Per l'ultima volta: Stock Options sono una spesa 'giunto il momento di porre fine al dibattito sulla contabilizzazione delle stock option la controversia va avanti da troppo tempo. In effetti, la norma che regola la segnalazione di stock options esecutivi risale al 1972, quando il Consiglio principi contabili, il predecessore del Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), ha emesso APB 25. La regola specificato che il costo delle opzioni alla concessione data dovrebbe essere misurata con la loro differenza valuethe intrinseco tra l'attuale valore di mercato delle azioni e il prezzo di esercizio dell'opzione. Secondo questo metodo, senza alcun costo è stato assegnato alle opzioni quando il loro prezzo di esercizio è stato fissato al prezzo di mercato corrente. Il razionale per la regola era abbastanza semplice: Perché nessun denaro passa di mano quando viene effettuata la concessione, l'emissione di un stock option non è una transazione economicamente significativo. Quello è quello che molti pensavano in quel momento. Che cosa è più, po 'di teoria o la pratica era disponibile nel 1972 per guidare le aziende nel determinare il valore di tali strumenti finanziari untraded. APB 25 era obsoleto entro un anno. La pubblicazione nel 1973 della formula di Black-Scholes ha innescato un boom nei mercati delle opzioni quotate, un movimento rinforzata con l'apertura, anche nel 1973, il Chicago Board Options Exchange. E 'stato sicuramente un caso che la crescita dei mercati di opzione negoziati è stato rispecchiato da un uso crescente di borse di opzioni sulle azioni compensi dei dirigenti e dei dipendenti. Il Centro Nazionale per Dipendenti stima che quasi 10 milioni di lavoratori hanno ricevuto stock option nel 2000 meno di 1 milione di fatto nel 1990. È stato subito chiaro sia nella teoria e nella pratica che le opzioni di qualsiasi tipo valevano molto di più che il valore intrinseco definito da APB 25. FASB ha avviato un riesame di stock option contabilità nel 1984 e, dopo più di un decennio di accese polemiche, finalmente rilasciato SFAS 123 nel mese di ottobre 1995. recommendedbut non hanno requirecompanies per segnalare il costo delle opzioni assegnate e per determinare il loro valore di mercato utilizzando modelli opzione di pricing. Il nuovo standard è stato un compromesso, che riflette intensa attività di lobbying da uomini d'affari e politici contro la segnalazione obbligatoria. Essi hanno sostenuto che stock options esecutivi sono stati uno dei componenti che definiscono in America straordinaria rinascita economica, in modo che qualsiasi tentativo di cambiare le regole contabili per loro era un attacco americano modello di grande successo per la creazione di nuove imprese. Inevitabilmente, la maggior parte delle aziende hanno scelto di ignorare la raccomandazione che si opponevano con tanta veemenza e ha continuato a registrare solo il valore intrinseco alla data di assegnazione, tipicamente pari a zero, dei loro conferimenti di opzioni azionarie. Successivamente, lo straordinario boom dei prezzi delle azioni ha fatto i critici di opzione expensing aspetto come guastafeste. Ma dal momento che l'incidente, il dibattito è tornato con una vendetta. L'ondata di scandali contabili societari, in particolare, ha rivelato quanto sia irreale una foto della loro performance economica molte aziende sono state pittura nei loro bilanci. Sempre più spesso, gli investitori e le autorità di regolamentazione sono giunti a riconoscere che la compensazione opzione-based è un importante fattore di distorsione. Aveva AOL Time Warner nel 2001, per esempio, ha riferito le spese di stock option dei dipendenti, come raccomandato dal SFAS 123, avrebbe mostrato una perdita operativa di circa 1,7 miliardi, piuttosto che i 700 milioni del risultato operativo è in realtà riferito. Noi crediamo che il caso per le opzioni expensing è schiacciante, e nelle pagine seguenti esaminiamo e respingere le domande principali addotte da coloro che continuano a opporsi. Abbiamo dimostrato che, contrariamente a questi esperti argomenti, assegnazioni di stock option hanno reali implicazioni di flussi di cassa che devono essere segnalati, che il modo di quantificare tali implicazioni è disponibile, che la divulgazione nota non è un sostituto accettabile per aver segnalato la transazione nel reddito economico e stato patrimoniale, e che il pieno riconoscimento dei costi opzione non necessita di evirare gli incentivi di iniziative imprenditoriali. Abbiamo poi discutere quanto le imprese potrebbero andare su segnalazione del costo delle opzioni sui loro conti economici e patrimoniali. Fallacia 1: Stock Options non rappresentano un costo reale Si tratta di un principio fondamentale della contabilità che i bilanci devono registrare le transazioni economicamente rilevanti. Nessuno dubita che negoziate opzioni di rispondere a tale criterio di miliardi di dollari vengono acquistati e venduti ogni giorno, sia nel mercato over-the-counter o in borsa. Per molte persone, però, le sovvenzioni società di stock option sono una storia diversa. Tali operazioni non sono economicamente significativi, si sostiene, perché non in contanti cambia di mano. Come ex amministratore delegato American Express Harvey Golub metterlo in un 8 agosto 2002, articolo del Wall Street Journal, assegnazioni di stock option non sono mai un costo per l'azienda e, di conseguenza, non dovrebbe mai essere rilevato come costo a conto economico. Tale posizione sfida la logica economica, per non parlare di buon senso, sotto diversi aspetti. Per cominciare, i trasferimenti di valore non devono comportare il trasferimento di denaro contante. Mentre un'operazione di una ricevuta contanti o di pagamento è sufficiente a generare una transazione registrabile, non è necessario. Eventi come lo scambio di magazzino per i beni, la firma di un contratto di locazione, fornendo le future prestazioni pensionistiche o di vacanza per il corrente periodo di lavoro, o l'acquisizione di materiali a credito tutte le operazioni di attivazione contabili perché coinvolgono i trasferimenti di valore, anche se non in contanti passa di mano al momento della verifica delle transazioni. Anche se non in contanti passa di mano, l'emissione di stock option ai dipendenti comporta un sacrificio di denaro, un costo opportunità, che deve essere contabilizzata. Se una società dovesse Stock Grant, piuttosto che le opzioni, per i dipendenti, tutti sarebbero d'accordo che il costo companys per questa transazione sarebbe il denaro che altrimenti avrebbe ricevuto se avesse venduto le azioni al prezzo corrente di mercato per gli investitori. E 'esattamente lo stesso con le stock option. Quando una società concede opzioni ai dipendenti, si rinuncia alla possibilità di ricevere denaro da sottoscrittori che potrebbero prendere queste stesse opzioni e li vendono in un mercato competitivo opzioni per gli investitori. Warren Buffett ha reso questo punto graficamente in 9 aprile 2002, colonna Washington Post quando ha affermato: Berkshire Hathaway sarà felice di ricevere in opzione al posto di denaro per molti dei beni e dei servizi che vendiamo corporate America. La concessione di opzioni ai dipendenti, piuttosto che venderli ai fornitori o investitori tramite sottoscrittori comporta una perdita effettiva di denaro per l'azienda. Si può, naturalmente, essere più ragionevolmente sostenuto che il denaro rinunciato opzioni emissione per i dipendenti, piuttosto che venderli agli investitori, è compensato dalla cassa della società conserva pagando i suoi dipendenti meno denaro. Come due economisti ampiamente rispettati, Burton G. Malkiel e William J. Baumol, ha osservato in un 4 Aprile 2002, articolo del Wall Street Journal: Un nuovo, azienda imprenditoriale potrebbe non essere in grado di fornire il risarcimento in denaro necessaria per attirare i lavoratori in sospeso. Invece, è in grado di offrire stock options. Ma Malkiel e Baumol, purtroppo, non seguono la loro osservazione alla sua logica conclusione. Infatti, se il costo delle stock option non è universalmente incorporata nella misurazione del reddito netto, le aziende che garantiscono opzioni saranno underreport costi di compensazione, e che non sarà possibile confrontare la loro redditività, produttività e ritorno sugli capitali misure con quelle di vista economico aziende equivalenti che hanno semplicemente strutturato il loro sistema di compensazione in un modo diverso. La seguente ipotetica figura mostra come ciò possa accadere. Immaginate due società, KapCorp e MerBod, che competono nello stesso settore di attività. I due differiscono solo nella struttura dei loro pacchetti di compensazione dei dipendenti. KapCorp paga i suoi operai 400.000 a titolo di risarcimento totale in forma di denaro durante l'anno. All'inizio dell'anno, emette anche, attraverso una sottoscrizione, valore di 100.000 opzioni nel mercato dei capitali, che non possono essere esercitati per un anno, e richiede ai propri dipendenti di usare 25 del loro compenso per comprare le opzioni di nuova emissione. Il flusso di cassa netto KapCorp è 300.000 (400.000 a titolo di risarcimento spese meno 100.000 dalla vendita delle opzioni). approccio MerBods è solo leggermente diverso. Si paga i suoi operai 300.000 in contanti e le questioni direttamente valore di 100.000 opzioni ad inizio anno (con lo stesso un anno restrizione esercizio). Economicamente, le due posizioni sono identiche. Ogni azienda ha pagato un totale di 400.000 a titolo di risarcimento, ognuno ha emesso 100.000 vale la pena di opzioni, e per ogni il deflusso di cassa netto ammonta a 300.000 dopo che il denaro ricevuto da emissione delle opzioni viene sottratto dal denaro speso per un risarcimento. I dipendenti di entrambe le aziende stanno tenendo lo stesso 100.000 opzioni nel corso dell'anno, che produce gli stessi effetti motivazione, incentivazione e retention. Come legittimo è un principio contabile che consente a due operazioni economicamente identici per produrre numeri radicalmente diverso nel preparare le sue dichiarazioni di fine anno, KapCorp prenoterà spese di compensazione di 400.000 e mostrerà 100.000 in opzioni sul suo bilancio in un conto patrimonio netto. Se il costo delle stock option assegnate ai dipendenti non è riconosciuto come un costo, però, MerBod prenoterà una spesa di compensazione di soli 300.000 e non mostrare alcun opzioni emesse sul suo bilancio. Supponendo che i ricavi ei costi altrimenti identici, sembrerà come se MerBods guadagni erano 100.000 superiori KapCorps. MerBod inoltre sembrano avere una base di capitale inferiore KapCorp, anche se l'aumento del numero di azioni in circolazione alla fine sarà lo stesso per entrambe le società se sono esercitate tutte le opzioni. Come risultato di spese di compensazione inferiore e situazione patrimoniale inferiore, apparirà prestazioni MerBods dalla maggior parte delle misure analitiche di gran lunga superiore a KapCorps. Questa distorsione è, naturalmente, ripetute ogni anno che le due imprese scelgono le diverse forme di compensazione. Come legittimo è un principio contabile che consente a due operazioni economicamente identici per produrre radicalmente diversi numeri Fallacia 2: The Cost of Employee Stock Option non può essere stimata Alcuni oppositori di opzione expensing difendere la loro posizione, per motivi pratici, non concettuale,. modelli di Opzione-pricing può funzionare, si dice, come una guida per la valutazione opzioni quotate. Ma essi cant catturano il valore delle stock option dei dipendenti, che sono contratti privati tra l'azienda e il lavoratore per gli strumenti illiquidi che non possono essere liberamente venduti, scambiati, costituite in garanzia o coperto. E 'vero che, in generale, una mancanza di liquidità degli strumenti ridurrà il suo valore al titolare. Ma la perdita di liquidità titolari non fa alcuna differenza per quanto costa l'emittente per creare lo strumento meno che l'emittente beneficia in qualche modo dalla mancanza di liquidità. E per stock option, l'assenza di un mercato liquido ha scarso effetto sul loro valore al titolare. La grande bellezza dei modelli di opzione pricing è che essi si basano sulle caratteristiche del titolo sottostante. Quello è esattamente il motivo per cui hanno contribuito alla straordinaria crescita dei mercati delle opzioni nel corso degli ultimi 30 anni. Il prezzo di Black-Scholes di un'opzione è uguale al valore di un portafoglio di azioni e contanti che è gestito in modo dinamico per replicare i profitti a tale opzione. Con un magazzino completamente liquido, un investitore altrimenti non vincolata potrebbe interamente coprire un rischio opzioni ed estrarre il suo valore con la vendita a breve il portafoglio replicando di magazzino e denaro contante. In tal caso, lo sconto di liquidità sul valore opzioni sarebbe minimo. E questo vale anche se non ci fosse mercato per la negoziazione direttamente l'opzione. Pertanto, la mancanza liquidityor thereofof mercati in stock option non, di per sé, portare ad una riduzione del valore di opzioni per il supporto. banche di investimento, le banche commerciali, e le compagnie di assicurazione hanno ormai andato ben oltre il 30-year-old modello base di Black-Scholes per sviluppare approcci alla determinazione del prezzo di tutti i tipi di opzioni: quelle standard. quelle esotiche. Opzioni negoziate tramite intermediari, al banco, e sugli scambi. Opzioni legate alle fluttuazioni valutarie. Opzioni incorporati in titoli complessi come obbligazioni convertibili, azioni privilegiate, o debito richiamabile come mutui con caratteristiche pagamento anticipato o tappi di tasso di interesse e pavimenti. Un intero sotto-settori ha sviluppato per aiutare le persone, i responsabili di mercato delle imprese, e il denaro comprare e vendere tali titoli complessi. La tecnologia attuale permette finanziaria certamente alle imprese di incorporare tutte le caratteristiche di stock option dei dipendenti in un modello di pricing. Poche banche di investimento saranno anche i prezzi preventivo per i dirigenti che cercano di coprire o vendere i loro stock option prima di maturazione, se il loro piano di stock option companys permette. Naturalmente, basati su formule o Underwriters stime sul costo delle opzioni dei dipendenti sono meno precisi di versamenti in contanti o azioni sovvenzioni. Ma bilancio deve sforzarsi di essere di circa destra nel riflettere la realtà economica piuttosto che proprio sbagliato. I gestori di routine si basano su stime per importanti voci di costo, come ad esempio l'ammortamento degli impianti e attrezzature e accantonamenti a fronte di passività potenziali, come ad esempio le future bonifiche ambientali e degli insediamenti da tute responsabilità del prodotto e altre cause. Per il calcolo dei costi di dipendenti pensioni e altri benefici previdenziali, per esempio, i manager utilizzano stime attuariali dei futuri tassi di interesse, tassi di fidelizzazione dei dipendenti, le date di pensione degli impiegati, la longevità dei dipendenti e dei loro coniugi, e l'escalation delle future spese mediche. modelli di pricing e una vasta esperienza consentono di stimare il costo delle stock option emesse in un dato periodo con una precisione paragonabile a, o superiore, molti di questi altri elementi che appaiono già sulle dichiarazioni imprese economiche e patrimoniali. Non tutte le obiezioni di utilizzare altri modelli di valutazione delle opzioni di Black-Scholes e si basano su difficoltà di stimare il costo delle opzioni assegnate. Ad esempio, John DeLong, in un competitivo carta Giugno 2002 Enterprise Institute dal titolo La polemica stock option e la New Economy, ha sostenuto che anche se un valore è stato calcolato in base a un modello, il calcolo richiederebbe regolazione per riflettere il valore al dipendente. Egli è solo a metà. Pagando dipendenti con un proprio magazzino o le opzioni, la società li costringe a tenere portafogli finanziari altamente non diversificati, un rischio ulteriormente aggravata dal investimento dei dipendenti proprio capitale umano in azienda pure. Dal momento che quasi tutti gli individui sono avversi al rischio, possiamo aspettarci che i dipendenti di inserire sostanzialmente meno valore sul loro pacchetto di stock option di altri, meglio diversificati, investitori. Le stime della grandezza di questo discountor rischio costo portata lorda dei dipendenti, in quanto è a volte calledrange da 20 a 50, a seconda della volatilità del titolo sottostante e il grado di diversificazione del portafoglio dipendenti. L'esistenza di questo costo peso morto è talvolta usato per giustificare l'apparente grande scala remunerazione option based distribuito ai top manager. A Alla ricerca di compagnia, per esempio, per premiare il suo amministratore delegato, con 1 milione di opzioni che valgono 1.000 ciascuna nel mercato può (forse perversamente) ragione che dovrebbe emettere 2.000 invece di 1.000 opzioni perché, dal punto di vista amministratori delegati, le opzioni valgono solo 500 ciascuno. (Si segnala che questo ragionamento convalida il nostro punto in precedenza che le opzioni sono un sostituto per contanti). Ma mentre potrebbe forse essere ragionevole prendere costo secca in considerazione al momento di decidere la compensazione quanta equità-based (come ad esempio le opzioni) da includere nel un manager busta paga, non è certamente ragionevole di lasciare il costo peso morto influenza le aziende registrano modo i costi dei pacchetti. bilancio riflette il punto di vista economico della società, non le entità (compresi i dipendenti) con i quali intrattiene transazioni. Quando una società vende un prodotto ad un cliente, per esempio, non deve verificare quale il prodotto vale a quell'individuo. Conta il pagamento in contanti previsto nella transazione come le sue entrate. Allo stesso modo, quando la società acquista un prodotto o un servizio da un fornitore, che non verifica se il prezzo pagato è stato più o meno i fornitori costo o ciò che il fornitore avrebbe potuto ricevere l'aveva venduto il prodotto o servizio altrove. L'azienda registra il prezzo di acquisto come il denaro o mezzi equivalenti è sacrificato per l'acquisizione del bene o servizio. Supponiamo che un produttore di abbigliamento dovesse costruire un centro fitness per i suoi dipendenti. La società non avrebbe fatto in modo di competere con i club di fitness. Sarebbe costruire il centro di generare maggiori ricavi da aumento della produttività e la creatività dei più sani, più felici dipendenti e di ridurre i costi derivanti dal turnover dei dipendenti e la malattia. Il costo per l'impresa è chiaramente il costo di costruzione e il mantenimento della struttura, non il valore che i singoli dipendenti potrebbero mettere su di esso. Il costo del centro fitness è registrata come una spesa periodica, vagamente abbinato all'incremento dei ricavi attesi e la riduzione dei costi relativi al personale. L'unica giustificazione ragionevole che abbiamo visto per la valutazione dei costi opzioni esecutivi di sotto del loro valore di mercato deriva dalla constatazione che molte opzioni decadono quando i dipendenti lasciano, o di esercizio troppo presto a causa di dipendenti avversione al rischio. In questi casi, gli azionisti esistenti equità viene diluito meno di quanto sarebbe altrimenti, o per niente, riducendo di conseguenza i costi di compensazione della società. Mentre siamo d'accordo con la logica di base di questa argomentazione, l'impatto di decadenza e di esercizio anticipato su valori teorici può essere esagerata. (Vedere l'impatto reale di decadenza e di esercizio anticipato alla fine di questo articolo.) Il reale impatto di decadenza e di esercizio anticipato differenza di stipendio in contanti, stock options non possono essere trasferiti dal singolo concesso loro a chiunque altro. Nontransferability ha due effetti che concorrono a rendere le opzioni dei dipendenti meno valore di opzioni convenzionali negoziati sul mercato. In primo luogo, i dipendenti perderanno le loro opzioni se lasciano l'azienda prima che le opzioni sono acquisiti. In secondo luogo, i dipendenti tendono a ridurre il loro rischio per l'esercizio di stock option maturate molto prima di quanto un investitore ben diversificato sarebbe, riducendo così il rischio di un payoff molto più alto se avessero tenuto le opzioni a scadenza. I dipendenti con opzioni maturate che sono il denaro sarà anche esercitare loro quando smettere, dal momento che la maggior parte delle aziende richiedono ai dipendenti di usare o perdere le loro opzioni al momento della partenza. In entrambi i casi, l'impatto economico sulla società di emissione di opzioni è ridotta, dal momento che il valore e la dimensione relativa di quote di azionisti esistenti sono diluiti meno di quanto avrebbe potuto essere, o non del tutto. Riconoscendo la probabilità crescente che le aziende dovranno oneri stock option, alcuni avversari stanno combattendo una battaglia di retroguardia, cercando di convincere i setter standard per ridurre significativamente il costo riportato di queste opzioni, scontando il loro valore da quello misurato dai modelli finanziari per riflettere la forte probabilità di decadenza e di esercizio anticipato. Le attuali proposte stese da queste persone a FASB e IASB permetterebbe alle aziende di stimare la percentuale di opzioni incamerate durante il periodo di maturazione e ridurre il costo delle sovvenzioni di opzione da questo importo. Inoltre, invece di utilizzare la data di scadenza per la vita dell'opzione in un modello opzione pricing, le proposte sono volte a consentire alle imprese di utilizzare una durata prevista per l'opzione in modo da riflettere la probabilità di esercizio anticipato. Utilizzando una durata prevista (che le aziende possono stimare in prossimità del periodo di maturazione, diciamo, quattro anni) invece del periodo contrattuale di, diciamo, dieci anni, ridurrebbe in modo significativo il costo stimato dell'opzione. Alcuni regolazione deve essere fatto per la confisca e l'esercizio anticipato. Ma il metodo proposto sopravvaluta in modo significativo alla riduzione dei costi in quanto trascura le circostanze in cui le opzioni hanno più probabilità di essere perso o esercitato in anticipo. Quando queste circostanze sono presi in considerazione, la riduzione dei costi di opzione dipendente è probabile che sia molto più piccolo. In primo luogo, prendere in considerazione decadenza. Utilizzando una percentuale appartamento in annullamenti in base al fatturato storico o potenziale dipendente è valido solo se la decadenza è un evento casuale, come una lotteria, indipendente dal prezzo del titolo. In realtà, tuttavia, la probabilità di perdita è negativamente correlata al valore dei diritti decaduti e, quindi, al prezzo calcio stesso. Le persone sono più propensi a lasciare una società e perde opzioni quando il prezzo delle azioni è diminuito e le opzioni valgono poco. Ma se l'impresa ha fatto bene e il prezzo delle azioni è aumentato in modo significativo dal momento dell'assegnazione, le opzioni saranno sono diventati molto più prezioso, e gli impiegati saranno molto meno propensi a lasciare. Se turnover dei dipendenti e di decadenza sono più probabili quando le opzioni sono di minor valore, quindi poco del costo totale opzioni alla data di assegnazione è ridotta a causa della probabilità di decadenza. L'argomento per esercizio anticipato è simile. Dipende anche sul futuro prezzo delle azioni. I dipendenti tendono ad esercitare in anticipo se la maggior parte della loro ricchezza è legata in azienda, hanno bisogno di diversificare, e non hanno altro modo per ridurre la loro esposizione al rischio della prezzo delle azioni della società. Dirigenti, tuttavia, con le più grandi aziende di opzione, è improbabile che esercizio anticipato e distruggere valore di opzione, quando il prezzo delle azioni è aumentato notevolmente. Spesso possiedono illimitata magazzino, che possono vendere come un mezzo più efficiente per ridurre la loro esposizione al rischio. O hanno abbastanza in gioco di contratto con una banca di investimento per coprire le loro posizioni in opzioni senza esercitare prematuramente. Come con la funzione di decadenza, il calcolo di una vita dell'opzione prevista senza tener conto della grandezza delle aziende di dipendenti che esercitano presto, o alla loro capacità di coprire il rischio con altri mezzi, sarebbe sottostimare significativamente il costo delle opzioni assegnate. modelli di Opzione-pricing possono essere modificati per includere l'influenza dei prezzi delle azioni e la grandezza possibilità di dipendenti e partecipazioni azionarie sulle probabilità di decadenza e di esercizio anticipato. (Vedi, per esempio, Mark Rubinsteins nell'autunno 1995 articolo del Journal of Derivatives. Sulla valutazione contabile di Employee Stock Options.) L'entità effettiva di questi adeguamenti deve essere basata su dati aziendali specifici, come l'apprezzamento e la distribuzione del prezzo delle azioni borse di opzione tra i dipendenti. Le rettifiche di valore, opportunamente valutato, potrebbero rivelarsi significativamente inferiore rispetto ai calcoli proposti (apparentemente approvate dal FASB e IASB) produrrebbero. In effetti, per alcune aziende, un calcolo che ignora la confisca e l'esercizio anticipato del tutto potrebbe venire più vicino al vero costo di opzioni di un modo che ignora del tutto i fattori che influenzano i dipendenti decadenza e le decisioni di esercizio anticipato. Fallacia 3: oneri per stock option sono già adeguatamente segnalati Un altro argomento a difesa dell'approccio attuale è che le aziende già forniranno informazioni circa il costo delle sovvenzioni opzione nelle note in calce al bilancio. Gli investitori e gli analisti che desiderano per regolare conti economici per il costo delle opzioni, quindi, hanno i dati necessari prontamente disponibili. Troviamo tale argomento difficile da digerire. Come abbiamo sottolineato, si tratta di un principio fondamentale della contabilità che il conto economico e lo stato patrimoniale dovrebbero ritrarre un companys sottostante economia. Relegando un elemento di così importante rilevanza economica come contributi di opzione dei dipendenti alle note falserebbe sistematicamente tali relazioni. Ma anche se dovessimo accettare il principio che la nota informativa è sufficiente, in realtà avremmo trovato un povero sostituto per riconoscere la spesa direttamente sul bilancio primario. Per cominciare, gli analisti di investimento, avvocati, e regolatori ora usano database elettronici per calcolare indici di redditività in base ai numeri di Uffici con revisione conti economici e patrimoniali. Un analista a seguito di una singola azienda, o anche un piccolo gruppo di aziende, potrebbero effettuare le regolazioni per le informazioni divulgate nelle note. Ma sarebbe difficile e costoso da fare per un grande gruppo di aziende che avevano messo diversi tipi di dati in vari formati non standard in note. Chiaramente, è molto più facile per confrontare le aziende su un piano di parità, in cui tutte le spese di compensazione sono stati incorporati nei numeri di reddito. Che cosa è più, i numeri divulgati nelle note possono essere meno affidabili di quanto indicato in bilancio primario. Per prima cosa, i dirigenti ei revisori tipicamente rivedere note integrative scorso e dedicano meno tempo per loro di quanto non facciano i numeri negli schemi di bilancio. Tanto per fare un esempio, la nota in calce in eBays FY relazione annuale 2000 rivela un medio ponderato di assegnazione fair value alla data di opzioni assegnate nel corso del 1999 di 105.03 per un anno in cui il prezzo di esercizio medio ponderato delle azioni assegnate è stato 64.59. Proprio come il valore delle opzioni assegnate può essere più 63 rispetto al valore del titolo sottostante non è evidente. Nel corso dell'esercizio 2000 è stato segnalato lo stesso effetto: un fair value delle opzioni concesse di 103.79 con un prezzo medio di esercizio di 62.69. Apparentemente, questo errore è stato infine rilevato, dal momento che il rapporto dell'esercizio 2001 rettificato retroattivamente i media concessione fair value alla data 1999 e 2000 rispettivamente a 40.45 e 41.40,. Crediamo dirigenti e revisori esercitare una maggiore diligenza e cura per ottenere stime affidabili del costo delle stock option se queste cifre sono compresi nelle dichiarazioni società di reddito di quello che attualmente fanno per la nota informativa. Il nostro collega William Sahlman nel suo Dicembre 2002 articolo HBR, expensing Opzioni non risolve nulla, ha espresso la preoccupazione che la ricchezza di informazioni utili contenute nelle note sulle stock option assegnate sarebbe perso se le opzioni sono stati spesati. Ma sicuramente riconoscere il costo delle opzioni a conto economico non impedisce di continuare a fornire una nota che spiega la distribuzione di fondo di borse di studio e gli ingressi metodologia e parametri utilizzati per calcolare il costo delle stock option. Alcuni critici di stock option expensing sostengono, come venture capitalist John Doerr e CEO di FedEx Frederick Smith ha fatto in 5 aprile 2002, colonna del New York Times, che se expensing sono stati richiesti, l'impatto delle opzioni sarebbe stato conteggiato due volte negli utili per azione : in primo luogo come un potenziale diluizione degli utili, aumentando le azioni in circolazione, e la seconda come una carica contro i guadagni segnalati. Il risultato sarebbe guadagni imprecise e fuorvianti per azione. Abbiamo diversi problemi con questo argomento. In primo luogo, i costi di opzione entrano solo in un (GAAP-based) diluito calcolo degli utili per azione, quando il prezzo corrente di mercato è superiore al prezzo di esercizio dell'opzione. Così, i numeri EPS completamente diluito ignorano ancora tutti i costi delle opzioni che sono quasi in denaro o potrebbe diventare in the money se il prezzo delle azioni è aumentato in modo significativo nel breve termine. In secondo luogo, relegando la determinazione dell'impatto economico dei conferimenti di opzioni azionarie esclusivamente a un calcolo EPS distorce notevolmente la misura del reddito dichiarato, non sarebbe adeguato per riflettere l'impatto economico dei costi di opzione. Queste misure sono riassunti più significativi della variazione del valore economico di una società che la distribuzione proporzionale di questo reddito ai singoli azionisti rivelato nella misura EPS. Questo diventa chiaro quando eminentemente necessario per la sua assurdità logica: le aziende Supponiamo che erano per compensare tutti i loro materiali suppliersof, lavoro, energia, e acquistato le stock option serviceswith piuttosto che con denaro contante e di evitare tutto il riconoscimento spesa nel loro conto economico. Il loro reddito e le relative misure di redditività sarebbero stati tutti così grossolanamente gonfiati da essere inutile a fini analitici solo il numero EPS sarebbe raccogliere qualsiasi effetto economico delle borse di studio di opzione. Il nostro più grande obiezione a questa affermazione falsa, però, è che anche un calcolo di EPS completamente diluito non riflette pienamente l'impatto economico delle sovvenzioni di stock option. Il seguente esempio ipotetico illustra i problemi, anche se per semplicità useremo assegnazioni di azioni invece di opzioni. Il ragionamento è esattamente la stessa per entrambi i casi. Diciamo che ciascuno dei nostri due società ipotetici, KapCorp e MerBod, ha 8.000 azioni in circolazione, nessun debito, e un fatturato annuo di quest'anno di 100.000. KapCorp decide di pagare i propri dipendenti e fornitori 90.000 in contanti e non ha altre spese. MerBod, però, compensa i suoi dipendenti e fornitori con 80,000 in contanti e 2.000 quote di azioni, ad un prezzo medio di mercato del 5 per azione. Il costo per ogni azienda è la stessa: 90.000. Ma il loro numero di reddito e di EPS netti sono molto diversi. L'utile netto KapCorps prima delle imposte è di 10.000, o 1,25 dollari per azione. Al contrario, MerBods registrato un utile netto (che ignora il costo del capitale concessi ai dipendenti e fornitori) è di 20.000, e le sue EPS è 2,00 (che tiene conto delle nuove azioni emesse). Naturalmente, le due società hanno ora diversi saldi di cassa e il numero di azioni in circolazione, con un credito nei confronti di loro. Ma KapCorp può eliminare tale discrepanza con l'emissione di 2.000 azioni di azioni sul mercato durante l'anno ad un prezzo medio di vendita di 5 dollari per azione. Ora entrambe le società hanno la chiusura saldi di cassa di 20.000 e 10.000 azioni in circolazione. In base alle norme contabili in vigore, tuttavia, questa transazione aggrava solo il divario tra i numeri EPS. KapCorps ha registrato un utile rimane 10.000, dato che il valore aggiuntivo di 10.000 ricavati dalla vendita delle azioni non è riportato in reddito netto, ma il suo EPS denominatore è aumentato da 8.000 a 10.000. Di conseguenza, KapCorp ora riporta un EPS di 1,00 a 2,00 MerBods, anche se le loro posizioni economiche sono identiche: 10.000 azioni in circolazione e l'aumento dei saldi di cassa di 20.000. Le persone che chiedono che le opzioni expensing crea un problema doppio conteggio sono a loro volta creano una cortina di fumo per nascondere gli effetti di reddito di distorsione di conferimenti di opzioni azionarie. Le persone che chiedono che le opzioni expensing crea un problema doppio conteggio sono a loro volta creano una cortina di fumo per nascondere gli effetti di reddito di distorsione di conferimenti di opzioni azionarie. Infatti, se diciamo che l'EPS cifra fully diluted è il modo giusto di rivelare l'impatto delle opzioni su azioni, allora dovremmo cambiare immediatamente le attuali regole contabili per le situazioni in cui le aziende emettono azioni ordinarie, azioni privilegiate convertibili o obbligazioni convertibili per pagare servizi o attività. Allo stato attuale, quando si verificano tali operazioni, il costo è misurata dal valore equo di mercato del corrispettivo in questione. 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. Stock Options (Incentive) This article is about Incentive Stock Options, not market stock options which are traded in the public markets. Incentive Stock options are often referred to as SARs - Stock Appreciation Rights. This discussion applies mainly to the Canadian market and entities taxed by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency ( CCRA ). Theres rarely an occasion when stock options dont come up as a favorite conversation topic among high tech entrepreneurs and CEOs. Many CEOs view options as the way of attracting top talent from the USA and elsewhere. This article deals with the question of employee stock options mainly as they relate to public companies. However, stock options are just as popular with private companies (especially those planning a future public offering). Why not just give shares In the case of both private and public companies, stock options are used instead of simply quotgivingquot shares to employees. This is done for tax reasons. The only time when shares can be quotgivenquot without adverse tax consequences is when a company is founded, i. e. when the shares have a zero value. At this stage, founders and employees can all be given stock (instead of options). But as a company evolves, the shares grow in value. If an investment is made into the company, the shares assume a value. If shares are then just quotgivenquot to someone, that person is deemed to have been compensated at whatever the fair market value is of those shares and is subject to that income. But stock option grants are not taxable at the time of being granted. Hence, their popularity. But, as much as Im a big fan of options, I thought it might be useful to devote most if this article to explain what they are, how they work, and some very serious and onerous implications for both option holders, the company, and investors. In theory and in a perfect world, options are wonderful. I love the concept: Your company grants you (as an employee, director, or advisor) an option to buy some shares in the company. An option is simply a contractual right given to the option holder (the optionee) whereby the holder has the irrevocable right to buy a certain number of shares in the company at a specified price. For example, a new recruit at Multiactive Software (TSX:E) could be granted 10,000 options allowing her (lets call her Jill) to buy 10,000 shares in Multiactive at a price of 3.00 (thats the trading price on the date of granting the options) anytime up to a period of 5 years. It should be noted that there are no prescribed rules or terms associated with options. They are discretionary and each option agreement, or grant, is unique. Generally, though, the quotrulesquot are: 1)the number of options granted to an individual depends on that employees quotvaluequot. This varies greatly from company to company. The Board if directors makes the decision as to how many options to grant. Theres a lot of discretion. 2)the total number of options outstanding at any one time is generally limited to 20 of the total number of issued shares (in the case of Multiactive, some 60 million shares were issued, hence there could be as many as 12 million stock options). In some cases, the number can be as high as 30 and historically, the number has been around 10 - but thats increasing due to the popularity of options. 3)options are not granted to a company - only to people (although this is changing somewhat to allow firms to provide services). 4)the exercise price (the price at which shares can be bought) is close to the trading (market) price on the date of the grant. NB - although companies can give a slight discount, i. e. up to 10, tax problems may arise (gets complicated). 5)technically, shareholders must approve all options granted (usually done by approving a stock option quotplanquot). 6)options are generally valid for a number of years ranging anywhere from 1 to 5 years. Ive seen some cases where they are valid for 10 years (for private companies, they may be valid forever once they have vested. Options may be the best way, tax-wise, through which new people can be brought on board, instead of simply giving them shares which have inherent value). 7)options may require quotvestingquot - i. e. if an employee gets 10,000 options, they can only be exercised over time, e. g. one-third get vested each year over 3 years. This prevents people from benefiting prematurely and cashing in before really having contributed to the company. This is at the discretion of the company - it is not a regulatory matter. 8)there are no tax liabilities (no taxes due) at the time when options are granted (But big headaches can occur later when options are exercised AND when shares are sold) In the ideal scenario, Jill - the new technical recruit at Multiactive - gets right into her work, and due to her efforts and those of her co-workers, Multiactive does well and its stock price goes to 6.00 by yearend. Jill can now (provided her options have quotvestedquot) exercise her options, i. e. buy shares at 3.00. Of course, she doesnt have 30,000 in spare change lying around, so she calls her broker and explains that she is an optionee. Her broker will then sell 10,000 shares for her at 6.00 and, upon her instructions, send 30,000 to the company in exchange for 10,000 newly issued shares pursuant to the option agreement. She has a 30,000 profit - a nice fx for her efforts. Jill exercises and sells all of her 10,000 shares on the same day. Her tax liability is calculated on her 30,000 profit which is viewed as employment income - not a capital gain. She gets taxed as if she got a paycheque from the company (in fact - the company will issue her a T4 income tax slip next February so that she can then pay her taxes in her annual return). But, she does get a little break - she gets a small deduction which equates to her being taxed on only 50 of her profit, i. e. she gets 15,000 of her 30,000 fx tax-free. In this regard, her gain is treated like a capital gain - but it is still considered employment income (why Aha - good old CCRA has a reason - read on). This is how CCRA sees it. Nice and simple. And, it often does work exactly this way. Stock options are often referred to as quotIncentive Stock Optionsquot by regulators such as stock exchanges, and they are viewed as a means for providing fx income to employees. They are not - as many of us would like to have it - a way for employees to invest in their company. Indeed, this can be extremely dangerous. Heres a real example - many technology entrepreneurs got caught in exactly this situation. Just to be sure, I checked with the good folks at Deloitte and Touche and they confirmed that this situation can, and does, occur (often). Jim joins a company and gets 10,000 options at 1. In 5 years, the stock hits 100 (really). Jim scrapes together 10,000 and invests in the company, now holding 1 million worth of shares. In the next 2 years, the market tumbles, and the shares go to 10. He decides to sell, making a 90,000 profit. He thinks that he owes taxes on the 90K. Poor Jim In fact, he owes taxes on 990k of income (1M minus 10K). At the same time he has a capital loss of 900K. That doesnt help him because he has no other capital gains. So he now has taxes owing and payable of more than 213K (i. e. 43 marginal rate applied to 50 of the 990K). He is bankrupt So much for motivating him with incentive stock options Under the tax rules, the important point to remember is that a tax liability is assessed at the time when an option is exercised, not when the stock is actually sold. (note - in the USA, the benefit is limited to the excess of the selling price over the exercise price. In the USA, the benefit is taxed as a capital gain if the shares are held for one year prior to sale) Lets go back to the example of Jill buying Multiactive stock. If Jill wanted to keep the shares (expecting them to go up), then she would still be taxed on her 20,000 profit in her next tax return - even if she didnt sell a single share Up until recently, she would actually have to pay the tax in cash. But, a recent Federal budget change now allows for a deferral (not a forgiveness) of the tax until the time when she actually sells the shares (up to an annual limit of only 100,000. The Province of Ontario has a special deal allowing employees to earn up to 1M tax free Nice, eh). Suppose that the shares drop (no fault of hers - just the market acting up again) back to the 3.00 level. Worried that she might have no profit, she sells. She figures that she has broken even, but in fact she still owes about 8,600 in taxes (assuming a 43 marginal rate on her quotpaper profitquot at the time of exercise). Non bene. But true Even worse, suppose that the stock drops to 1.00. In this case she has a capital loss of 5.00 (her cost on the shares - for tax purposes - is the 6.00 market value on the date of exercise - not her exercise price). But she can only use this 5.00 capital loss against other capital gains. She still gets no relief on her original tax bill. I wonder what happens if she never sells her shares Would her tax liability be deferred forever On the other hand, suppose that the world is rosy and bright and her shares rise to 9 at which time she sells them. In this case, she has a capital gain on 3.00 and she now has to pay her deferred tax on the original 30,000 of quotemployment incomequot. Again, this is OK. Because of the potential negative impact brought about by acquiring and holding shares, most employees are effectively forced into selling the shares immediately - i. e. on the exercise date - to avoid any adverse consequences. But, can you imagine the impact on a venture companys share price when five or six optionees quotdumpquot hundreds of thousands of shares into the market This does nothing to encourage employees to hold company shares. And it can mess up the market for a thinly traded security. From an investors perspective, theres a huge downside to options, namely dilution. This is significant. As an investor, you must remember that, on average, 20 new shares can be issued (cheaply) to optionees. From the companys perspective, the routine granting and subsequent exercising of options can quickly compound the outstanding share balance. This gives rise to quot market capitalization creep quot - a steady rise in value of the company attributable to an increased stock float. Theoretically, share prices should fall slightly as new shares are issued. However, these new shares conveniently get absorbed, especially in hot markets. As an investor, is it easy to find out what a companys outstanding options are No, its not easy and the information isnt updated regularly. The quickest way is to check a companys most recent annual information circular (available on sedar ). You should also be able to find out how many options have been granted to insiders from the insider filing reports. However, its tedious and not always reliable. Your best bet is to assume that youre going to get diluted by at least 20 every couple of years. The belief that options are better than company fxes because the cash comes from the market, rather than from corporate cash flows, is nonsense. The long term dilutive effect is far greater, not to mention the negative impact on earnings per share. I would encourage directors of companies to limit stock option plans to a maximum of 15 of issued capital and to allow for at least a three year rotation with annual vesting arrangements in place. Annual vesting will ensure that employees who get options do indeed add value. The term optionaire has been used to describe lucky option holders with highly appreciated options. When these optionaires become real millionaires, corporate managers must ask themselves if their payouts are really justified. Why should a secretary earn a half million dollar fx just because she had 10,000 quottokenquot options What did she risk And what about those instantly rich millionaire managers who decide to make a lifestyle change and quit their jobs Is this fair to investors Stock option rules, regulations and the taxation issues that arise are very complex. There are also substantial differences in tax treatment between private companies and public companies. Furthermore, the rules are always changing. A regular check with your tax advisor is highly recommended. So, whats the bottom line Whereas options are great, like most good things in life, I think they have to be given in moderation. As much as stock options can be a great carrot in attracting talent, they can also backfire as weve seen in the above example. And, in cases where they do really achieve their purpose, investors could argue that humungous windfalls may be unwarranted and are punitive to shareholders. Mike Volker is the Director of the UniversityIndustry Liaison Office at Simon Fraser University, Chairman of the Vancouver Enterprise Forum, and a technology entrepreneur. Copyright 2000-2003 Michael C. Volker Email: mikevolker. org - Comments and suggestions will be appreciated Updated: 030527The taxation of stock options The tax planning guide 2016-2017 The taxation of stock options As an incentive strategy, you may provide your employees with the right to acquire shares in your company at a fixed price for a limited period. Normally, the shares will be worth more than the purchase price at the time the employee exercises the option. For example, you provide one of your key employees with the option to buy 1,000 shares in the company at 5 each. This is the estimated fair market value (FMV) per share at the time the option is granted. When the stock price increases to 10, your employee exercises his option to buy the shares for 5,000. Since their current value is 10,000, he has a profit of 5,000. How is the benefit taxed The income tax consequences of exercising the option depend on whether the company granting the option is a Canadian-controlled private corporation (CCPC), the period of time the employee holds the shares before eventually selling them and whether the employee deals at arms - length with the corporation. If the company is a CCPC, there wont be any income tax consequences until the employee disposes of the shares, provided the employee is not related to the controlling shareholders of the company. In general, the difference between the FMV of the shares at the time the option was exercised and the option price (i. e. 5 per share in our example) will be taxed as employment income in the year the shares are sold. The employee can claim a deduction from taxable income equal to half this amount, if certain conditions are met. Half of the difference between the ultimate sale price and the FMV of the shares at the date the option was exercised will be reported as a taxable capital gain or allowable capital loss. Example: In 2013, your company, a CCPC, offered several of its senior employees the option to buy 1,000 shares in the company for 10 each. In 2015, its estimated that the value of the stock has doubled. Several of the employees decide to exercise their options. By 2016, the value of the stock has doubled again to 40 per share, and some of the employees decide to sell their shares. Since the company was a CCPC at the time the option was granted, theres no taxable benefit until the shares are sold in 2016. Its assumed that the conditions for the 50 deduction are satisfied. The benefit is calculated as follows: What if the stock declines in value In the above numerical example, the value of the stock increased between the time the stock was acquired and the time it was sold. But what would happen if the share value declined to 10 at the time of sale in 2016 In this case, the employee would report a net income inclusion of 5,000 and a 10,000 capital loss (5,000 allowable capital loss). Unfortunately, while the income inclusion is afforded the same tax treatment as a capital gain, it isnt actually a capital gain. Its taxed as employment income. As a result, the capital loss realized in 2016 cannot be used to offset the income inclusion resulting from the taxable benefit. Anyone in difficult financial circumstances as a result of these rules should contact their local CRA Tax Services office to determine whether special payment arrangements can be made. Public company stock options The rules are different where the company granting the option is a public company. The general rule is that the employee has to report a taxable employment benefit in the year the option is exercised. This benefit is equal to the amount by which the FMV of the shares (at the time the option is exercised) exceeds the option price paid for the shares. When certain conditions are met, a deduction equal to half the taxable benefit is allowed. For options exercised prior to 4:00 p. m. EST on March 4, 2010, eligible employees of public companies could elect to defer taxation on the resulting taxable employment benefit (subject to an annual vesting limit of 100,000). However, public company options exercised after 4:00 p. m. EST on March 4, 2010 are no longer eligible for the deferral. Some employees who took advantage of the tax deferral election experienced financial difficulties as a result of a decline in the value of the optioned securities to the point that the value of the securities was less than the deferred tax liability on the underlying stock option benefit. A special election was available so that the tax liability on the deferred stock option benefit would not exceed the proceeds of disposition for the optioned securities (two-thirds of such proceeds for residents of Quebec), provided that the securities were disposed after 2010 and before 2015, and that the election was filed by the due date of your income tax return for the year of the disposition. This 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. La piena funzionalità del nostro sito non è supportato dalla versione del browser, o potrebbe essere selezionata la modalità di compatibilità. Si prega di disattivare la modalità di compatibilità, aggiornare il browser per almeno Internet Explorer 9, o provare a utilizzare un altro browser come Google Chrome o 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 Transactions 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