatte i stedet for å selge dem til leverandører eller investorer via garantistyrker innebærer et faktisk tap av kontanter til firmaet. Det kan selvsagt være rimeligere hevdet at kontanter som gis ved å utstede opsjoner til ansatte, i stedet for å selge dem til investorer, kompenseres av det kontanter selskapet opprettholder ved å betale sine ansatte mindre penger. Som to allment respekterte økonomer, Burton G. Malkiel og William J. Baumol, notert i en 4 april 2002 Wall Street Journal artikkel: Et nytt entreprenørfirma kan ikke være i stand til å yte den kontantkompensasjon som trengs for å tiltrekke fremragende arbeidstakere. I stedet kan det tilby aksjeopsjoner. Men Malkiel og Baumol følger dessverre ikke sin observasjon til sin logiske konklusjon. For hvis kostnaden for aksjeopsjoner ikke er universelt innlemmet i måling av nettoinntekt, vil selskaper som gir opsjoner, undergrave kompensasjonskostnadene, og det vil ikke være mulig å sammenligne lønnsomhet, produktivitet og kapitalbasert tiltak med økonomisk tilsvarende selskaper som bare har strukturert deres kompensasjonssystem på en annen måte. Den følgende hypotetiske illustrasjonen viser hvordan det kan skje. Tenk deg to selskaper, KapCorp og MerBod, som konkurrerer i nøyaktig samme bransje. De to er bare forskjellig i strukturen av deres kompensasjonspakker. KapCorp betaler sine arbeidere 400.000 i total kompensasjon i form av kontanter i løpet av året. I begynnelsen av året utsteder det også gjennom en tegningsordning 100.000 verdier av opsjoner i kapitalmarkedet, som ikke kan utøves i ett år, og det krever at ansatte skal bruke 25 av kompensasjonen til å kjøpe de nyutstedte opsjonene. Netto kontantstrøm til KapCorp er 300.000 (400.000 i kompensasjonskostnad mindre enn 100.000 fra salget av opsjonene). MerBods tilnærming er bare litt annerledes. Den betaler sine arbeidere 300.000 i kontanter og gir dem direkte 100.000 verdier av opsjoner i begynnelsen av året (med samme ettårig treningsbegrensning). Økonomisk sett er de to posisjonene identiske. Hvert selskap har betalt totalt 400.000 i erstatning, hver har utstedt 100.000 verdier av opsjoner, og for hver netto kontantstrøm utgjør 300.000 etter at kontantene mottatt fra utstedelsen av opsjonene trekkes fra kontanter brukt til kompensasjon. Ansatte hos begge selskapene har samme 100.000 opsjoner i løpet av året, og gir samme motivasjon, incitament og retensjonseffekter. Hvor legitim er en regnskapsstandard som tillater to økonomisk identiske transaksjoner til å produsere radikalt forskjellige tall. Ved utarbeidelsen av årsregnskapet vil KapCorp bestille kompensasjonskostnader på 400.000 og vise 100.000 opsjoner i balansen på en egenkapitalkonto. Hvis kostnaden for opsjoner utstedt til ansatte ikke regnskapsføres som en kostnad, vil MerBod imidlertid bestille en kompensasjonskostnad på bare 300.000 og ikke vise noen opsjoner utstedt i balansen. Forutsatt ellers identiske inntekter og kostnader, vil det se ut som om MerBods inntjening var 100.000 høyere enn KapCorps. MerBod vil også synes å ha en lavere egenkapitalbase enn KapCorp, selv om økningen i antall utestående aksjer i hvert fall vil være det samme for begge selskapene dersom alle opsjoner utøves. Som følge av lavere kompensasjonskostnad og lavere egenkapitalposisjon, vil MerBods ytelse ved de fleste analytiske tiltak ser ut til å være langt overlegen til KapCorps. Denne forvrengningen er selvsagt gjentatt hvert år at de to firmaene velger de forskjellige kompensasjonsformene. Hvor legitim er en regnskapsstandard som tillater to økonomisk identiske transaksjoner til å produsere radikalt forskjellige tall. Fallacy 2: Kostnaden for ansattes aksjeopsjoner kan ikke estimeres Noen motstandere av opsjonsutgifter forsvarer sin posisjon på praktisk, ikke konseptuell grunnlag. Alternativ-prismodeller kan virke, sier de, som en veiledning for verdsettelse av børsnoterte alternativer. Men de kan ikke fange verdien av ansatteopsjoner, som er private kontrakter mellom selskapet og ansatt for illikvide instrumenter som ikke kan fritt selges, byttes, pantsatt som sikkerhet eller sikres. Det er sant at en instrumentets mangel på likviditet generelt vil redusere verdien til innehaveren. Men innehaverens likviditetstap gjør ingen forskjell på hva det koster utstederen å skape instrumentet med mindre utstederen på en eller annen måte drar nytte av mangel på likviditet. Og for aksjeopsjoner har fraværet av et flytende marked liten effekt på verdien til innehaveren. Den flotte skjønnheten av alternativ-prismodeller er at de er basert på egenskapene til den underliggende aksjen. Det er nettopp hvorfor de har bidratt til den ekstraordinære veksten av opsjonsmarkedene de siste 30 årene. Black-Scholes-prisen på et alternativ er lik verdien av en portefølje av aksjer og kontanter som styres dynamisk for å kopiere utbetalingene til det alternativet. Med en helt likvide beholdning kunne en ellers ubegrenset investor helt sikre en opsjonsrisiko og trekke ut verdien ved å selge kort replikerende portefølje av aksjer og kontanter. I så fall vil likviditetsrabatten på opsjonsverdien være minimal. Og det gjelder selv om det ikke var noe marked for handel alternativet direkte. Likviditetenes mangel på markeder i aksjeopsjoner fører derfor ikke til rabatt i opsjonsverdien til innehaveren. Investeringsbanker, kommersielle banker og forsikringsselskaper har nå gått langt utover den grunnleggende, 30-årige Black-Scholes modellen for å utvikle tilnærminger til prising av alle mulige alternativer: Standard seg. Eksotiske. Alternativer handlet gjennom mellommenn, over disk, og på utveksling. Alternativer knyttet til valutasvingninger. Alternativer innebygd i komplekse verdipapirer som konvertibel gjeld, foretrukket lager eller gjeldsgjeld som boliglån med forskuddsbetaling eller rentedeksler og - gulv. En hel underindustri har utviklet seg for å hjelpe enkeltpersoner, selskaper og pengemarkedsforvaltere å kjøpe og selge disse komplekse verdipapirene. Nåværende finansiell teknologi tillater absolutt at bedrifter skal inkludere alle funksjonene til ansattes aksjeopsjoner i en prismodell. Noen få investeringsbanker vil til og med sitere priser for ledere som ønsker å sikre eller selge sine aksjeopsjoner før opptjening, hvis deres selskaps opsjonsplan tillater det. Selvfølgelig estimerer formelbaserte eller garantistyrere om kostnaden for ansatteopsjoner er mindre presise enn kontantutbetalinger eller delstilskudd. Men regnskapet bør streve for å være omtrent rett i å reflektere økonomisk virkelighet i stedet for nettopp feil. Ledere stammer rutinemessig på estimater for viktige kostnadsposter, for eksempel avskrivninger på anlegg og utstyr og avsetninger mot ansvarsforpliktelser, som fremtidige miljøopprensninger og bosetninger fra produktansvar og andre rettssaker. Ved beregning av kostnadene for ansattepensjon og andre pensjonsytelser bruker forvaltere aktuarmessige estimater av fremtidige renter, ansettelsespensjon, ansattes pensjonsdato, lengden på arbeidstakerne og deres ektefeller, og økningen av fremtidige medisinske kostnader. Prismodeller og omfattende erfaring gjør det mulig å estimere kostnaden for aksjeopsjoner utstedt i en gitt periode med en presisjon som er sammenlignbar med eller større enn mange av disse andre elementene som allerede vises på selskapsinntekter og balanser. Ikke alle innvendingene mot å bruke Black-Scholes og andre opsjonsvurderingsmodeller er basert på vanskeligheter med å estimere kostnaden for tildelte opsjoner. For eksempel hevdet John DeLong, i et Paper of Competitive Enterprise Institute i juni 2002 med tittelen The Stock Options Controversy og The New Economy, at selv om en verdi ble beregnet ut fra en modell, ville beregningen kreve justering for å gjenspeile verdien til den ansatte. Han er bare halvparten riktig. Ved å betale ansatte med egne aksjer eller opsjoner, tvinger selskapet seg til å holde svært ikke-diversifiserte finansielle porteføljer, en risiko som ytterligere blir kompensert av investeringen av den medarbeiders egen menneskelige kapital i selskapet også. Siden nesten alle enkeltpersoner er risikofylte, kan vi forvente at ansatte skal legge betydelig lavere verdi på deres opsjonspakke enn andre, bedre diversifiserte investorer. Estimater av omfanget av denne risikovurderingsprisen for ansattrisiko, som det noen ganger kalles fra 20 til 50, avhengig av volatiliteten til den underliggende aksjen og graden av diversifisering av medarbeiderporteføljen. Eksistensen av denne dødvektskostnaden brukes noen ganger til å rettferdiggjøre den tilsynelatende store omfanget av opsjonsbasert godtgjørelse utlevert til toppledere. Et selskap som for eksempel søker å belønne sin administrerende direktør med 1 million i opsjoner som er verdt 1000 hver i markedet, kan (kanskje perversivt) på grunn av at det skal utstede 2000 i stedet for 1000 opsjoner fordi opsjonene fra konsernsjefene er mulige bare 500 hver. (Vi vil påpeke at denne begrunnelsen validerer vårt tidligere punkt at alternativene er en erstatning for kontanter.) Men selv om det muligens kan være rimelig å ta hensyn til dødvektskostnad når man bestemmer hvor mye egenkapitalbasert kompensasjon (som opsjoner) skal inkludere i en lederpakke, er det absolutt ikke rimelig å la dødevektskostnader påvirke måten selskapene registrerer kostnadene ved pakkene. Regnskapet reflekterer selskapets økonomiske perspektiv, ikke de enheter (herunder ansatte) som det handler om. Når et selskap selger et produkt til en kunde, for eksempel, trenger det ikke å verifisere hva produktet er verdt for den enkelte. Det teller forventet kontantbetaling i transaksjonen som omsetning. På samme måte, når selskapet kjøper et produkt eller en tjeneste fra en leverandør, undersøker den ikke om den betalte prisen var større eller mindre enn leverandørene kostet eller hva leverandøren kunne ha mottatt dersom det solgte produktet eller tjenesten andre steder. Selskapet registrerer kjøpesummen som kontanter eller kontantekvivalenter den ofrede for å skaffe seg godet eller tjenesten. Anta at en klærprodusent skulle bygge et treningssenter for sine ansatte. Selskapet ville ikke gjøre det for å konkurrere med treningssenter. Det vil bygge senteret for å generere høyere inntekter fra økt produktivitet og kreativitet til sunnere, lykkere ansatte og å redusere kostnader som følge av ansattes omsetning og sykdom. Kostnaden for selskapet er klart kostnaden for å bygge og vedlikeholde anlegget, ikke verdien som de enkelte ansatte kan plassere på den. Kostnaden for treningssenteret er regnskapsført som en periodisk kostnad, løst tilpasset forventet inntektsøkning og reduksjon i ansattes kostnader. Den eneste fornuftige begrunnelsen vi har sett for å koste utøvende opsjoner under markedsverdien, kommer fra observasjonen om at mange opsjoner blir fortapt når ansatte forlater eller blir utøvet for tidlig på grunn av risikovilligheten til ansatte. I disse tilfellene blir eksisterende aksjeeiere fortynnet mindre enn det ellers ville være, eller slet ikke, og dermed redusere selskapets kompensasjonskostnad. Selv om vi er enige med den grunnleggende logikken i dette argumentet, kan virkningen av fortabelse og tidlig utøvelse på teoretiske verdier være grovt overdrevet. (Se den virkelige effekten av fortabelse og tidlig opplæring i slutten av denne artikkelen.) Virkelige konsekvenser av fortabelse og tidlig opplæring I motsetning til kontantlønn, kan opsjoner ikke overføres fra den enkelte tildelt dem til noen andre. Ikke-overførbarhet har to effekter som kombinerer for å gjøre ansattealternativer mindre verdifulle enn konvensjonelle opsjoner som handles i markedet. For det første mister ansatte sine opsjoner dersom de forlater selskapet før opsjonene er opptjent. For det andre har ansatte en tendens til å redusere risikoen ved å utøve interesserte aksjeopsjoner mye tidligere enn en veldiversifisert investor ville, og dermed redusere potensialet for en mye høyere utbytte dersom de hadde opsjonene til forfall. Ansatte med faste opsjoner som er i pengene, vil også utøve dem når de slutter, siden de fleste bedrifter krever at ansatte bruker eller mister sine valg ved avreise. I begge tilfeller reduseres den økonomiske effekten på selskapet ved utstedelse av opsjonene, siden verdien og relative størrelsen på eksisterende aksjeeiersposter utvides mindre enn de kunne ha vært, eller slet ikke. Å anerkjenne den økende sannsynligheten for at selskapene vil bli pålagt å utnytte aksjeopsjoner, kjemper noen motstandere med en rearguard-handling ved å forsøke å overtale standard settere til å betydelig redusere den rapporterte kostnaden for disse alternativene, diskontere deres verdi fra det som måles av finansielle modeller for å gjenspeile den sterke sannsynlighet for fortabelse og tidlig trening. Nåværende forslag fra disse menneskene til FASB og IASB vil gi selskapene mulighet til å anslå andelen opsjoner som fortabes i løpet av opptjeningsperioden og redusere kostnaden for opsjonsstipendier med dette beløpet. I stedet for å bruke utløpsdatoen for opsjonslivet i en opsjonsprisemodell, søker forslagene å tillate at selskaper bruker et forventet liv for muligheten til å reflektere sannsynligheten for tidlig trening. Ved å bruke et forventet liv (som selskapene kan anslå i nærheten av opptjeningsperioden, si fire år) i stedet for kontraktsperioden på ti år, vil det redusere den estimerte kostnaden av opsjonen betydelig. Noen justeringer bør gjøres for fortabelse og tidlig trening. Men den foreslåtte metoden overstiger betydelig kostnadsreduksjon siden den forsømmer omstendighetene under hvilke opsjoner som mest sannsynlig vil bli fortapt eller utøves tidlig. Når disse omstendighetene er tatt i betraktning, er reduksjonen i ansattskostnadskostnadene sannsynligvis mye mindre. Først vurderer du forfeiture. Å bruke en flat prosentandel for fortabelser basert på historisk eller potensiell ansatt er omsetning kun gyldig dersom fortabelse er en tilfeldig begivenhet, som et lotteri, uavhengig av aksjekursen. I virkeligheten er imidlertid sannsynligheten for fortabelse negativt knyttet til verdien av opsjonsalternativene og dermed til aksjekursen selv. Folk er mer sannsynlig å forlate et selskap og miste opsjoner når aksjekursen har gått ned og alternativene er verdt lite. Men hvis firmaet har gjort det bra og aksjekursen har økt betydelig siden tildelingsdagen, vil alternativene bli mye mer verdifulle, og ansatte vil være mye mindre tilbøyelige til å forlate. Hvis arbeidstakeromsetning og fortabelse er mer sannsynlig når opsjonene er minst verdifulle, reduseres lite av opsjonskostnadene ved tildelingstidspunktet på grunn av sannsynligheten for fortabelse. Argumentet for tidlig trening er lik. Det avhenger også av fremtidig aksjekurs. Ansatte vil ha en tendens til å trene tidlig hvis det meste av deres formue er bundet i selskapet, de må diversifisere, og de har ingen annen måte å redusere risikoeksponeringen mot selskapets aksjekurs. 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. 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. Recommended ReadThis site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them. The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version, or you may have compatibility mode selected. Please turn off compatibility mode, upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. IFRS 2 Share-based Payment Quick Article Links IFRS 2 Share-based Payment requires an entity to recognise share-based payment transactions (such as granted shares, share options, or share appreciation rights) in its financial statements, including transactions with employees or other parties to be settled in cash, other assets, or equity instruments of the entity. Specific requirements are included for equity-settled and cash-settled share-based payment transactions, as well as those where the entity or supplier has a choice of cash or equity instruments. IFRS 2 was originally issued in February 2004 and first applied to annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. History of IFRS 2 G41 Discussion Paper Accounting for Share-Based Payments published Comment deadline 31 October 2000 Project added to IASB agenda History of the project IASB invites comments on G41 Discussion Paper Accounting for Share-Based Payments Comment deadline 15 December 2001 Exposure Draft ED 2 Share-Based Payment published Comment deadline 7 March 2003 IFRS 2 Share-based Payment issued Effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005 Exposure Draft Vesting Conditions and Cancellations published Comment deadline 2 June 2006 Amended by Vesting Conditions and Cancellations (Amendments to IFRS 2) Effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2009 Amended by Improvements to IFRSs (scope of IFRS 2 and revised IFRS 3) Effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 July 2009 Amended by Group Cash-settled Share-based Payment Tra nsactions Effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2010 Amended by Annual Improvements to IFRSs 20102012 Cycle (definition of vesting condition) Effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 July 2014 Amended by Classification and Measurement of Share-based Payment Transactions (Amendments to IFRS 2) Effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018 Related Interpretations Amendments under consideration Summary of IFRS 2 In June 2007, the Deloitte IFRS Global Office published an updated version of our IAS Plus Guide to IFRS 2 Share-based Payment 2007 (PDF 748k, 128 pages). The guide not only explains the detailed provisions of IFRS 2 but also deals with its application in many practical situations. Because of the complexity and variety of share-based payment awards in practice, it is not always possible to be definitive as to what is the right answer. However, in this guide Deloitte shares with you our approach to finding solutions that we believe are in accordance with the objective of the Standard. Special edition of our IAS Plus newsletter You will find a four-page summary of IFRS 2 in a special edition of our IAS Plus newsletter (PDF 49k). Definition of share-based payment A share-based payment is a transaction in which the entity receives goods or services either as consideration for its equity instruments or by incurring liabilities for amounts based on the price of the entitys shares or other equity instruments of the entity. The accounting requirements for the share-based payment depend on how the transaction will be settled, that is, by the issuance of (a) equity, (b) cash, or (c) equity or cash. The concept of share-based payments is broader than employee share options. IFRS 2 encompasses the issuance of shares, or rights to shares, in return for services and goods. Examples of items included in the scope of IFRS 2 are share appreciation rights, employee share purchase plans, employee share ownership plans, share option plans and plans where the issuance of shares (or rights to shares) may depend on market or non-market related conditions. IFRS 2 applies to all entities. There is no exemption for private or smaller entities. Furthermore, subsidiaries using their parents or fellow subsidiarys equity as consideration for goods or services are within the scope of the Standard. There are two exemptions to the general scope principle: First, the issuance of shares in a business combination should be accounted for under IFRS 3 Business Combinations . However, care should be taken to distinguish share-based payments related to the acquisition from those related to continuing employee services Second, IFRS 2 does not address share-based payments within the scope of paragraphs 8-10 of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation . or paragraphs 5-7 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement . Therefore, IAS 32 and IAS 39 should be applied for commodity-based derivative contracts that may be settled in shares or rights to shares. IFRS 2 does not apply to share-based payment transactions other than for the acquisition of goods and services. Share dividends, the purchase of treasury shares, and the issuance of additional shares are therefore outside its scope. Recognition and measurement The issuance of shares or rights to shares requires an increase in a component of equity. IFRS 2 requires the offsetting debit entry to be expensed when the payment for goods or services does not represent an asset. The expense should be recognised as the goods or services are consumed. For example, the issuance of shares or rights to shares to purchase inventory would be presented as an increase in inventory and would be expensed only once the inventory is sold or impaired. The issuance of fully vested shares, or rights to shares, is presumed to relate to past service, requiring the full amount of the grant-date fair value to be expensed immediately. The issuance of shares to employees with, say, a three-year vesting period is considered to relate to services over the vesting period. Therefore, the fair value of the share-based payment, determined at the grant date, should be expensed over the vesting period. As a general principle, the total expense related to equity-settled share-based payments will equal the multiple of the total instruments that vest and the grant-date fair value of those instruments. In short, there is truing up to reflect what happens during the vesting period. However, if the equity-settled share-based payment has a market related performance condition, the expense would still be recognised if all other vesting conditions are met. The following example provides an illustration of a typical equity-settled share-based payment. Illustration Recognition of employee share option grant Company grants a total of 100 share options to 10 members of its executive management team (10 options each) on 1 January 20X5. These options vest at the end of a three-year period. The company has determined that each option has a fair value at the date of grant equal to 15. The company expects that all 100 options will vest and therefore records the following entry at 30 June 20X5 - the end of its first six-month interim reporting period. Dr. Share option expense (90 15) 6 periods 225 per period. 225 4 250250250 150 Depending on the type of share-based payment, fair value may be determined by the value of the shares or rights to shares given up, or by the value of the goods or services received: General fair value measurement principle. In principle, transactions in which goods or services are received as consideration for equity instruments of the entity should be measured at the fair value of the goods or services received. Only if the fair value of the goods or services cannot be measured reliably would the fair value of the equity instruments granted be used. Measuring employee share options. For transactions with employees and others providing similar services, the entity is required to measure the fair value of the equity instruments granted, because it is typically not possible to estimate reliably the fair value of employee services received. When to measure fair value - options. For transactions measured at the fair value of the equity instruments granted (such as transactions with employees), fair value should be estimated at grant date. When to measure fair value - goods and services. For transactions measured at the fair value of the goods or services received, fair value should be estimated at the date of receipt of those goods or services. Measurement guidance. For goods or services measured by reference to the fair value of the equity instruments granted, IFRS 2 specifies that, in general, vesting conditions are not taken into account when estimating the fair value of the shares or options at the relevant measurement date (as specified above). Instead, vesting conditions are taken into account by adjusting the number of equity instruments included in the measurement of the transaction amount so that, ultimately, the amount recognised for goods or services received as consideration for the equity instruments granted is based on the number of equity instruments that eventually vest. More measurement guidance. IFRS 2 requires the fair value of equity instruments granted to be based on market prices, if available, and to take into account the terms and conditions upon which those equity instruments were granted. In the absence of market prices, fair value is estimated using a valuation technique to estimate what the price of those equity instruments would have been on the measurement date in an arms length transaction between knowledgeable, willing parties. The standard does not specify which particular model should be used. If fair value cannot be reliably measured. IFRS 2 requires the share-based payment transaction to be measured at fair value for both listed and unlisted entities. IFRS 2 permits the use of intrinsic value (that is, fair value of the shares less exercise price) in those rare cases in which the fair value of the equity instruments cannot be reliably measured. However this is not simply measured at the date of grant. An entity would have to remeasure intrinsic value at each reporting date until final settlement. Performance conditions. IFRS 2 makes a distinction between the handling of market based performance conditions from non-market performance conditions. Market conditions are those related to the market price of an entitys equity, such as achieving a specified share price or a specified target based on a comparison of the entitys share price with an index of share prices of other entities. Market based performance conditions are included in the grant-date fair value measurement (similarly, non-vesting conditions are taken into account in the measurement). However, the fair value of the equity instruments is not adjusted to take into consideration non-market based performance features - these are instead taken into account by adjusting the number of equity instruments included in the measurement of the share-based payment transaction, and are adjusted each period until such time as the equity instruments vest. Note: Annual Improvements to IFRSs 20102012 Cycle amend s the definitions of vesting condition and market condition and adds definitions for performance condition and service condition (which were previously part of the definition of vesting condition). The amendments are effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 July 2014. Modifications, cancellations, and settlements The determination of whether a change in terms and conditions has an effect on the amount recognised depends on whether the fair value of the new instruments is greater than the fair value of the original instruments (both determined at the modification date). Modification of the terms on which equity instruments were granted may have an effect on the expense that will be recorded. IFRS 2 clarifies that the guidance on modifications also applies to instruments modified after their vesting date. If the fair value of the new instruments is more than the fair value of the old instruments (e. g. by reduction of the exercise price or issuance of additional instruments), the incremental amount is recognised over the remaining vesting period in a manner similar to the original amount. If the modification occurs after the vesting period, the incremental amount is recognised immediately. If the fair value of the new instruments is less than the fair value of the old instruments, the original fair value of the equity instruments granted should be expensed as if the modification never occurred. The cancellation or settlement of equity instruments is accounted for as an acceleration of the vesting period and therefore any amount unrecognised that would otherwise have been charged should be recognised immediately. Any payments made with the cancellation or settlement (up to the fair value of the equity instruments) should be accounted for as the repurchase of an equity interest. Any payment in excess of the fair value of the equity instruments granted is recognised as an expense New equity instruments granted may be identified as a replacement of cancelled equity instruments. In those cases, the replacement equity instruments are accounted for as a modification. The fair value of the replacement equity instruments is determined at grant date, while the fair value of the cancelled instruments is determined at the date of cancellation, less any cash payments on cancellation that is accounted for as a deduction from equity. Disclosure Required disclosures include: the nature and extent of share-based payment arrangements that existed during the period how the fair value of the goods or services received, or the fair value of the equity instruments granted, during the period was determined the effect of share-based payment transactions on the entitys profit or loss for the period and on its financial position. Effective date IFRS 2 is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. Earlier application is encouraged. Transition All equity-settled share-based payments granted after 7 November 2002, that are not yet vested at the effective date of IFRS 2 shall be accounted for using the provisions of IFRS 2. Entities are allowed and encouraged, but not required, to apply this IFRS to other grants of equity instruments if (and only if) the entity has previously disclosed publicly the fair value of those equity instruments determined in accordance with IFRS 2. The comparative information presented in accordance with IAS 1 shall be restated for all grants of equity instruments to which the requirements of IFRS 2 are applied. The adjustment to reflect this change is presented in the opening balance of retained earnings for the earliest period presented. IFRS 2 amends paragraph 13 of IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards to add an exemption for share-based payment transactions. Similar to entities already applying IFRS, first-time adopters will have to apply IFRS 2 for share-based payment transactions on or after 7 November 2002. Additionally, a first-time adopter is not required to apply IFRS 2 to share-based payments granted after 7 November 2002 that vested before the later of (a) the date of transition to IFRS and (b) 1 January 2005. A first-time adopter may elect to apply IFRS 2 earlier only if it has publicly disclosed the fair value of the share-based payments determined at the measurement date in accordance with IFRS 2. Differences with FASB Statement 123 Revised 2004 In December 2004, the US FASB published FASB Statement 123 (revised 2004) Share-Based Payment. Statement 123(R) requires that the compensation cost relating to share-based payment transactions be recognised in financial statements. Click for FASB Press Release (PDF 17k). Deloitte (USA) has published a special issue of its Heads Up newsletter summarising the key concepts of FASB Statement No. 123(R). Click to download the Heads Up Newsletter (PDF 292k). While Statement 123(R) is largely consistent with IFRS 2, some differences remain, as described in a QampA document FASB issued along with the new Statement: Q22. Is the Statement convergent with International Financial Reporting Standards The Statement is largely convergent with International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 2, Share-based Payment. The Statement and IFRS 2 have the potential to differ in only a few areas. The more significant areas are briefly described below. IFRS 2 requires the use of the modified grant-date method for share-based payment arrangements with nonemployees. In contrast, Issue 96-18 requires that grants of share options and other equity instruments to nonemployees be measured at the earlier of (1) the date at which a commitment for performance by the counterparty to earn the equity instruments is reached or (2) the date at which the counterpartys performance is complete. IFRS 2 contains more stringent criteria for determining whether an employee share purchase plan is compensatory or not. As a result, some employee share purchase plans for which IFRS 2 requires recognition of compensation cost will not be considered to give rise to compensation cost under the Statement. IFRS 2 applies the same measurement requirements to employee share options regardless of whether the issuer is a public or a nonpublic entity. The Statement requires that a nonpublic entity account for its options and similar equity instruments based on their fair value unless it is not practicable to estimate the expected volatility of the entitys share price. In that situation, the entity is required to measure its equity share options and similar instruments at a value using the historical volatility of an appropriate industry sector index. In tax jurisdictions such as the United States, where the time value of share options generally is not deductible for tax purposes, IFRS 2 requires that no deferred tax asset be recognized for the compensation cost related to the time value component of the fair value of an award. A deferred tax asset is recognized only if and when the share options have intrinsic value that could be deductible for tax purposes. Therefore, an entity that grants an at-the-money share option to an employee in exchange for services will not recognize tax effects until that award is in-the-money. In contrast, the Statement requires recognition of a deferred tax asset based on the grant-date fair value of the award. The effects of subsequent decreases in the share price (or lack of an increase) are not reflected in accounting for the deferred tax asset until the related compensation cost is recognized for tax purposes. The effects of subsequent increases that generate excess tax benefits are recognized when they affect taxes payable. The Statement requires a portfolio approach in determining excess tax benefits of equity awards in paid-in capital available to offset write-offs of deferred tax assets, whereas IFRS 2 requires an individual instrument approach. Thus, some write-offs of deferred tax assets that will be recognized in paid-in capital under the Statement will be recognized in determining net income under IFRS 2. Differences between the Statement and IFRS 2 may be further reduced in the future when the IASB and FASB consider whether to undertake additional work to further converge their respective accounting standards on share-based payment. March 2005: SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 107 On 29 March 2005, the staff of the US Securities and Exchange Commission issued Staff Accounting Bulletin 107 dealing with valuations and other accounting issues for share-based payment arrangements by public companies under FASB Statement 123R Share-Based Payment. For public companies, valuations under Statement 123R are similar to those under IFRS 2 Share-based Payment. SAB 107 provides guidance related to share-based payment transactions with nonemployees, the transition from nonpublic to public entity status, valuation methods (including assumptions such as expected volatility and expected term), the accounting for certain redeemable financial instruments issued under share-based payment arrangements, the classification of compensation expense, non-GAAP financial measures, first-time adoption of Statement 123R in an interim period, capitalisation of compensation cost related to share-based payment arrangements, accounting for the income tax effects of share-based payment arrangements on adoption of Statement 123R, the modification of employee share options prior to adoption of Statement 123R, and disclosures in Managements Discussion and Analysis (MDampA) subsequent to adoption of Statement 123R. One of the interpretations in SAB 107 is whether there are differences between Statement 123R and IFRS 2 that would result in a reconciling item: Question: Does the staff believe there are differences in the measurement provisions for share-based payment arrangements with employees under International Accounting Standards Board International Financial Reporting Standard 2, Share-based Payment (IFRS 2) and Statement 123R that would result in a reconciling item under Item 17 or 18 of Form 20-F Interpretive Response: The staff believes that application of the guidance provided by IFRS 2 regarding the measurement of employee share options would generally result in a fair value measurement that is consistent with the fair value objective stated in Statement 123R. Accordingly, the staff believes that application of Statement 123Rs measurement guidance would not generally result in a reconciling item required to be reported under Item 17 or 18 of Form 20-F for a foreign private issuer that has complied with the provisions of IFRS 2 for share-based payment transactions with employees. However, the staff reminds foreign private issuers that there are certain differences between the guidance in IFRS 2 and Statement 123R that may result in reconciling items. Footnotes omitted Click to download: March 2005: Bear, Stearns Study on Impact of Expensing Stock Options in the United States If US public companies had been required to expense employee stock options in 2004, as will be required under FASB Statement 123R Share-Based Payment starting in third-quarter 2005: the reported 2004 post-tax net income from continuing operations of the SampP 500 companies would have been reduced by 5, and 2004 NASDAQ 100 post-tax net income from continuing operations would have been reduced by 22. Those are key findings of a study conducted by the Equity Research group at Bear, Stearns amp Co. Inc. The purpose of the study is to help investors gauge the impact that expensing employee stock options will have on the 2005 earnings of US public companies. The Bear, Stearns analysis was based on the 2004 stock option disclosures in the most recently filed 10Ks of companies that were SampP 500 and NASDAQ 100 constituents as of 31 December 2004. Exhibits to the study present the results by company, by sector, and by industry. Visitors to IAS Plus are likely to find the study of interest because the requirements of FAS 123R for public companies are very similar to those of IFRS 2. We are grateful to Bear, Stearns for giving us permission to post the study on IAS Plus. The report remains copyright Bear, Stears amp Co. Inc. all rights reserved. Click to download 2004 Earnings Impact of Stock Options on the SampP 500 amp NASDAQ 100 Earnings (PDF 486k). November 2005: Standard amp Poors Study on Impact of Expensing Stock Options In November 2005 Standard amp Poors published a report of the impact of expensing stock options on the SampP 500 companies. FAS 123(R) requires expensing of stock options (mandatory for most SEC registrants in 2006). IFRS 2 is nearly identical to FAS 123(R). SampP found: Option expense will reduce SampP 500 earnings by 4.2. Information Technology is affected the most, reducing earnings by 18. PE ratios for all sectors will be increased, but will remain below historical averages. The impact of option expensing on the Standard amp Poors 500 will be noticeable, but in an environment of record earnings, high margins and historically low operating price-to-earnings ratios, the index is in its best position in decades to absorb the additional expense. SampP takes issue with those companies that try to emphasise earnings before deducting stock option expense and with those analysts who ignore option expensing. The report emphasises that: Standard amp Poors will include and report option expense in all of its earnings values, across all of its business lines. This includes Operating, As Reported and Core, and applies to its analytical work in the SampP Domestic Indices, Stock Reports, as well as its forward estimates. It includes all of its electronic products. The investment community benefits when it has clear and consistent information and analyses. A consistent earnings methodology that builds on accepted accounting standards and procedures is a vital component of investing. By supporting this definition, Standard amp Poors is contributing to a more reliable investment environment. The current debate as to the presentation by companies of earnings that exclude option expense, generally being referred to as non-GAAP earnings, speaks to the heart of corporate governance. Additionally, many equity analysts are being encouraged to base their estimates on non-GAAP earnings. While we do not expect a repeat of the EBBS (Earnings Before Bad Stuff) pro-forma earnings of 2001, the ability to compare issues and sectors depends on an accepted set of accounting rules observed by all. In order to make informed investment decisions, the investing community requires data that conform to accepted accounting procedures. Of even more concern is the impact that such alternative presentation and calculations could have on the reduced level of faith and trust investors put into company reporting. The corporate governance events of the last two-years have eroded the trust of many investors, trust that will take years to earn back. In an era of instant access and carefully scripted investor releases, trust is now a major issue. January 2008: Amendment of IFRS 2 to clarify vesting conditions and cancellations On 17 January 2008, the IASB published final amendments to IFRS 2 Share-based Payment to clarify the terms vesting conditions and cancellations as follows: Vesting conditions are service conditions and performance conditions only. Other features of a share-based payment are not vesting conditions. Under IFRS 2, features of a share-based payment that are not vesting conditions should be included in the grant date fair value of the share-based payment. The fair value also includes market-related vesting conditions. All cancellations, whether by the entity or by other parties, should receive the same accounting treatment. Under IFRS 2, a cancellation of equity instruments is accounted for as an acceleration of the vesting period. Therefore any amount unrecognised that would otherwise have been charged is recognised immediately. Any payments made with the cancellation (up to the fair value of the equity instruments) is accounted for as the repurchase of an equity interest. Any payment in excess of the fair value of the equity instruments granted is recognised as an expense. The Board had proposed the amendment in an exposure draft on 2 February 2006. The amendment is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2009, with earlier application permitted. Deloitte has published a Special Edition of our IAS Plus Newsletter explaining the amendments to IFRS 2 for vesting conditions and cancellations (PDF 126k). June 2009: IASB amends IFRS 2 for group cash-settled share-based payment transactions, withdraws IFRICs 8 and 11 On 18 June 2009, the IASB issued amendments to IFRS 2 Share-based Payment that clarify the accounting for group cash-settled share-based payment transactions. The amendments clarify how an individual subsidiary in a group should account for some share-based payment arrangements in its own financial statements. In these arrangements, the subsidiary receives goods or services from employees or suppliers but its parent or another entity in the group must pay those suppliers. The amendments make clear that: An entity that receives goods or services in a share-based payment arrangement must account for those goods or services no matter which entity in the group settles the transaction, and no matter whether the transaction is settled in shares or cash. In IFRS 2 a group has the same meaning as in IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements . that is, it includes only a parent and its subsidiaries. The amendments to IFRS 2 also incorporate guidance previously included in IFRIC 8 Scope of IFRS 2 and IFRIC 11 IFRS 2Group and Treasury Share Transactions . As a result, the IASB has withdrawn IFRIC 8 and IFRIC 11. The amendments are effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2010 and must be applied retrospectively. Earlier application is permitted. Click for IASB press release (PDF 103k). June 2016: IASB clarifies the classification and measurement of share-based payment transactions On 20 June 2016, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) published final amendments to IFRS 2 that clarify the classification and measurement of share-based payment transactions: Accounting for cash-settled share-based payment transactions that include a performance condition Until now, IFRS 2 contained no guidance on how vesting conditions affect the fair value of liabilities for cash-settled share-based payments. IASB has now added guidance that introduces accounting requirements for cash-settled share-based payments that follows the same approach as used for equity-settled share-based payments. Classification of share-based payment transactions with net settlement features IASB has introduced an exception into IFRS 2 so that a share-based payment where the entity settles the share-based payment arrangement net is classified as equity-settled in its entirety provided the share-based payment would have been classified as equity-settled had it not included the net settlement feature. Accounting for modifications of share-based payment transactions from cash-settled to equity-settled Until now, IFRS 2 did not specifically address situations where a cash-settled share-based payment changes to an equity-settled share-based payment because of modifications of the terms and conditions. The IASB has intoduced the following clarifications: On such modifications, the original liability recognised in respect of the cash-settled share-based payment is derecognised and the equity-settled share-based payment is recognised at the modification date fair value to the extent services have been rendered up to the modification date. Any difference between the carrying amount of the liability as at the modification date and the amount recognised in equity at the same date would be recognised in profit and loss immediately. Material on this website is 2017 Deloitte Global Services Limited, or a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, or one of their related entities. See Legal for additional copyright and other legal information. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (DTTL), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as Deloitte Global) does not provide services to clients. Please see deloitteabout for a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms. Correction list for hyphenation These words serve as exceptions. Once entered, they are only hyphenated at the specified hyphenation points. Each word should be on a separate line.
No comments:
Post a Comment