Stock option expensing is a method of accounting for the value of share options, distributed as incentives to employees, within the profit and loss reporting of a listed business. On the income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement say that the loss from the exercise is accounted for by noting the difference between the market price of the shares and the cash received, the exercise price, for issuing those shares through the option. Opponents of considering options an expense say that the real loss – due to the difference between the exercise price and the market price of the shares – is already stated on the cash flow statement. They would also point out that a separate loss in earnings per share is also recorded on the balance sheet by noting the dilution of shares outstanding. Simply, accounting for this on the income statement is believed to be redundant to them. Note: Currently, the future appreciation of all shares issued are not accounted for on the income statement but can be noted upon examination of the balance sheet and cash flow statement.
Methods
The two methods to calculate the expense associated with stock options are the "intrinsic value" method and the "fair-value" method. Only the fair-value method is permissible under U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The intrinsic value method, associated with Accounting Principles BoardOpinion 25, calculates the intrinsic value as the difference between the market value of the stock and the exercise price of the option at the date the option is issued. Since companies generally issue stock options with exercise prices which are equal to the market price, the expense under this method is generally zero. The fair-value method uses either the price on a market or calculates the value using a mathematical formula such as the Black–Scholes model, which requires various assumptions as inputs. This method is now required under accounting rules. In 2002, another method was suggested: expensing the options at the difference between the market price and the strike price when the options are exercised, and not expensing options which are not exercised, and reflecting the unexercised options as a liability on the balance sheet. This method, which defers the expense, was also requested by companies. A method to eventually reconcile the grant date fair-value estimates with the eventual exercise price was also proposed. Stock options under International Financial Reporting Standards are addressed by IFRS 2 Share-based Payments. For transactions with employees and others providing similar services, the entity is required to measure the fair value of the equity instruments granted at the grant date. 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 arm's length transaction between knowledgeable, willing parties. The standard does not specify which particular model should be used.
Fair-value method journal entries for stock option compensation
Grant date
Reporting dates, until vested
Grant date
Exercise of warrants
Cancellation or expiration of warrants
Share based payments (stock appreciation rights)
As an alternative to stock warrants, companies may compensate their employees with stock appreciation rights. A single SAR is a right to be paid the amount by which the market price of one share of stock increases after a period of time. In this context, "appreciation" means the amount by which a stock price increases after a time period. In contrast with compensation by stock warrants, an employee does not need to pay an outlay of cash or own the underlying stock to benefit from a SAR plan. In arrangements where the holder may select the date on which to redeem the SARs, this plan is a form of stock option.
Journal entries for liability and expense of stock appreciation rights
During the vesting period, at each reporting date
After the vesting period
When rights are redeemed
Practicalities
Opponents of the system note that the eventual value of the reward to the recipient of the option is difficult to account for in advance of its realisation.
The FASB has moved against "Opinion 25", which left it open to businesses to monetise options according to their 'intrinsic value', rather than their 'fair value'. The preference for fair value appears to be motivated by its voluntary adoption by several major listed businesses, and the need for a common standard of accounting.
Opposition to the adoption of expensing has provoked some challenges towards the unusual, independent status of the FASB as a non-governmental regulatory body, notably a motion put to the US Senate to strike down "statement 123".
