A Piece of The Action - Employee Stock Options in The New Economy

CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON CORPORATION
Equity ResearchAmericas
Industry: Value-Based Strategy
November 2, 1998 Michael J. Mauboussin 212/325-3108 michael.mauboussin@csfb.com
NI3939 Bob Hiler 212/325-4341 bob.hiler@csfb.com
Volume 6
A Piece of the Action
Employee Stock Options
in the New Economy
.
Frontiers of Finance
2
Summary 3
Introduction 4
Why Options Are Relevant
The Evolution of the New Economy 5
Economic Incentives for Granting Options 7
Types of Employee Stock Options 8
Options as a Signal 9
Why Accountants and Economists Disagree
How Current Accounting Practice Distorts Economic Reality 11
Options as a Liability
How Outstanding Options Affect Shareholder Value 13
Options as a Cost
How Annual ESO Grants Affect a Firms Return on Capital and Free Cash Flow 16
Options and Valuation
How ESOs Enter into the Valuation Equation 18
Options as an Inalienable Right
If At First You Dont Succeed, Try to Reprice! 21
Option Repricings as a Signal 23
Option Repricing Accounting and the End of an Era? 24
Conclusion
What This Paper Does Not Claim 25
What This Paper Does Claim 25
Appendices
A A Stock Option Primer 26
B How to Use the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model 29
C Why Employee Stock Options are Warrants and Put Warrants are
OptionsAnd Why that Matters 31
D A Recipe for Valuing Outstanding Stock Options 33
E A Recipe for Valuing Annual Stock Option Grants 38
F The IRS and Employee Stock Option Taxation 41
G Glossary of Terms 42
Contents
3
In this report we present a comprehensive framework for analyzing employee stock
option (ESO) programs. While ESOs have been the subject of a great deal of
commentary, economic rigor has been absent in many of these discussions. We
present what we believe is the most in-depth, financially sound, and usable de-
scription of ESOs to date. The major points of our analysis are as follows:
There is a huge gap between economic reality and accounting convention in
dealing with ESOs. Traditional reckoning for options starts and stops with di-
luted shares, which do not consider either out-of-the money options or the time
value of options. Accordingly, current financial statements are of limited help in
understanding the impact of ESOs on corporate value. Proper use of FASB 123-
mandated information, often buried in the footnotes, is required to appreciate the
economic impact of ESOs.
Options that have already been granted should be treated as an economic li-
ability for ongoing shareholders. These options are valued using a Black-Scholes
pricing modelsubject to some modifications and are subtracted from corporate
value in determining shareholder value. Further, historical option grants convey
important information about the total economic cost of employee compensation.
Future option grants should be considered in the valuation process. We prefer
to treat future option grants as an expense, similar to any other income statement
expense. The result is lower earnings estimates for future years. Alternatively, we
leave the income statement value drivers as they are, but subtract the present value
of future option expenses from corporate value. Once past and future ESO val-
ues are quantified, their role in valuation becomes completely transparent.
The surge in ESOs is a symptom of the New Economy. New economy com-
panies are knowledge-focused. In contrast, old economy businesses are capital-
focused. People are becoming the main source of competitive advantage, and peo-
ple want something that capital never asked for: a piece of the action. In our view,
this trend toward more equity-based compensation in new economy businesses is
intractable. Hence, it is more important than ever to understand option programs
and their impact on corporate value.
The timing of option pricings and re-pricings offers interesting signals. Un-
fortunately, there does not appear to be a systematic way to exploit these signals.
Managers often price options ahead of the announcement of good newsand sub-
sequent excess share price returns. But the lag between when the pricings occur
and when they are disclosed makes the information unactionable. Separately, man-
agers tend to reprice their options following a period of dismal share price per-
formancethe evidence shows that they are good at picking the bottom.
Unfortunately, ensuing stock price action tends to be in line with the market, ne-
gating the potential for finding outsized returns.
There are a host of economic reasons to use ESOs. These include a reduction
in agency costs, enhanced corporate liquidity, and direct equity participation for
talented employees. ESOs should only be a concern for shareholders when the per-
formance bar is set too lowthat is, there is not enough incentive in incentive
compensation.
Summary
4
Internet tycoons and twenty-something billionaires have focused the worlds atten-
tion on the incredible riches in employee stock options (ESOs). The spectacular
bull market of the last few years has helped executives like AOLs Steve Case and
Compaqs Eckhard Pfeiffer get richeralong with option hall-of-famers like Dis-
neys Michael Eisner, Heinzs Anthony OReilly, and the entire Microsoft execu-
tive suite. And it doesnt take a careful reader of annual reports to notice the large
stock option grants awarded to executives, managers, and even the rank and file.
The flow of so much wealth to employees signifies an important shift in our new
global economy. Intellectual capitalharnessed brainpowerhas increasingly
replaced the bricks and mortar of physical capital. In our fast-paced, wired world,
people have become the new foundation for competitive advantage. And people
want something bricks and mortar never asked for: a piece of the action. That
means equity ownershipand lots of employee stock options.
1
With this surge in the use of employee stock options, it is more important than ever
to analyze employee stock options properly. Indeed, a proper accounting for the
economic costs of options materially affects almost all key drivers used to value
stocks. However, the intimidating swirl of mathematics surrounding option valua-
tion has hindered understanding of how options affect shareholder value (see Ap-
pendix A for a short primer on the drivers of option value). In addition, traditional
options analysis starts and stops with earnings per share dilution, which at best
gives an incomplete picture of economic reality.
This report seeks to shed some light on this issue. It is organized into six parts.
First, we discuss the secular shifts in the economy that make employees demand
options and the economic incentives that make companies increasingly willing to
grant them. We also elaborate on the major types of ESOs commonly used. Fi-
nally, we also examine whether options grants provide a signal about manage-
ments confidence in a companys futureand whether we can use this knowledge
to make money.
Second, we look at how current accounting practice distorts economy reality. As
with other reports in the Frontiers of Finance series, our focus is on the eco-
nomicnot the accountingconsequences of corporate decisions.
Third, we explain how to correct part of this distortion by treating outstanding
ESOs as an economic liability, and show how this adjustment affects shareholder
value.
Fourth, we explore a technique for recognizing future option grants. This treat-
ment of pay-as-you-go options represents economic reality much more faithfully
than the accounting alternative.
Fifth, since these adjustments change important inputs into the discounted cash
flow equation, we explain how they affect an investors understanding of intrinsic
value and market expectations.
Finally, we analyze repricing, which occurs when a company lowers the exer-
cise price of an option following a sharp drop in the companys share price.
Following the Conclusion, there are a series of Appendices that provide the practi-
cal details needed to undertake a value-based analysis of a companys employee
Introduction
5
stock option program. There is also a Glossary that defines key terms used
throughout the report.
The Evolution of the New Economy
The growth in ESOs is a symptom of more profound changes occurring within the
economy. For much of the last century, the industries of resource extraction and
mass productionpowered by the combustion engine, electricity, and the assembly
linehave defined how our economy works. The products of this economy tend to
be what economist Brian Arthur calls congealed resourceslots of extracted
resources turned into products with only a little knowledge.
2
Most of the major
products of the nineteenth and early twentieth century such as coal, tobacco, and
oiland even early planes, trains, and automobilesgenerally fit this description.
In this world, the owners of those congealed resources and the means of processing
them captured much of the Industrial Revolutions newfound wealth. As Marx
would put it, the real winners were the owners of the means of production (see Ta-
ble 1).
3
Indeed, the very concept of an assembly linewith repetitious simple jobs
performed by workers who were interchangeable with one anotherleft very little
room for value-adding innovation for the average employee.
4
Since labor served as
an easily replaceable resource, companies generally paid employees an hourly
wage or fixed salary for their services.
Table 1
5 Richest Americans in History Owned the Means of Production in the Old Economy
Rank Tycoon Source of Fortune Wealth as % of GNP
1 John D. Rockefeller Oil 1.53%
2 Cornelius Vanderbilt Steamboats and railroads 1.15%
3 John Jacob Astor Fur trade, NY real estate 0.93%
4 Stephen Girard Shipping 0.67%
5 Andrew Carnegie Steel 0.60%
Note: Wealth figures calculated by dividing a persons total wealth by Americas GNP at the time of the persons death.
Source: The Wealthy 100, Michael Klepper and Robert Gunther.
5
The economy has clearly evolved from one focused on congealed resources. For
example, look at three recent successful productsPfizers Viagra, Microsofts
Windows, or Disneys Lion King. These products are created not in a factory, but
in the heads of knowledge workers in the lab, on the computer, or in the studio.

To
use Brian Arthurs term, these products are congealed knowledgelots of
knowledge with very little physical resources added into the mix. The advent of
ever more powerful silicon, cheap software, and connectivity has only increased
the value of smart minds.
In this world, workers no longer serve as interchangeable cogs in a great industrial
machine. While one bicep is easily replaced with another, each brain possesses
potential unique knowledge and skills. Indeed, for many knowledge-intensive com-
panies, the entire value of the firm disappears when employees go home for the
night. As Bill Gates says, In today's emerging information society, the critical
natural resources are human intelligence, skill, and leadership.
6
Unfortunately for shareholders, companies can only rent employeesthey cannot
own them. Increasingly, knowledge workers have alternatives. They can either join
firms where they receive direct ownership in return for their efforts, or they can
start their own company. In a competitive labor market, then, employees demand
1. Why Options Are
Relevant
6
some form of equity- or performance-based compensation. This shift towards eq-
uity compensation may also help explain why so many of the wealthiest living
Americans fit the profile of an extremely competent knowledge worker (see Table
2).
Table 2
The 5 Wealthiest People in 1998s NewEconomy Owned Equity in Knowledge Companies
Rank Name Worth ($ bil) Source
1 Bill Gates 58.4 $ Microsoft Corp.
2 Warren Buffett 29.4 $ Berkshire Hathaway
3 Paul Allen 22.0 $ Microsoft Corp.
4 Michael Dell 13.0 $ Dell Computer
5 Steve Ballmer 12.0 $ Microsoft Corp.
Source: The Forbes Four Hundred, The 1998 Richest People in America. Forbes, October 12, 1998.
In support of this point, Harvard economists Brian Hall and Jeffrey Liebman re-
cently calculated that the average CEO in the largest U.S. firms increased their
cash compensation levels by only 5% from 1980 to 1994, while the value of op-
tions granted rose by almost 16%. As a result, the relative percentage of option
grants swelled from 19% of annual compensation in 1980 to 48% in 1994 (see
Figure 1).
Figure 1
Value of Cash Compensation and Option Grants for the Average CEO, 1980-94
in millions
$-
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994
Mean value of
stock option
grants
Mean salary
and bonus
Source: Brian J. Hall and Jeffrey B. Liebman, NBER Working Paper 6213, Are CEOs Really Paid Like Bureaucrats?
This trend is particularly significant for high tech companies, such as Microsoft
perhaps the company most famous for effectively using employee stock options.
By compensating its legions with options, Microsoft has been able to attract, re-
tain, and compensate employees who could work at other high tech firms. As Mi-
crosofts stock increased approximately 72% during its fiscal 1998 year, these
ESOs have served as a very important source of compensation. Indeed, using Mi-
crosofts cash flow statement, we can infer that its employees reaped pretax gains
7
of approximately $4.4 billion by exercising ESOs in 1998approximately
$163,000 per employee!
7
This is a significant value transfer for any company,
even one as large as Microsoft.
Economic Incentives for Granting Options
The rising use of employee stock options comes in part from a tightening labor
market for knowledge workers. However, corporations and investors also have
economic incentives to provide options to managers and employees:
Reduce agency costs. Ideally, corporate managersas the agents of share-
holderswill act to maximize value. However, the world is not ideal: rational
managers may choose instead to maximize their own happiness by arranging valu-
able perquisites, building costly empires or taking value-destroying actions that
serve to entrench them.
To counter this problem, managers often receive large grants of stock or options in
order to align their interests with those of shareholders. For example, given an
increase in firm value of $1,000, the wealth of the average CEO in 1994 increased
by $39over three times the $12 amount in 1980. Part of this heightened sensi-
tivity to changes in firm value comes from the increased stock holdings of the av-
erage CEO. However, the surge of ESO plans has also driven this trend, as a grant
of ESOs has approximately double the pay-to-performance sensitivity as a grant of
stock with the same value.
8
Recruit and retain employees. All things equal, companies that can recruit and
retain the best people will win in the marketplace. Large grants of employee stock
options can help companies attract the best and the brightest. Furthermore, ESOs
can help retain valuable employees by serving as golden handcuffs. ESOs give
employees a reason to stay until their options vest, which typically takes four or
five years. Moreover, since most companies grant ESOs annually, an employee
who leaves a firm will have to walk away from valuable unvested options.
Liquidity. Options serve as a noncash form of compensation for cash-strapped
companiessuch as startupsthat can ill afford to pay costly salaries to its em-
ployees.
Taxes. The Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 created an economic incentive
for corporations to pay its executives with options by limiting the deductibility of
cash salaries larger than $1,000,000.
9
Because the IRS categorizes ESOs as ob-
jectively determined performance-based compensation, companies can deduct the
intrinsic value of an option in the year in which an employee exercises it (see Ap-
pendix F). Thus, for companies with high-priced executive talent, using ESOsor
at least, some form of objectively determined performance-based compensation
instead of subjectively determined cash bonusesmay represent an optimal tax
strategy.
Market-linked versus short-term accounting-based compensation. Some
companies compensate their executives based on the attainment of certain tar-
getssuch as surpassing a particular level of earnings per share or return on eq-
uity. However, for companies with highly volatile results, these financial
performance metrics may serve as a poor measure of the quality of managerial
decisions. For example, managers may take actions that lower earnings in a given
year, but position the firm to earn higher earnings in the future. Using a market-
8
based compensation plan, such as ESOs, may be a viable way to fairly compensate
managers.
Earnings management. Reflecting arbitrary accounting regulations, a firm
that replaces executives cash salaries with at-the-money options maximizes its
reported earnings per share. An economic reason for doing this is to avoid violat-
ing a debt covenant. In addition, a self-interested manager may do this to achieve a
certain accounting target or to try to fool the market with artificially higher re-
ported earnings.
Types of Employee Stock Options
Before we go further, we should define the major types of ESOs commonly granted
to employees and executives. While theoretical possibilities are infinite, in practice,
certain kinds of ESOs are more popular:
At-the-money ESOs. The vast majority of options are issued at-the-money.
This is because accounting regulations state that granting an ESO creates an ex-
pense equal to the difference between a companys share price and the options
fixed exercise price. If a company grants at-the-money options, it need not recog-
nize the ESO as an accounting expense at all. Also, shareholders usually balk at
options that allow managers to purchase shares at a discount to the market price.
For these reasons, companies rarely issue in-the-money options.
In our survey of companies proxies and annual reports, we found that most ESO
contracts have a ten-year life and vest in equal proportions over four or five years.
Deep-out-of-the-money ESOs. In order to create an incentive to dramatically
increase the value of the firm, companies sometimes grant deep-out-of-the-money
ESOs. That way, managers can profitably exercise their options only if they hit a
home run for shareholders. Also, like at-the-money options, accountants view these
options as a free gift.
It is important to note that they must be very deep out-of-money options to ensure
executives only profit when their stock outperforms the market. This is because
most companies grant ESOs with a 10-year life. Thus, even a very deep-out-of-
the-money ESOwith an exercise price at a 100% premium to the market price
only requires annual share price appreciation of 7.2% to become in-the-money.
This is significantly below the 9% to 12% return desired by most equity investors
in public companies.
However, given that executives often have substantial wealth tied up in a single
undiversified company, they may be averse to assuming the risk inherent in these
deep-out-of-the-money ESOs. When these options are used at all, then, they tend to
be granted in large blocks to new CEOs of companies whose boards are dominated
by a few shareholders, such as a leveraged buy out (LBO) firm.
ESOs with an indexed exercised price. These ESOs have exercise prices that
are matched to the performance of a broader market indexusually the S&P 500
or an industry index. These ESOs have three features that make them tremen-
dously appealing to shareholders. First, they only reward managers who outper-
form the market. If a company uses these options, there is no risk that mediocre or
even poor managers will be overcompensated as a result of a bull market. Second,
because the strike price is not fixed and tends to rise every year, an indexed ESO
grant will transfer less value than a conventional ESO grant. Third, indexed ESOs
9
have lower strike prices and higher values even in bad times, making it easier to
retain valuable employees just when you need them most.
Ironically, accounting regulations discourage the use of indexed ESOs. The rules
stipulate that indexed ESOs are variable plans and must be treated differently
from ordinary ESOs, which are fixed plans. According to this syllogism, ac-
countants expense the annual difference in the intrinsic value of vested indexed
options. Thus, to the horror of managers, the better the stock does, the worse the
companys reported earnings.
10
This is a problem since earnings-based annual and
long-term incentive plans typically comprise 37% of a CEOs compensation.
11
De-
spite the economic benefits to the firm, then, unfavorable accounting deters most
companies from using indexed ESOs.
Stock appreciation rights (SARs). Although SARs are not technically em-
ployee stock options, we include them here because companies often use them in a
like manner. SARs provide employees with cash payments equal to the apprecia-
tion of the companys stock over a specified duration. Thus, like options, SARs
provide employees with equity upside without exposure to any downside. Unlike
options, SARs result in periodic payments of cash to the executives over the
SARs life. However, managers tend to avoid using SARs as they are subject to
the same accounting treatment as indexed options.
Options as a Signal
Companies issue options for a variety of reasonssome good and some bad. For
example, a large option grant to a CEO may be motivation to create value for
shareholders. Just as plausibly, the option grant may be used to artificially increase
earnings per share to make one more quarterly number.
12
Owing to this ambiguity, investors seeking to analyze option grants to beat the
market must do more than crunch numbers from a proxy statementthey must
understand the intent of an option grant. In our experience and review of the aca-
demic literature, two things emerge. First, in analyzing the strength of a signal
provided by an option grant, we must look not at ESOs in general, but at the stock
options given to executives who have the greatest ability to affect firm value. Sec-
ond, we find that most of the strong market signals associated with executive op-
tion grants is due to two things:
Reducing agency costs and managerial incentives. Many firms generate cash
well in excess of the amount needed to fund all positive-NPV projects. However,
the history of corporate America is rife with examples of managers misspending
this excess cash on value-destructive projects. Harvard Business School Professor
Michael Jensen has suggested that one way to lower wasteful spending is to use
financial leverage. High debt levels force managers to use all excess cash gener-
ated to service high interest and principal payments and effectively takes the punch
bowl away before the party starts. As this strategy focuses on not wasting cash, it
works best with a mature company with stable cash flows.
13
However, increased leverage comes at the cost of financial flexibility. And, lever-
age cannot be used to reduce agency costs for companies without the stable and
positive cash flows needed to service debt. Paying out cash would be disastrous for
most startups as they need to retain earnings for growth. For these companies,
then, a board of directors trying to minimize agency costs cannot just lever up the
firmthey must award managers for value-creating growth.
10
Executive stock options are just the tool for the job. As with leverage, options re-
duce agency costs associated with wasteful spending. But options do something
that leverage does not: they give managers an incentive to increase the value of the
firm. Thus, large grants of executive stock options can be a positive signal that a
company may try to ramp up for profitable growth, especially for companies that
have not historically rewarded performance with higher pay.
It is important to note that not all option grants are created equal. The intensity of
the market signal provided by option grants is a reflection of how hard managers
must work to make their options profitable. For example, indexed ESOs that re-
quire managers to outperform the broader market send a much stronger signal than
do ordinary ESOs. After all, if a companys stock simply appreciates at the cost of
equity, an ordinary ESO will still allow managers to attain a pot of option gold.
Similarly, investors view positively the issuance of very deep-out-the-money op-
tions that require managers to dramatically raise the value of the company before
they can cash out. The weakest signal is provided by at-the-money optionsor
even worse, in-the-money optionsthat require little or no effort to become profit-
able.
Information asymmetry. An academic who believes in market efficiency would
say that there is no possible way for an investor to systematically outperform the
market. This is because investors bid assets up and down to reflect all new infor-
mation.
However, even the most ardent efficient market theorist has to admit that executive
stock options provide a loophole in this theory. This is because managers possess
significant inside information, and often have it well before it is publicly released.
As executive stock options are almost always granted at-the-money, the exercise
price of an issued option generally reflects old informationnot the new inside
information. If managers can influence the timing of their stock option grants, they
can receive cheap options without having to buy or sell publicly traded shares or
options. Since executive stock options are not generally disclosed until the com-
pany files a proxyapproximately three months after the end of that fiscal year
managers can theoretically exploit this asymmetric information to earn an excess
return.
In fact, Professor David Yermack of New York Universitys Stern School of Busi-
ness recently published a study that found that managers do just that. Professor
Yermack tested the hypothesis that CEOs ... receive stock option awards shortly
in advance of favorable news that pushes company stock prices higher. As Figure
2 shows, Companies making stock option awards to their CEOs outperform the
market on a risk-adjusted basis by slightly more than two percent during the period
beginning the day after the award and lasting approximately ten weeks.
14
11
Figure 2
Abnormal Stock Returns following Receipt of Stock Options by CEOs
-0.50%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
-20 Award Date 20 40 60 80 100 120
Trading Days Relative to Award Date
M
e
a
n

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

A
b
n
o
r
m
a
l

S
t
o
c
k

R
e
t
u
r
n
Source: David Yermack, Good Timing: CEO Stock Option Awards and Company News Announcements, J ournal of Fi-
nance 52, No. 20, June 1997.
15
If some investors could get advance knowledge of executive stock option grants,
they too could outperform the market. Unfortunately, stringent SEC regulations
assure that only executives are legally allowed to profit from this information.
Interestingly, this result at least slightly contradicts the use of stock options to
lower agency costs. By systematically using their influence to get cheap options,
CEOs co-opt value from the shareholders for whom they ostensibly act as agents.
This also means that standard formulas for calculating the cost of executive stock
optionswhich use the pre-good news share price as an important valuation
parameterwill understate the true cost of option grants. Despite this, however,
boards of directors seem to accept this cost as the price of aligning the interests of
management with shareholders.
How Current Accounting Practice Distorts Economic Reality
As ESOs have become increasingly prevalent, it has become more and more im-
portant for managers and investors to properly analyze them. Indeed, the SEC re-
quires the calculation of share count dilution that would occur were employees to
immediately exercise all of their in-the-money options. Beyond this, most managers
and investors believe that an increase in diluted earnings per share signifies an in-
crease in shareholder value.
16
However, the diluted EPS accounting calculation significantly distorts economic
reality.
17
Before we explain why this is so, we must first delve into how account-
ants treat employee stock options.
2. Why Accountants
and Economists Dis-
agree
12
Accountants take a simple approach to options: they assume that all in-the-
money options will be immediately exercised and turned into extra shares.
18
To do
this, accountants create a concept called diluted shares outstanding. This equals
basic shares plus the shares that employees would receive if they exercised their
options. To be fair, the accountants do allow companies to assume that hypotheti-
cal proceeds from employees exercising their options would be used to repurchase
shares. Diluted earnings per share (EPS) are calculated by dividing net income by
the number of these diluted shares.
19
For example, Microsofts diluted EPS of
$1.67 in fiscal 1998 was a full 9% below the companys basic EPS of $1.83.
Critically, the accounting approach does not fully reflect economic reality. This
is because the diluted share count calculation only reflects the dilution that re-
sults from in-the-money stock options. However, options also have value from the
possibility that the underlying stocks market price will rise higher than the exer-
cise price before the option expires. Accountants ignore this time value for
both in-the-money as well as out-of-the-money options. As most companies issue
employee stock options that have long lives, this approach significantly under-
states the value of outstanding and future options. Indeed, the high-tech compa-
nies with the largest option packages often have the most volatile stock prices, and
hence, the most valuable options (see Appendix A).
It is theoretically possible to refine this approach by properly incorporating the
time value of outstanding options into the adjustment of total shares outstanding
the denominator in the earnings per share calculation. However, we find this ap-
proach to be counterintuitive. We believe the more intuitive economic approach is
to view outstanding options as an off-balance sheet liability. Further, to account
for the cost of future option grants, we should adjust the numeratorthe firms
incomeby subtracting the economic value of annual option grants to employ-
ees.
Microsoft is an example of a company that discloses useful information on its
ESOs. While Microsofts SEC filings state that no compensation cost is recog-
nized because the option exercise price is equal to the market price of the underly-
ing stock on the date of grant, the company does not stop there. On the contrary,
Microsoft does something we have not seen from any other company: it releases
see-through pro forma income statements that indicate how much it thinks ESOs
lower earnings. Specifically, the company subtracts the cost of its ESOs from re-
ported earningsas measured by the cost necessary to fully hedge the company
against the share price appreciation related to its ESO program.
While we have a different opinion on how to calculate the economic cost of a com-
panys annual stock grants, we fully agree with the gist of Microsofts approach.
Indeed, Bill Gates friend and fellow billionaire Warren Buffett concurs with this
view. In his 1997 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Letter to Shareholders, Buffett
suggested: [A firms] true [option] compensation cost ... [should be] brought out
of the closet and charged ... against earnings.
The accountants at FASB tried to implement something akin to this approach in
their earlier 1995 encyclical, SFAS 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensa-
tion. In fact, they came very close to requiring that companies subtract the eco-
nomic costs of employee stock options from net income.
20
However, Dennis
Beresford, the chairman of the FASB, backed away from doing so because:
13
People said to me, If we have to record a reduction in income by 40%,
our stock will go down by 40%, our options will be worthless, we wont
be able to keep employees. It would destroy all American business and
Western civilization.
21
While we understand that managers may be averse even to a small risk that their
stock price could fall, we would note that academic research has repeatedly shown
that when cash and earnings diverge, the market follows cash. Thus, we believe
that the market has already taken the cost of the options into account. However,
this debate became so divisive that it threatened the Boards working relationship
with some of its constituents. Yielding somewhat, FASB made adoption of the
standard voluntary, mandating only that companies disclose the economic costs of
employee stock options in the footnotes of their SEC filings. SFAS 123 is still very
useful, however, as it discloses valuable information to investors.
22
How Outstanding Options Affect Shareholder Value
Many firms have substantial amounts of outstanding ESOs that exist from past
grants. Over time, the owners of these ESOs will convert their options into regular
shares or allow them to expire worthless. At any point in time, however, these op-
tions definitely have value. Indeed, we believe that the value of outstanding ESOs
must be viewed as an economic liability that has been incurred by the firm.
This logic rests on solid corporate finance. The economic value of a firm is the
present value of future cash flows. This economic value can be thought of as a pie.
In exchange for providing capital, the investors agree to share the wealth created
by that firmthat is, to slice the pie upaccording to certain rules.
Bondholders, by contractual agreement, get timely interest payments and a return
of capital. In accordance with the established pecking order, bondholders get first
dibs on any cash to be returned to investors.
Shareholders are a residual claimant on a firms assets. That is, shareholders get
whatever is left of the pie after bondholders have gotten their prenegotiated fill. In
an efficient market, the per-share value of a firm will be the amount of economic
value that is left after debt takes its share, divided by the number of outstanding
shares. While there is a risk that there will be no pie left, there is also the possibil-
ity of receiving a potentially huge pie.
In the context of this model, then, we believe thatjust like debtESOs represent
an economic liability that must be subtracted from the value of a firm to calculate
shareholder value. This is because the value claimed by ESO owners comes from
the same source as the value claimed by ordinary shareholders: the possibility of
the firm increasing in value and creating a huge pie.
23
To value the economic liability represented by Microsofts outstanding ESOs, we
use the information provided in Microsofts recent SEC filings as inputs into the
standard Black-Scholes option pricing model (see Appendix D for details on our
methodology). We also incorporate expected option cancellations from employee
defection, the dilution from option exercise, and the tax deductibility of ESOs upon
exercise. Using this information, we estimate that employees who owned ESOs laid
claim to approximately $22 billion of value at the end of Microsofts 1998 fiscal
year. As Figure 3 illustrates, this lowers the residual value to which ordinary
3. Options as a
Liability
14
shareholders can lay claim. Note that the residual claim is then divided by basic
shares outstanding, as the valuation process captures all previous grants.
While Microsofts total corporate value of $305 billion dwarfs this amount, out-
standing ESOs still represent an impressive 7% of this total. The following figure
captures the economic value of past grants with great clarity.
Figure 3
Howthe Market Views the Effect of Outstanding ESOs on Microsofts Valuation
$ in billion
Corporate Value Economic Liabilities Shareholder Value
Preferred Stock
Shareholder
Value
Excess Cash
Outstanding
Employee Stock
Options
Debt and
Capitalized
Operating Leases
Present
Value of
Future Cash
Flows
$290
$15
$1
$22
$282
$0
Note: Diagram is not drawn to scale.
Source: CSFBC analysis.
In addition to our analysis of Microsoft, we also valued the outstanding ESOs for
eight other firms. In addition to testing the robustness of our analysis, we wanted
to test the hypothesis that a New Economy company with lots of knowledge
workers would tend to have higher relative levels of employee stock options than a
similar Old Economy company in the same industry (see Table 3 on next page).
To adjust for the relative size of each company, we then divided the amount of
these ESOs by the total market capitalization of the company. This gave us out-
standing ESOs as a percent of total market capitalization for each matched pair of
companies (see Table 4 on next page).
Table 4 shows that, with one exception, this percentage tends to be markedly
higher for our New Economy companies than our Old Economy companies.
Indeed, in the media industry, Yahoo!s percentage is over 7 times that of the
15
Table3
Outstanding ESOs for Oldversus NewEconomyCompanies
all prices as of last fiscal year
(in millions)
Barnes and Noble "Old" Largely Bricks-and-mortar Bookstore 1/31/98 138 $
Amazon.com "New" Internet Bookstore and Retailer 12/31/97 27 $
New York Times "Old" Traditional Media: Newspaper 12/28/97 21 $
Yahoo! "New" New Media: Portal Web Site 12/31/97 70 $
DuPont "Old" Chemicals 12/31/97 1,566 $
Pfizer "New" Designer Pharmaceutical Drugs 12/31/97 3,059 $
Texas Instruments "Old" Memory Semiconductors 12/31/97 395 $
Intel Corporation "New" Microprocessor Semiconductors 12/27/97 5,998 $
"Old" or
"New"
Economy
Company
Value of
Outstanding
ESOs
Fiscal Year Main Product or Service
Semiconductors
Industry Company
Retail
Media
Chemicals
Source: SECfilings and CSFBCanalysis.
Note: Capitalized operating leases calculated by discounting disclosed non-cancelable payments under operating leases to the present value using a constant interest rate of 8%.
Table4
Outstanding ESOs as Percent of Total Market Capitalization for Oldversus NewEconomyCompanies
(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (%)
Barnes and Noble 138 $ 2,157 $ 2,075 $ 4,231 $ 3.3%
Amazon.com 27 $ 1,304 $ 116 $ 1,421 $ 1.9%
New York Times 21 $ 6,190 $ 643 $ 6,834 $ 0.3%
Yahoo! 70 $ 3,117 $ 10 $ 3,127 $ 2.2%
DuPont 1,566 $ 69,238 $ 1,496 $ 70,733 $ 2.2%
Pfizer 3,059 $ 96,484 $ 2,984 $ 99,468 $ 3.1%
Texas Instruments 395 $ 17,566 $ 1,660 $ 19,226 $ 2.1%
Intel Corporation 5,998 $ 115,385 $ 663 $ 116,048 $ 5.2%
Value of
Outstanding
ESOs
Outstanding ESOs
as Percent of Total
Market Cap.
Total
Market
Cap.
Debt, Capitalized
Operating Leases and
Preferred Stock
Basic Equity
Market Cap.
Semiconductors
Industry Company
Retail
Media
Chemicals
Source: SECfilings and CSFBCanalysis.
16
New York Times, while in the semiconductor industry, Intels percentage is over
twice that of Texas Instruments. Our comparison in the chemicals industry of
Pfizer and DuPontwhich probably can only be judged an Old Economy com-
pany relative to a pharmaceutical firmalso yields a higher percentage for the
New Economy company.
We cannot conclusively explain away our outlier of Barnes and Noble versus
Amazon.com. Since Barnes and Noble also owns Amazons largest on-line com-
petitor, BarnesandNoble.com, our choice of comparable companies may be flawed.
In addition, it appears that Barnes and Nobles ESOs are unusually highexecu-
tives received an unusually large ESO grant 4 years agowhile Amazon.coms
ESOs are unusually lowperhaps owing to its relatively small number of employ-
ees. We would expect this ranking to change over time.
[Options arent] necessarily the end of the world, but [they do] result in a
significant valuation difference. And its not reported under standard
accounting. So we think the quality of earnings as reported by a company with
significant stock option grants every year is dramatically poorer than one where
that doesnt exist. And a lot of companies fall in that category.
Warren Buffett
24
How Annual ESO Grants Affect a Firms Return on Capital and Free Cash
Flow
Now that we have dealt with past grants, we turn to the value of future grants. As
we believe that ESOs represent an economic cost like any other, they should re-
duce a companys cash earnings or net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT).
In order to do this, we estimate the economic value of ESO grants using the Black-
Scholes method and information provided under FASB 123. We further adjust this
value for expected option cancellations from employee defection, the dilution from
option exercise, and the tax deductibility of ESOs upon exercise (see Appendix E
for details on our methodology).
We used the information in Microsofts latest 10-K to value the economic cost of
its ESO grants. We calculated that Microsoft granted ESOs with an after-tax value
of $873 million in 1998 (see Appendix D). This translates into 4.9% of Micro-
softs salesincluding deferred revenuesof $17.8 billion. This percentage re-
mained approximately constant at 5% from 1995 to 1998 (see Table 5).
Table 5
Microsofts After-Tax Option Cost as a Percent of Sales, 1995-98
in millions
Year Revenue
Expected After-
Tax Economic
Value Imparted to
Employees
Option Cost as a
Percent of Sales
1998 17,752 $ 873 $ 4.9%
1997 12,959 $ 690 $ 5.3%
1996 9,654 $ 541 $ 5.6%
1995 6,006 $ 247 $ 4.1%
Source: Microsoft SEC Filings and CSFBC analysis.
4. Options as a Cost
17
The cost of Microsofts ESOs represented a larger percentage of the companys
cash earnings. While this percentage varied more over time, it ranged from 21.6%
of Microsofts cash earnings of $2.5 billion in 1995 to 17.2% of Microsofts cash
earnings of $5.1 billion in 1998 (see Figure 4).
Figure 4
Microsofts Cash Earnings Adjusted for Annual ESO Grants, 1995-98
in billions
$-
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
1995 1996 1997 1998
Annual After-tax
Option Cost
ESO-Adjusted
NOPAT
Source: Microsoft SEC filings and CSFBC analysis.
By lowering calculated cash earnings, ESOs also lower Microsofts return on
capital. For example, this adjustment lowers Microsofts return on capital from
164% to 136% in 1998. This pattern also holds true for 1995 through 1997 (see
Figure 5).
Figure 5
Microsofts Return on Capital Adjusted for Annual ESO Grants, 1995-98
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
1995 1996 1997 1998
R
e
t
u
r
n

o
n

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

(
%
)
Unadjusted Return
on Capital
ESO-Adjusted
Return on Capital
Source: Company SEC filings and CSFBC analysis.
18
One might argue that we are overstating the effect of ESOs, since we subtract their
full cost from cash earnings every year rather than amortizing this cost over the
five-year vesting period. To address this, we estimated what Microsofts expense
would be if it amortized its ESOs.
25
We do arrive at a lower ESO expense of $517
million in 1998. However, if we took this approach, we would also have to capi-
talize the value of unamortized ESOs and add them to our estimate of net cash in-
vested in the businessits invested capital. This would add approximately $1.4
billion to Microsofts invested capital base of $3.1 billion in 1998. Thus, this ap-
proach would result in a lower return on capital of 111%.
To continue our analysis of Old versus New Economy companies, we repeated
this analysis on our four matched pairs of companies. Again, we wanted to test the
hypothesis that a New Economy company with lots of knowledge workers would
tend to have higher relative levels of employee stock options than a similar Old
Economy company in the same industry. To adjust for the relative size of each
company, we then divided the economic value of annual ESO grants by annual
sales. This gave us annual ESO grants as a percent of sales for each matched pair
of companies (see Table 6).
Table 6
Annual ESO Grants as Percent of Sales for Old versus NewEconomy Companies
(in millions) (%)
"Old" Barnes and Noble 10.4 $ 0.4%
"New" Amazon.com 10.1 $ 6.8%
"Old" New York Times 24.3 $ 9.2%
"New" Yahoo! 37.2 $ 55.2%
"Old" DuPont 175.2 $ 0.4%
"New" Pfizer 144.3 $ 6.5%
"Old" Texas Instruments 69.5 $ 0.7%
"New" Intel Corporation 611.0 $ 2.4%
Annual ESO Grants
as Percent of Sales
Semiconductors
Chemicals
Media
Retail
"Old" or
"New"
Economy
Company
Value of ESO
Grant Company Industry
Source: SEC filings and CSFBC analysis.
This time, our results were unambiguous: all four New Economy companies had
much higher annual ESOs as a percent of sales than its Old Economy counter-
part. For rapidly growing companies such as Amazon.com and Yahoo!, this result
is perhaps not surprising. However, our results also held for more mature compa-
nies with more stable sales, such as Pfizer versus DuPont and Intel versus Texas
Instruments. This suggests that accounting for ESOs will become increasingly im-
portant as the world evolves into a knowledge-intensive New Economy.
How ESOs Enter into the Valuation Equation
Using this framework, we can incorporate our estimates of the cost of outstanding
and future options into a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. This is important
for two reasons. First, many investors use a DCF analysis to calculate a stocks
intrinsic valuethat is, they discount future cash flows to the present value using
a risk-adjusted required rate of return. Value creation occurs over a certain number
5. Options and
Valuation
19
of years, estimated by the companys Competitive Advantage Period or CAP. (For
a graphic representation of this mental model, read Figure 7 from the right to the
left.) Alternatively, investors can start with the stock price, and then reverse-
engineer what these value drivers must be in order to justify the price. Investors
can then compare their expectations with those of the market to see whether or not
they find a stock to be attractive. (For a graphic representation of this mental
model, read Figure 7 from the left to the right.)
Figure 7
HowCash Flows, Risk, and CAP Affect the Stock Price (Reading Right to Left)
Howto Derive Market Expectations of Cash Flows, Risk, and CAP (Reading Left to Right)
Cash Flow
Risk
CAP
Stock
Price
Source: CSFBC Analysis.
To continue our case study of Microsoft, we used Value Line forecasts to forecast
future sales, cash earnings, and net investment. In the previous section, we calcu-
lated that Microsofts ESOs were approximately 5% of sales from 1995 to 1998.
As investors, our primary goal is to use this historical information to estimate
what future cash flows will be. If we assume that Microsofts after-tax ESO cost
will continue at approximately 5% of sales, we can arrive at an annual estimate of
the future costs of ESOs. This gives us estimates of the companys adjusted
NOPAT. We then subtract net investment to arrive at an adjusted estimate of free
cash flow (see Table 8).
Table 8
Microsofts Unadjusted versus ESO-Adjusted NOPATs and Free Cash Flows, 1999-2002
in millions
Year 1999E 2000E 2001E 2002E
NOPAT 6,319 7,476 8,876 10,755
Investment 550 520 520 1,079
Unadj usted FCF 5,769 6,956 8,356 9,675
NOPAT 6,319 7,476 8,876 10,755
Esti mated After-Tax Opti on Cost 875 1,081 1,335 1,615
Adj usted NOPAT 5,444 6,395 7,541 9,140
Investment 550 520 520 1,079
Adj usted FCF 4,894 5,875 7,021 8,061
Source: SEC filings, Value Line estimates, and CSFBC analysis.
20
To perform an analysis of market expectations, we first determined the market
value of all Microsoft securities, including debt, preferred stock, basic shares, and
outstanding ESOs (see Table 9).
Table 9
Microsofts Total Enterprise Value
$ in millions, except per share data
Stock Price 105 $
Basic Shares 2,672
Basic Equity 281,714 $
Outstanding ESOs 22,060 $
Debt - $
Preferred Stock 1 $
Enterprise Value 303,775 $
Source: CSFBC analysis.
Then, using an estimated cost of capital of 12.1%, we calculated the present value
of future cash flows assuming the company could make positive-NPV
investments for a range of 1 to 25 years (see Table 10 for an excerpt of this analy-
sis).
Table 10
Market-Implied Competitive Advantage Period (CAP) Analysis
$ in millions, except per share data
2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E
Year i n Fut ure 21 22 23 24
NOPAT 143, 166 $ 163, 210 $ 186, 059 $ 212, 107 $
Est i mat ed Af t er-Tax Opt i on Cost 21, 496 24, 506 27, 937 31, 848
Adj ust ed NOPAT 121, 670 138, 704 158, 122 180, 259
I nvest ment 9,092 10, 365 11, 816 13, 471
Adj ust ed FCF 112, 578 128, 338 146, 306 166, 789
PV of Adj ust ed FCF 10, 734 10, 926 11, 122 11, 322
Cumul at i ve PV of Adj ust ed FCF 166, 730 177, 656 188, 778 200, 100
Resi dual Val ue 1, 156, 565 1, 318, 484 1, 503, 072 1, 713, 502
PV of Resi dual Val ue 110, 276 112, 253 114, 265 116, 313
Corporat e Val ue 277, 006 289, 909 303, 043 316, 413
Excess Cash 15, 021 15, 021 15, 021 15, 021
Tot al Debt - - - -
Preferred stock 980 980 980 980
Total Val ue of Opti ons 22, 060 22, 060 22, 060 22, 060
Net Economi c Li abi l i ti es 8,019 8,019 8,019 8,019
Shar ehol der val ue 268, 987 281, 890 295, 024 308, 394
Number of basi c shares 2,672 2,672 2,672 2,672
Val ue per shar e $101 $106 $110 $115
Source: SEC filings, Value Line estimates, and CSFBC analysis.
21
Using these value drivers, then, we can see that the current stock price of $106
implies a CAP of 22 years.
This market-implied CAP of 22 years differs substantially from the MI-CAP of 17
years produced by a standard DCF analysis that ignores options. Put another way,
the present value of estimated future option grants over the 22 year CAPover-
looked in a traditional DCF modelequals a staggering $53 billion. Combined
with the $22 billion in outstanding options, Microsofts past and future options
have a present value of $75 billion. This is equivalent to 25% of Microsofts total
market capitalization of $304 billion.
If At First You Dont Succeed, Try to Reprice!
One of the major reasons to grant ESOs is to give managers an incentive to create
value and drive the stock price up. Unfortunately, this happy scenario does not
always unfold. If a companys stock price falls precipitously, an ESO that was
granted at-the-money may become deep out-of-the-money. At this point,
companies often choose to reprice or reload the ESOs by lowering the exercise
price. This is also sometimes accompanied by an extension of the maturity of the
life of the option.
NYU Stern Business School Professors Menachem Brenner, Rangarajan Sunda-
ram, and David Yermack recently studied this increasingly popular phenomenon.
They found that while only 0.7% of executives in the S&P ExecuComp database
had their options repriced in 1992, almost 2.0% of executives had their options
repriced in 1995 (see Figure 8). While this is the last year in which analysis has
been completed, anecdotal evidence suggests that this number has increased since
then. More relevant, we expect to see a wave of repricings after the recent market
correction, as we saw after the 1987 stock market crash.
Figure 8
Increasing Frequency of Executive Stock Options
annual frequency of stock option repricings for top managers covered by the S&P ExecuComp database, 199295
Note: Sample comprised of compensation for executives from 1,500 firms, including those in the S&P 500, MidCap 400, and
the SmallCap 600 indices.
6. Options as an
Inalienable Right
22
Source: Menachem Brenner, Rangarajan Sundaram and David Yermack, Altering the Terms of Executives Stock Options.
Companies tend to reprice ESOs for three reasons:
1. Retain employees. The major concern is that the specter of worthless options
will prompt executives and talented employees to jump ship to a competitor. As
Netscapes spokesperson said after the company repriced its ESOs for its non-
executive employees in January 1998: We did it because wed like to attract and
retain employees.
26
2. Reduce agency costs. The board of directors may also worry that unless they
reprice underwater stock options for their executives, formerly enthusiastic senior
managers will abandon value-maximization and attempt instead to maximize their
consumption of perquisites and compensation. This reasoning is most defensible
when done in reaction to a marketwide fall in equity prices, such as the wave of
repricings that followed the Crash of 1987.
27
3. Lower executive risk taking. An executive with deep-out-of-the-money stock
options will only become wealthy if the companys stock price increases spectacu-
larly. Thus, there is an incentive to pick highly risky projects, so as to increase the
chance of hitting a jackpot. However, this would hurt bondholders, who abhor risk
and just want to get their principal back. Thus, if a firms stock is low because it is
near bankruptcy, creditors may apply pressure to reprice options to avoid exces-
sive managerial risk taking.
Shareholders understand the economic justifications given for repricing ESOs to
retain employees and reduce agency costs. After all, its better to accept dilution of
your ownership of a valuable business than to own 100% of a company with no
employees.
However, shareholders still have several valid objections to repricing:
1. Employees lack of exposure to downside. Employees who have their ESOs
repriced receive a benefit that shareholders do not. Virginia Tech Professors Don
Chance and Raman Kumar and Boston University Professor Todd recently pub-
lished a study that shows that repricings of executive options follow approximately
one-year periods during which the average firm sees its shares lose one quarter of
its value. Furthermore, on average, these repricings lower the exercise price by
approximately 41%. This increases the economic value of the average executive
stock option package by 16%.
28
It is particularly frustrating to shareholders when executivesnot just employ-
eesget their options repriced. It does not seem fair to allow executives to dou-
ble-dip by receiving options that not only never have downside, but will always be
adjusted so executives make money. Indeed, if executives can become wealthy
without working, options lose their power to lower agency costs.
2. Inalienable Options are expensive. We can clearly calculate the increase in
option value following a repricing. Using some fancy math, we can also calculate
the value of a repriceable option at grant date. If companies grant options that
can never expire worthless, those options have to be more valuable at grant date
than ordinary options without a similar phone call from the governor feature.
Professors Chance, Kumar, and Todd conservatively estimate that a repriceable
option is 7% to 10% more valuable than a normal unrepriceable option.
29
Using
23
this logic, some investors may wish to add a premium to the Black-Scholes calcu-
lated value of an option grant.
Moreover, once a company acquires a taste for repricing, it seems to retain it. The
same study found that 45% of companies that repriced once did it at least once
more. One company even repriced six times. Thus, the estimate of a 7% to 10%
premiumthe calculation assumes only one repricingmay be too low.
3. Perverted management incentives. Habitual repricing may cost shareholders
more than the value given to employees by the lowering of the ESOs exercise
price. The real costs of habitual repricing may result from the perversion of man-
agement incentives. Companies grant ESOs mainly to make sure that managers
deliver good shareholder returns. However, the very executives who made the
strategic or execution blunders that resulted in a lower share price end up benefit-
ing in a repricing. Thus, a cynical, yet savvy, manager has a real incentive to drive
the stock down, get his options reset, and then try to restore the companys for-
tunes. So, while options by themselves should lower agency costs, options coupled
with habitual repricings may raise agency costs.
If shareholders had their way, repricing as an unadulterated practice would end.
However, there are ways to mitigate the costs of repricing. For example, repricings
typically involve a one-for-one exchange of options with high exercise prices for
options with a low exercise price. Even if a company needs to reprice ESOs to
keep employees or reduce executive risk-taking, the board can lower the number of
repriced options issued to make the repricing value-neutral. A company can also
lower the contractual life of the options or increase the number of years before the
options vest. Above all, investors would like any ESO modifications to be subject
to shareholder approval.
These steps would go a long way toward removing the salt from investors
wounds. This rapprochement might also help a stock recover from its lows. A
company whose investors trust its managers to take shareholder-friendly actions
may see this trust reflected in a higher valuation.
Option Repricings as a Signal
One interesting hypothesis is that even a shareholder-unfriendly option repricing
represents a positive signal to the market. The idea is that a companys insiders
with the best knowledge of a companys prospectsmake the decision to reprice
the options. Thus, the timing of the repricing represents the best guess of the
smart money as to when the stocks tailspin will end. Indeed, analysis of recent
repricings made by Professors Chance, Kumar, and Todd seems to support this
hypothesis: option repricings seem to happen when a companys share price halts
its free fall (see Figure 9 on the following page).
24
Figure 9
Cumulative Average Residuals and Average Compounded Returns on Stocks for Firms that
Reprice Executive Stock Options on Day Zero

-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-250 -225 -200 -175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Day Relative to Reset Day
R
e
t
u
r
n

(
%
)
Sto
Average Compounded Stock Return
Average Compounded Market Return
Stock Cumulative Abnormal Returns
Source: Don Chance, Raman Kumar, and Rebecca Todd, The Repricing of Executive Stock Options.
Cumulative average residuals and average compounded returns on stocks on which the firms reprice their executive stock
options on day zero and average compounded returns on the CRSP value-weighted stock index. The risk adjustment is
made by estimating a market model regression over days - 500 to -251. Coefficients from that regression are then applied to
the returns over days -250 to +250. The sample is selected from among a larger sample of firms identified through a key
word search on the NAARS (National Automated Accounting Research System) on Lexis/Nexis. The sample consists of 37
firms and 53 events.
However, a detailed analysis of the underlying data indicates a companys stock
price essentially trades in line with the market following a repricing. Supporting
this, the cumulative abnormal return (CAR) earned on the average stock only
rose 1.7% during the 250 days following a repricing. The positive signal associ-
ated with repricings may in fact exist in particular cases. However, the evidence
indicates that, on average, investing in a stock when it reprices its ESOs will not
lead to meaningful market outperformance.
Option Repricing Accounting and the End of an Era?
Lenient accounting contributes to the widespread use of option repricings. A com-
pany can reprice by canceling its old out-of-the-money options and replacing them
with new at-the-money options and still get cosmetically favorable accounting
treatment. As with normal options, current accounting regulations do not view
the new at-the-money option grants as an expense.
30
However, a proposed change in accounting regulations may spell the end to option
repricings. The FASB recently tentatively decided that an option repricing trans-
forms an ordinary ESO from a so-called fixed option plan into a variable plan.
This would subject a repriced ESO to the same accounting treatment as an indexed
ESO or an SARthat is, changes in the intrinsic value of vested repriced options
would have to be recorded as an expense (or, more rarely, a credit) to reported ac-
counting earnings. Given managers aversion to lowering reported earnings, if this
regulation is adopted, we would expect the repricing of options to become much
less common.
31
25
What This Paper Does Not Claim
Our economic framework urges investors to treat outstanding ESOs as a liability
and future options as a cost. Both of these adjustments reduce shareholder value.
However, this does not imply that we believe that stocks are overvalued just be-
cause investors do not explicitly factor ESOs in their calculations. On the contrary,
we believe that the market excels at efficiently pricing stocks without explicitly
using this economic framework.

Accordingly, as with other reports in the Frontiers
of Finance series, our focus is on the economicnot the accountingconse-
quences of corporate decisions.
What This Paper Does Claim
We believe that this economic framework for valuing ESOs does have several im-
portant implications. Most important, the correct treatment of options allows us to
understand better the economics of a business. This has become increasingly im-
portant with the rise in option-laden knowledge workers.
If the investors are to beat the market, they must have a variant perceptionthat
is, a perception of value materially different than market expectations. Since op-
tions significantly affect a DCF analysis, using this framework is important for
companies with meaningful option-based compensation programs.
Finally, this framework gives investors a starting point to value more precisely
option-laden private companies that cannot ask the stock market to value their
company for them. This is particularly important for cash-strapped startups that
use options as a way to conserve cash and attract talented employees. Thus, in-
vestors contemplating purchase of such a company in an Initial Public Offering
may wish to incorporate options in their valuation equation.
N.B.: CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON CORPORATION may have, within the last three years, served as a manager
or co-manager of a public offering of securities for or makes a primary market in issues of any or all of the companies
mentioned. Closing prices are as of October 27, 1998:
Amazon.com (AMZN, 116
5
/16, Buy) *
Barnes and Noble (BKS, 28
5
/8, Not Rated)
DuPont (DD, 59
9
/16, Hold) *
Intel (INTC, 87
5
/16, Buy) *
Microsoft (MSFT, 105
7
/16, Strong Buy) *
New York Times (NYT, 28, Buy) *
Pfizer (PFE, 106
5
/16, Hold) *
Texas Instruments (TXN, 60
1
/2, Buy) *
Yahoo! (YHOO, 123
3
/4, Buy) *
* Followed by a different CSFBC analyst.
Conclusion
26
A STOCK OPTION PRIMER
An option gives its owner the rightbut not the obligationto buy or sell an asset
at a certain prenegotiated price. For example, a call option on a stock gives its
owner the right to buy a stock at a fixed pricecalled an options exercise or
strike priceregardless of the stocks market price. A call option, then, is valuable
if the stocks price rises past the exercise price before expiration. However, if the
stock price falls below the options exercise price, the owner will choose not to
exercise the option so as not to lose money. Thus, an option offers exposure to a
stocks upside potential and limits exposure to possible downside (see Figure 10).
Figure 10
A Call Options Intrinsic Value Increases as the Stock Price Increases, but Never Falls be-
lowZero
Stock price
Exercise
price
Value of
option
Actual option
value prior to
expiration
Intrinsic value
(lower limit on
option value)
Source: Principles of Corporate Finance, Richard A. Brealey and Stewart C. Myers.
While this complicated payoff scheme makes pricing an option a mathematical
ordeal, we can intuitively understand the drivers behind an options value using
simple concepts. This is because Nobel Prize winning work by Fisher Black and
Myron Scholes resolved the precise role of these drivers in the markets assessment
of an options value.
32
The most obvious determinant of an options value is its intrinsic value, or the
amount of money one will make upon immediately exercising the option. This
amount, defined as the stock price less the exercise price, ultimately determines
how much money the option holder makes.
Exercise price. The less an investor has to pay to convert an option into a
more valuable share, the greater the options worth. Thus, a lower exercise price
means a more valuable option.
Appendix A
27
Stock price. Because an investor benefits by receiving a more valuable share
upon exercising an option, a higher stock price means a more valuable option.
However, even if an option has no intrinsic value, it can still be valuable. This is
because, while it may not be currently profitable to exercise an option, the possi-
bility exists that the option can be profitably exercised in the future.
The value of this possibility is called an options time value and is determined by
three factors:
Volatility. As volatility increases, there is a higher probability that the stock
will dramatically increase or decrease in value. Viewed from the perspective of the
option owner, if the stock has a huge run-up, the option increases in value from its
upside exposure. However, if the stock goes down a lot, the options downside ex-
posure is limited. This makes option owners prefer high volatility in the price of
the underlying stock, as it increases the chance that his option will be very valuable
without exposing him to large losses.
We can represent this concept graphically as well. Scenario A of Figure 11 shows
an option on a low volatility stock. This option has a narrow price distribution that
clusters around the exercise price. In contrast, Scenario B shows a similar option
on a high volatility stock with a wide price distribution. By overlaying these price
distributions over a standard option payoff diagram, we can estimate the probabil-
ity that the underlying stocks will rise above the options exercise price. The larger
shaded area in Scenario B shows that the more volatile the stock, the higher the
chance that the option will be profitable. All things equal, then, higher stock price
volatility translates into a higher time value.
Figure 11
A Call Options Time Value Increases as Stock Price Volatility Increases
Scenario A: Low Stock Price Volatility Scenario B: High Stock Price Volatility

Payoff to call
option on firm
Xs shares
Payoff to
option on X
Exercise price
(a)
Probability
distribution of
future price of
firm Xs shares
Firm X share price
Shaded area
represents
time value

Payoff to call
option on firm
Ys shares
Payoff to
option on Y
Exercise price
(b)
Firm Y share price
Probability
distribution of
future price of
firm Ys shares
Shaded area
represents
time value
Source: Principles of Corporate Finance, Richard A. Brealey and Stewart C. Myers.
Length of time before an option expires. The longer an option holder has be-
fore his option expires, the higher the probability that the stock price will end up
above the exercise price. This makes options with long lives more valuable than
similar options with short lives.
28
Risk-free rate. This variable enters the equation in a subtle way. Purchasing
an option gives an investor the right to purchase a share at a fixed price in the fu-
ture. In essence, an option gives its owner an interest-free loan in the amount of the
exercise price for the length of the option. The value of this loan increases with the
length of the option life and the risk-free rate. Thus, an options value increases as
the risk-free rate increases.
Before we finish our option primer, we should note two practical considerations
that will affect our valuation of employee stock options:
Dividends. In an efficient market, the value of a stock is the present value of
future cash dividends. When a stock pays a dividend, the stock owner will be as
well off as he was before the dividend was paid. However, after an investor re-
ceives cash-in-hand from a dividend payment, the stocks price will fall by pre-
cisely that amount. Thus, while dividends may be an important part of total
shareholder returns, it always lowers a stocks absolute price level. Accordingly,
the value of an option to buy that stock will also fall.
Thus, when valuing an option with a short lifetime, we should lower the options
underlying share price by the present value of dividends expected to be received
over the options life.
33
When valuing options with a longer life, we should use
Robert Mertons adaptation of the Black-Scholes option pricing formula that in-
corporates an estimate of a stocks long-term dividend yield (see Appendix B for
more information on how to adjust the Black-Scholes option pricing model for
dividends).
34
European versus American options. These catchy titles refer to two flavors of
options. The European option can only be exercised on the last day of the options
life, while the American option can be exercised on any day that the option exists.
The increased flexibility of American options makes them slightly more valuable
although it makes them more mathematically difficult to value. Regardless, inves-
tors often use the Black-Scholes model to value American calls as prematurely
exercising an option involves forfeiting an often hefty time value.
29
HOW TO USE THE BLACK-SCHOLES OPTION PRICING MODEL
Before Fisher Black and Myron Scholes came along in 1973, economists had tried
for years to develop satisfactory models to price options. In part, these would-be
Nobel Prize winners were stymied by the lack of advanced mathematics in classi-
cal economics training. Fortunately, we do not need to know how to derive the
Black-Scholes model in order to use it. Indeed, we do not even need to know the
Black-Scholes formula in order to understand what value drivers make options
valuable (see Appendix A).
In this Appendix, we present the generalized Black-Scholes formula, leaving the
derivation of the equation to option textbooks.
35
We do this so readers can enter the
formula into a spreadsheet in order to value options. Following this presentation,
we also walk through an example applying the formula to a sample option.
The Black-Scholes formula values a European call or put option as follows:

( )
) N(d e X ) N(d e S Call of Value
2
T r -
1
T r - b
=

( )
) N(-d e X ) N(-d e S - Put of Value
2
T r -
1
T r - b
+ =
where:
S is the stock price of the underlying stock. If we expect the stock to pay spe-
cific dividends before the option expires, we should subtract the present value of
those dividends from the stock price and use this adjusted stock price as the rele-
vant input for this equation.
X is the exercise, or strike price of the option
r is the risk-free rate
b is the cost of carry, defined as risk-free rate minus the dividend yield (q)
T is the expected life of the option in years

2
is the variance of the underlying security

T
T )
2
(b )
X
S
( ln
d
2
1
+ +
=
T d d
1 2
=
These formulae look intimidating, but can be inputted into a spreadsheet for auto-
matic calculation. Note that the function N(parameter) used in the Black-Scholes
formula is mathematical notation for the cumulative normal distribution function.
It can be represented in Excel using the following formula
=NORMDIST(parameter,0,1,TRUE).
Appendix B
The Black-Scholes
Formula
30
To use the Black-Scholes method, we simply enter the properties of an option into
the appropriate formula. For example, say a call option has the following proper-
ties:
The underlying security is worth $50. (S = $50).
The exercise price is $40 (X = $40).
The risk free rate is 5%. (r = 0.05).
The dividend yield is 3%. (q = 0.03).
The cost of carry is 2% (b = r q = 0.05 - 0.03 = 0.02).
The option has a maturity of 5 years (T = 5).
The volatility () of the underlying stock is 30%. ( = 0.3).
e is a constant equal to 2.7183.
We can then calculate the Black-Scholes value of this option:
8171 . 0
6708 . 0
3250 . 0 2231 . 0
6708 . 0
.3250 0 ) (1.25 ln
5 3 . 0
5 )
2
0.3
(0.02 )
40
50
( ln
d
2
1
=
+
=
+
=
+ +
=
1463 . 0 6708 . 0 8171 . 0 5 3 . 0 8171 . 0 T d d
1 2
= = = =
7931 . 0 ) 8171 . 0 ( N ) N(d
1
= =
5582 . 0 ) 1463 . 0 ( N ) N(d
2
= =
( )
74 . 16 $ 17.39 - 34.13 .5582 0 e 40 7931 . 0 e 50 Call of Value
5 -0.05 5 0.05 - 0.02
= = =
Note that while the option can be immediately exercised for a gain of $10by
paying $40 to exercise an option and receiving a share worth $50the option will
trade in the marketplace at $16.74. This higher value comes from the time value
of the optionthat is, from the possibility that the stock may be worth even more
than $50 before the option expires in five years.
A spreadsheet with the Black-Scholes call and put option pricing models can be
obtained from the authors upon request.
Using the Black-
Scholes Formula
Spreadsheet
31
WHY EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTIONS ARE WARRANTS AND PUT
WARRANTS ARE OPTIONSAND WHY THAT MATTERS
Common stock investors often use the terms options and warrants inter-
changeably. If a distinction is made, warrants are typically described as having a
longer life than options. This distinction is generally valid. However, options and
warrants differ in another important aspect that gives them different market values.
This difference can best be explained with a simple example. When an investor
purchases an option on, say, a share of Intel from the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, it represents the temporary right to buy that stock at a certain fixed
price from someone who currently owns that existing share. If the investor decides
to exercise the option, the amount of the fixed price will go to the owner of that
share of Intel, and ownership of that share will change hands. Note that this in no
way changes either the value of Intel or number of Intel shares outstanding.
A warrant is subtly different. The investor who purchases a similar warrant
from a company obtains the temporary right to pay a fixed price to own a share
that does not currently exist. The difference is that, unlike an option, warrants
are issued not by an independent third party, but by the company itself. Thus, if
the investor exercises an Intel warrant, the company itself receives the proceeds
of the exercise price, and issues a new share in return. The exercise of a warrant,
then, has two effects that the exercise of an option does not:
1. It raises value the value of the company by the amount of the exercise price,
and
2. It lowers the value per share by increasing the number of outstanding shares.
The net effect of (1) and (2) will always result in a lower value for the warrant
than for a similar option with the same terms and condition. Indeed, warrant ex-
perts have derived a mathematical formula defining the relationship between a
warrant and its option equivalent:
36
" Equivalent Option " of Value x
shares of Number
warrants of Number
1
1
Value Warrant
+
=
Appendix C
The Difference
between Options
and Warrants
32
In the Glossary, we offer the following definition of an ESO:
An employee stock option gives an employee the temporary rightbut not
the obligationto exchange a fixed amount of money for a newly issued
share of his companys stock, no matter how high that stocks share price
becomes (italics added).
An ESO, then, is clearly a warrant because exercising an ESO causes (1) the value
of the firm to increase by the amount of the exercise price and (2) the firm to issue
a new share to the employee. Thus, when valuing ESOs, we should calculate the
value of its option equivalent, and then multiple it by the warrant conversion
factor described in the equation above. Not doing so will result in an overstate-
ment of the ESOs value.
Companies such as Microsoft and Dell routinely sell so-called put warrants to
third parties, which provide a partial hedge against share price appreciation. In
exchange for a premium for the sale of the put warrantwhich under current laws
is tax-free corporate incomethe company assumes a liability.
37
Specifically, the
owner of a put warrant can sell a share of stock back to the company at the war-
rants exercise priceno matter how low the underlying stocks market price falls.
In this scenario, the company buys a share of stock from the owner of a put war-
rant. This is the opposite of a traditional warrant, in which the company issues a
new share.
Thus, the word warrant in put warrant simply reflects the fact that the com-
pany is one of the counterparties in the transactionand does not imply that we
need to adjust the calculated Black-Scholes value for possible dilution resulting
from share issuance. Indeed, the value of a put warrant liability is simply the cal-
culated Black-Scholes value of a regular put option. As with ESOs, put warrants
represent an economic liability that must be subtracted from corporate value be-
fore calculating shareholder value.
Why an ESO Is
Really a Warrant
Why a Put Warrant is
Really a Put Option
33
A RECIPE FOR VALUING OUTSTANDING STOCK OPTIONS
We can value the economic liability created by outstanding stock options for any
U.S. company. In order to perform this analysis, we need to estimate a number of
parameters. This Appendix walks through this calculation, using Microsoft as a
case study.
The first step in this analysis is to value the ESOs using the Black-Scholes option
pricing method (see Appendix A and B for more information on this model). The
company gives us detailed information on options in five trancheseach with its
own range of exercise prices. To calculate the Black-Scholes value, we must com-
bine this information with our estimates of the following six parameters for each
tranche:
1. Stock price: Microsoft closed at 105
7
/16 on October 27, 1998.
2. Weighted average exercise price. The annual report and 10-K SEC filing give
this information for each tranche of outstanding options.
3. Expected life of option. Microsoft reports the remaining life (in years) for
each tranche of outstanding options. We use this number to value the companys
ESOs; using the usually shorter vesting period of options will result in under-
stating the options value.
4. Risk-free rate. The appropriate risk-free rate is the rate associated with the
risk-free zero-coupon security with the same maturity as the option. The preferra-
ble choice is to obtain this information from a data vendor such as Bloomberg for
each tranche.
38
Another common practice is to use the risk-free rate assumed by the company.
While this may be an acceptable shortcut, it will tend to understate the value of
ESOs when rates drop or if the company picks a lower risk-free rate than is ap-
propriate.
5. Volatility (). This parameter refers to the expected volatilitytechnically, the
standard deviationof the underlying stock. Investors can use one of three ap-
proaches to estimate this parameter.
First, the company discloses its own estimate of the volatility that it uses to
value annual stock option grants. As with risk-free rates, companies have an in-
centive to choose a lower volatility level, so using a companys estimate may result
in understating the value of outstanding options.
The second approach is to use the stocks historical volatility levels as a proxy
for expected volatility. A rule of thumb is to measure the volatility over the same
number of historical days as the options expected life. Thus, to estimate the vola-
tility of a one-year option, use the historical volatility of the stock over the last
year.
The final approach is to impute the volatility embedded in a listed option with
terms similar to that of the option that is being valued. This is accomplished by
entering the market price of an option as an input into the Black-Scholes formula,
along with the four non-volatility inputs, and then imputing what the market ex-
pects the volatility to be. This is the most computation-intensive approach, but is
likely to provide the most accurate answer.
Appendix D
34
Dividend yield (q). This equals next years expected dividend per share divided
by the share price. Note that this assumes that the company has a constant divi-
dend yield over the options life. Alternatively, this assumption can be relaxed by
assuming the dividend yield is zero and lowering the stock price by the present
value of future dividend payments expected during the life of the option.
Using these six inputs, we can calculate the value of each tranche of Microsofts
employee stock options.
To illustrate this methodology, the remainder of this Appendix will focus on how
to value Microsofts most recently issued tranche of outstanding ESOs, with exer-
cise prices between $59.61 and $87.25.
There are four main steps:
1. Black-Scholes valuation. Microsofts 10-K filing shows that the company had
approximately 61 million of these ESOs outstanding. The company also discloses
the inputs it uses to calculate the Black-Scholes value of its annual option grants.
For the purposes of this exercise, we have valued Microsofts outstanding ESOs
using these same estimates (see Table 9).
Table 9
Characteristics of Microsofts ESOs with Exercise Prices between $59.61 and $87.25, FY98
Range of
Exercise Prices
Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
Expected Life of
Option
Risk Free
Rate
Volatility
() )
Dividend
Yield
Value of Call
Option
Equivalent
59.61 - 87.25 64.00 $ 6.5 5.7% 32.0% 0.0% 65.58 $
The Black-Scholes formula tells us that a call option with these characteristics has
a value of $65.58. At first glance, it seems we should multiply this value times the
number of outstanding warrants and have our answer. However, we must make a
number of potentially major adjustments:
2. Employees leaving before their options vest. Most firms use ESOs as a tool to
retain valuable employees. Thus, options are typically structured so that an em-
ployee who leaves the firm has to forfeit any unvested options. While losing a
valuable employee does not help a company, shareholders do benefit in part from
this forfeiture. To value this effect, we estimate how long each option tranche has
before it becomes fully vested. Then, using our estimate of how frequently employ-
ees leave the firm, we estimate how many of the ESOs in a particular tranche will
exist at expiration date. We then multiply this numberthe expected number of
options at expiration dateby the companys estimate of each options Black-
Scholes value to get a preliminary estimate of those ESOs value.
We applied this technique to our case study of Microsofts ESOs with exercise
prices between $59.61 and $87.25. These ESOs have an expected life of 6.5 years.
Our next step is to estimate the vesting period of the typical Microsoft option.
35
Microsofts Annual Report states that:
Options granted during and after 1995 generally vest over four and one-
half years and expire seven years from the date of grant, while certain op-
tions vest over seven and one-half years and expire after ten years.
This estimate tends to be somewhat subjective, as the company gives us a range of
between 4 to 7 years for the vesting schedule of its ESOs. We would lean to-
ward the lower end of the range at five years since the text implies that the major-
ity of the options are of the kind that vest in 4 years. Using this estimate, and
assuming that most options expire in 10 years, only an option that has less than 5
years to expiration will be fully vested. Thus, we can infer that these options with
a 6
1
/2 year contractual life have 1
1
/2 years before they will be fully vested.
The next step is to estimate the number of options that Microsoft employees forfeit
annually. Fortunately, Microsoft discloses the number of options outstanding,
along with annual option grants, cancellations, and exercises. Using this informa-
tion, we can divide the number of options cancelled annually by the balance of op-
tions at the beginning of the year to calculate what we call the option churn rate
(see Table 11).
Table 11
Estimate of Microsofts Annual Option Churn
Year
Number of
Options
Annual
Cancellations
Option Churn
Rate
June-94 456 18 3.9%
June-95 456 14 3.1%
June-96 476 18 3.8%
June-97 478 13 2.7%
Average 3.4%
We can see that Microsoft employees typically forfeit between 2.7% and 3.9% of
total outstanding options annually. Taking a simple average of this tight range, we
arrive at a estimate of approximately 3.4% for Microsofts annual option churn. In
the absence of an option reloadin which management cancels all options with
exercise prices above a certain price and replaces them with options with a lower
exercise pricewe can use this number as a proxy for the percentage of options
cancelled annually.
We can then use this estimate to infer how many of these options will actually exist
when they become fully vested. To do this, we use the following formula:
( )
vesting until Years
Rate Churn - 100% x Options Actual Expected Options Vested =
We can apply this formula to our tranche of options:
( ) ( ) 57.9 96.6% x 61 3.4% - 100% x 61 Expected Options Vested
1.5 years 1.5
= = =
36
With a Black-Scholes value of $65.58 per option, we estimate that the tranche has
an expected pretax option equivalent value of $3.985 billion. Thus, the estimated
churn reduces the value of the tranche by approximately 5%.
3. Dilutive effect of employee stock options. As we discussed in Appendix C, an
ESO will always be worth slightly less than its option equivalenta regular op-
tion with similar characteristics. This is because an ESO forces the company to
issue a dilutive share. Option experts have derived a formula to calculate this ef-
fect:
shares of Number
ESOs of Number
1
1
Value ESO
+
=
We can use the warrant conversion factor to calculate just how much each ESO
is worth. First, however, we need to estimate the dilution that occurs when em-
ployees exercise the options in each tranche of ESOs. Indeed, for this tranche of
options, we need to calculate how many shares will exist when employees exercise
all vested options with lower exercise prices (see Table 12).
Table 12
Dilution fromExercise of Vested Options
Range of
Exercise Prices
Estimated
Number of
Options at
Vesting Period
End
Number of
Basic Shares
$1.12 - $8.50 85 2,432
8.51 - 11.94 100 2,517
11.95 - 27.25 97 2,617
27.26 - 59.60 98 2,714
59.61 - 87.25 61 2,812
If employees exercise all ESOs with lower exercise prices, 2.812 billion shares will
be outstanding. Since there are 61 million ESOs expected to be fully vested, we
can use these two numbers to infer the warrant conversion factor and value how
much the ESOs will actually be worth:
$64.21 $65.58 x 97.9% $65.58 x
billion 2.812
million 61
1
1
Value ESO = =
+
=
Each ESO is worth only 97.9% of the calculated Black-Scholes value of $65.58,
or $64.21. Thus, the unadjusted value of this warrant tranche is 61 million ESOs
times $64.21, or approximately $3.9 billion (see Table 13).
37
Table 13
Pre-Tax Value of Microsofts ESOs with Exercise Prices between $59.61 and 87.25, FY98
Range of
Exercise Prices
Value of Call
Option
Equivalent
Estimated
Number of
Options at
Vesting Period
End
Fair Market
Value Of
Each Warrant
Expected Pre-Tax
ESO Value
59.61 - 87.25 65.58 $ 61 64.20 $ 3,901 $
4. Tax deductibility of an ESOs intrinsic value at exercise date. Finally, we
must take into account the benefit that the company will reap from tax savings.
The IRS allows companies to deduct the intrinsic value of any option from pretax
income during the year in which the employee owner of that ESO exercises it. This
lowers the cost of the option to the company by the calculated Black-Scholes value
times the marginal tax rate. Thus, to calculate the expected after-tax value of Mi-
crosofts options, we multiply the expected pretax ESO value by the quantity one
minus 35%. This reduces the value of this tranche from $3.9 billion to $2.5 billion.
If we repeat this exercise for all five tranches of Microsofts ESOs, we come up
with a total expected after-tax value of approximately $22.1 billion.
38
A RECIPE FOR VALUING ANNUAL STOCK OPTION GRANTS
The disclosures mandated by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
(SFAS) 123 allow us calculate the value of annual stock option grants. This Ap-
pendix details the specific steps needed to perform this analysis. Continuing our
case study of Microsoft, this Appendix applies our methodology to value Micro-
softs annual stock option grants. Because this analysis has many similarities to
the valuation of outstanding ESOs, it may be helpful to first read Appendix D.
1. Black-Scholes valuation. SFAS 123 requires that every company calculate the
Black-Scholes per-option value of its annual stock option grants since 1995. It also
requires disclosure of the inputs into the Black-Scholes formula. As a good corpo-
rate citizen, Microsoft also discloses this information. For example, in its 1998 10-
K SEC filing, Microsoft states that its 1998 annual stock option grant had a
Black-Scholes per-option value of $23.62.
As with outstanding options, we can use disclosed information with several as-
sumptions to calculate the Black-Scholes value of option grants (see Appendix B).
Because we are going along with Microsofts assumptions here, we can accept the
companys valuation of its annual stock option grants.
2. Employees leaving before their options vest. In Appendix D, we estimated
that Microsoft employees tend to forfeit about 3.4% of outstanding options annu-
ally. Applying this churn rate to the number of ESOs granted annually, we can
estimate how many options we expect will actually exist when they become fully
vested. Using our estimate of a five-year vesting period and 10-year option life, we
follow the same method as outlined in Appendix D to arrive at the following esti-
mates:
Table 14
Microsofts Estimated Number of ESOs Expected at Vesting Period End, 1995-98
in millions
Year
Number of
Options Granted
Estimate of
Annual Employee
Churn
Vesting
Period of
Granted
Options
Estimated
Number of
Options at
Vesting Period
End
1998 69 3.4% 5 58
1997 110 3.4% 5 92
1996 114 3.4% 5 95
1995 88 3.4% 5 74
3. Dilutive effect of employee stock options. Next, we estimate the dilutive ef-
fects of the annual ESO option grants, following the same procedure as outlined in
Appendix D. To do this, we must calculate the warrant conversion factor for-
mula:
shares of Number
ESOs of Number
1
1
Value ESO
+
=
Appendix E
Estimating the Value
of Historical Annual
Stock Option Grants
39
The only major change is that we must estimate the number of shares that will ex-
ist when employees exercise a particular years ESOs. For example, looking at the
1998 ESO grants, we must assume that all outstanding options will be exercised
before the employees exercise the ESOs freshly granted in 1998. After employees
exercise all 441 million of the ESOs expected to be vested and exercised, the ex-
pected share count will rise from the basic share count of 2.432 billion to 2.873
billion. With 58 million options from the 1998 grant expected to be vested, we can
calculate the warrant conversion factor for 1998:
98.0%
billion 2.873
million 58
1
1
factor conversion Warrant =
+
=
With a Black-Scholes calculated option equivalent value of $23.62, this trans-
lates into an expected pretax ESO value of $23.62 times 98.0%, or $23.15 per
ESO.
4. Tax deductibility of an ESOs intrinsic value at exercise date. Finally, we
adjust this value for the tax deductibility of the ESOs intrinsic value at exercise.
This lowers the cost of the option to the company by the amount of the marginal
tax rate. At a tax rate of 35%, this translates into a value of $23.15 times 65%, or
$15.05. With 58 million options expected to be vested, we can value the after-tax
value expected economic value of the 1998 option grant at 58 million times
$15.05, or $872.9 million.
Repeating this exercise for past years, we arrive at the following estimates for the
value of the grants from 1995 to 1998:
Table 15
Microsofts Expected After-Tax Economic Value Imparted to Employees, 1995-98
in millions
Year
Weighted
Average Black-
Scholes Value
Estimated
Number of
Options at
Vesting Period
End
Warrant
Conversion
Factor
[1/(1+q)]
Marginal
Tax Rate
Expected After-Tax
Economic Value
Imparted to
Employees
1998 23.62 $ 58 98% 35% 873 $
1997 11.72 $ 93 98% 35% 690 $
1996 8.86 $ 96 98% 35% 541 $
1995 5.23 $ 74 98% 35% 247 $
Note: These calculations assume that Microsofts warrant conversion factor from 1995 to 1997 equals the 1998 level.
After estimating the historical cost of annual ESO grants, we can then attempt to
place a value on future annual ESO grants. This estimate depends on many fac-
tors, such as changes in business fundamentals, trend analysis, and the scalability
of a companys business model.
To estimate Microsofts future annual ESO grants, we first analyzed the com-
panys historical option cost as a percent of revenuesincluding both revenues
and changes in deferred revenues. Over the last four fiscal years, this percentage
was fairly stable between 4.1% and 5.6% (see Table 16).
Estimating the Value
of Future Annual
Stock Option Grants
40
Table 16
Microsofts After-Tax Option Cost as a Percent of Sales, 1995-98
in millions
Year Revenue
Expected After-
Tax Economic
Value Imparted
to Employees
Option Cost as a
Percent of Sales
1998 17,752 $ 873 $ 4.9%
1997 12,959 $ 690 $ 5.3%
1996 9,654 $ 541 $ 5.6%
1995 6,006 $ 247 $ 4.1%
If we assume that Microsofts after-tax ESO cost will continue at approximately
5.0% of sales, we can apply this percentage to our forecast of future sales to arrive
at an annual estimate of ESOs going forward.
Table 17
Microsofts Adjusted NOPAT and FCF Calculation, 1999-2002
in millions
Year 1999E 2000E 2001E 2002E
Revenues 17, 500 21, 613 26, 691 32, 297
NOPAT 6, 319 7, 476 8, 876 10, 755
Est i mat ed Af t er-Tax Opt i on Cost 875 1, 081 1, 335 1, 615
Adj ust ed NOPAT 5, 444 6, 395 7, 541 9, 140
I nvest ment 550 520 520 1, 079
Adj ust ed FCF 4, 894 5, 875 7, 021 8, 061
Note: Revenues include changes in deferred revenues.
Source: Value Line Forecasts, SEC filings, and CSFBC analysis.
41
THE IRS AND EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION TAXATION
To understand the cash economics of stock options, we must understand how the
government taxes options. This Appendix explains the relevant U.S. Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) regulations on stock option taxation, and how those regu-
lations affect shareholder value.
39
The government takes the simplest approach possible to options: the IRS will take
note of an option as a taxable event only if it can be clearly valued. For example, if
the company grants an ESO with an intrinsic value below the price of the under-
lying stock, the employee will have to recognize the difference as gross income to
be taxed at the ordinary tax rate. However, since most companies grant at-the-
money ESOs, the IRS usually does not tax the option at all at the grant date, even
when it has considerable economic value.
The IRS will then wait until an employee exercises an option before noting it as a
taxable event. Only then does the employee have to recognize the intrinsic value of
the optionthe difference between the market value of the underlying share and
the exercise price of the optionas ordinary income.
40
The IRS has a symmetrical policy toward employers: during the same year in
which an employee recognizes ESO-related gross income, the employer can deduct
the same amount from its taxable income.
41
Table 18
Chronology of Taxable Events Related to Option Grant and Exercise
ESO Granted ESO Exercised Stock Sold
Employer Difference between market
price and ESOs exercise
price deducted from tax-
able income in that year
ESOs intrinsic
value deducted from
taxable income in
that year
Nothing
happens
Employee Difference between market
price and ESOs exercise
price added to gross in-
come in that year
ESOs intrinsic
value added to gross
income in that year
Employee
pays normal
capital gains
tax
Source: Section 83 of the United States Internal Revenue Code.
We advocate that investor subtract the cost of an ESOas calculated by the
Black-Scholes methodfrom net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT). It is im-
portant, however, to account properly for the tax deductibility of the intrinsic value
of the option upon exercise.
The question of the tax treatment of options can be answered by adopting the bi-
nomial option pricing model, outlined by Cox, Ross, and Rubinstein in a classic
1979 paper.
42
This method demonstrates that the after-tax cost of an ESO to the
issuing firm will equal the calculated Black-Scholes value times the quanity one
minus the marginal tax rate.
43
We have followed this approach through this paper.
Appendix F
42
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Agency Costs are the costssuch as the wasting of free cash flow on value-
destructive projects and perquisitesthat would be avoided if managers properly
acted as the agents of shareholders.
An American option can be exercised at any time during the options life. This
makes it more valuable than a European option that can be exercised only at the
end of the options life.
Asymmetric information occurs when one party in a contract has more knowledge
than its counterparties. Economists often use asymmetric information as a
euphemism for inside information.
An at-the-money option is an option that has an exercise price exactly equal to the
market price of the underlying stock.
The Cumulative Abnormal Return (CAR) is the cumulative risk-weighted outper-
formance or underperformance of a stock during a certain period surrounding an
event.
An employee stock option (ESO) gives an employee the temporary rightbut not
the obligationto exchange a fixed amount of moneycalled the exercise
pricefor a newly issued share of a companys stock, no matter how high that
stocks share price becomes.
A European option can be exercised only at the end of the options life. This
makes it less valuable than an American option that can be exercised at any time
during the options life.
An in-the-money option refers to an option that can immediately be profitably ex-
ercised because its exercise price is below the market price of the underlying stock.
A deep in-the-money option has an exercise price that is significantly above the
market price of the underlying stock.
An out-of-the-money (also called an underwater or premium strike price) option
refers to an option that cannot be immediately exercised at a profit because its ex-
ercise price is above the current stocks market price. A deep out-of-the-money
option has an exercise price that is significantly below the market price of the un-
derlying stock.
An options intrinsic value equals the profit that would be realized if an employee
immediately exercised it. It is the difference between the underlying stocks market
price and the exercise price of the option.
An options time valueequals the value of an option associated with the possibility
of future price appreciation. It is the difference between an options total value and
its intrinsic value.
An option repricing or reload occurs when a company lowers the exercise price of
its ESOs, usually to the current market price of the stock.
An ESO vests when its owner becomes legally able to exercise the potentially
valuable option. An employee typically loses all unvested ESOs upon leaving a
firm.
Appendix G
43
44

1
In this paper, we generally use the word option to refer to call options, which give its owner the temporary right to buy a
security at a fixed price. A call option increases in value when the value of its underlying stock goes up. The other major type of
option is the put option, which gives its owner the temporary right to sell a security at a fixed price. A put option increases in
value only when the price of that stock falls. Call options are the most often used securities in equity-linked executive stock op-
tion packages. Indeed, most countries severely restrict an executives ability to purchase put options on the companies for which
they work.
2
Brian Arthur, Increasing Returns and the New World of Business, Harvard Business Review 74 (July-August 1996): 103.
3
Karl Marx, Das Kapital, A Critique of Political Economy (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 1996): 347.
4
The exemplar of this school of thought is Frederick Taylors Scientific Management, which proposed that managers do all the
thinking and the workers continually repeat tasks at their assembly line workstations. Indeed, Taylorism recommended that
managers use time and motion studies to time employees at their tasks and assure that they were arranged in the most efficient
manner. Robert Kanigel, The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency (New York: Viking Press,
1997).
5
Note that the lack of government anti-monopoly laws and enforcement and the lack of a personal income tax greatly tilted the
rankings towards Industrial Revolution-era businessmen. Michael Klepper and Robert Gunther, The Wealthy 100, (Carol Pub-
lishing Group, 1996).
6
Reflections on Jared Diamonds Talk; Bill Gates on Jared Diamond's Why Did Human History Unfold Differently on Differ-
ent Continents for the Last 13,000 Years? Submitted: 4-15-98. http://www.edge.org/discourse/index.cgi?OPTION=VIEW&
THREAD=jared-diamond/5-12-97/reflectionsondiamond.
7
We inferred this amount using a simple calculation. Microsoft reported that it enjoyed a tax break of $1.553 billion in 1998
owing to stock option income taxes benefits. Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code states that an employer can deduct the
intrinsic value of options in the year in which an employee exercises the option. Using the companys reported tax rate of 35%,
we can divide $1.553 billion by 0.35 to infer that employees exercised options with a cumulative intrinsic value of $4.437 billion
in 1998. We then divide this amount by the number of Microsoft full-time employees27,055 people on June 30, 1998to infer
the per employee value of ESOs. Note that this calculation will only give us the intrinsic value of so-called Non-Statutory ESOs.
If the company granted its ESOs in the form of so-called Incentive Stock Options (ISOs)which are a form of non-tax-deductible
ESOsour estimate would be understated.
8
Brian J. Hall and Jeffrey B. Liebman, Are CEOs Really Paid Like Bureaucrats? National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Paper 6213 (October 1997).
9
The Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 created this restriction by adding Section 162(m) to the Internal Revenue Code.
10
Financial Accounting Standards Board, Financial Interpretation Number 28, Accounting for Stock Appreciation Rights and
Other Variable Stock Option or Award Plans, An Interpretation of Accounting Principles Board Opinions No. 15 and 25.
11
Pearl Meyer & Partners.
12
In our experience, it is extremely difficult to determine if a company is timing its use of ESOs to inflate reported earnings.
Since option grants often are not reported until SEC filings require disclosure three months after the close of the fiscal year, a
company could use ESOs to make one more quarter with relative ease.
13
Michael C. Jensen, Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers, American Economic Review 76, no.
2 (1980): 323-329.
14
David Yermack, Good Timing: CEO Stock Option Awards and Company News Announcements, Journal of Finance 52, no.
2, (June 1997): 449-476.
15
Mean cumulative abnormal stock returns (CARs) for Fortune 500 companies awarding stock options to their CEOs between
1992 and 1994. CARs are calculated for an event period around the dates of 620 CEO stock option awards.
16
This approach was outlined by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in two of its official accounting rulings, the
Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) 128, Earnings Per Share (1997), and Accounting Principal Board (APB)
Opinion 25, Accounting for Stock Issued for Employees (1972).
17
To avoid confusion, note that basic and diluted earnings per share calculation outlined by SFAS 128 represents a change
from the treasury stock method prescribed by APB Opinion 15 (1971).
18
To be precise, SFAS 128 assumes that all in-the-money options will be exercised.
19
SFAS 128 specifies that net income should be adjusted when accounting for dilution of equity from the assumed conversion of
convertible bonds. Specifically, the interest expense from convertible bonds should be added back to net income when conversion
of the bonds into common shares is assumed.
20
To be specific, the company is allowed to amortize the after-tax cost of an ESOas valued by the Black-Scholes methodover
the vesting period of the option.
21
Gretchen Morgenson, Stock Options Are Not a Free Lunch, Fortune Magazine, 216.
22
Even SFAS 123, however, does not mandate quarterly disclosures of the pro forma effects of option costs.
45

23
Because ESOs eventually convert into shares, the value of outstanding ESOs cannot be greater than the value of ordinary eq-
uity. However, if there are enough ESOs, the value of currently outstanding shares can approach zero.
24
Berkshire Hathaways Interview with Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger, Outstanding Investor Digest 13, No. 3 and 4,
(September 24, 1998): 1, 36-57.
25
Since companies only calculate and report the value of annual ESO grants from fiscal year 1995 to the present, we estimated
the cost of Microsofts annual ESO grants as 5% of sales in 1993 and 1994 for this calculation.
26
Gretchen Morgenson, Trimming Stock Options Sails. New York Times.
27
P. Jane Saly. Repricing Executive Stock Options in a Down Market, Journal of Accounting & Economics 18 (1994): 325-
356.
28
Don Chance, Raman Kumar and Rebecca Todd, The Repricing of Executive Stock Options, Virginia Polytechnical Insti-
tute Working Paper Series 97-1 (March 27, 1998).
29
Professors Chance, Kumar, and Todd value a repriceable option by modeling it as a combination of a down-and-out and a
down-and-in strike-step options. A down-and-out strike-step option is an option that terminates with no value upon the un-
derlying stock hitting a value that is a certain percentage less than the exercise price. A down-and-out strike-step option is an
option that springs to life only if the underlying stock hits a value that is a certain percentage less than the exercise price.
30
Financial Accounting Standards Board. Emerging Issues Task Force 87-33.
31
Gretchen Morgenson, Trimming Stock Options Sails. New York Times.
32
Black, F., and M. Scholes (1973): The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities, Journal of Political Economy, 81, 637-
654.

33
Espen Gaarder Haug. The Complete Guide to Option Pricing Formulas. (New York: McGraw-Hill 1998): 3.

34
Robert Merton, Theory of Rational Option Pricing, Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 4, (1973):141-183.

35
For a clear exposition of the derivation of the Black-Scholes formula, see John Hull. Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives,
3
rd
ed. (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1998): 237-239.
36
Richard Brealey and Stewart Myers, Principles of Corporate Finance, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996), 621.
37
Jeffrey M. Laderman, Share Buybacks That Pay Back in Spades, Business Week (February 23, 1998).
38
For example, to use Bloomberg to obtain the yield of a zero-coupon Treasury Bill expiring in a year, type B mm <GOVT>
and hit the <GO> button. Note that mm stands for the month of the T-bills expiration.
39
This Appendix represents our understanding of Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code, which governs the taxation of Non-
Statutory Options. However, please obtain independent tax advice before acting on any information in this Appendix.
40
If the employee keeps the shares obtained by exercising his option, the IRS will tax any capital gains on the eventual sale of
those shares assuming a tax basis equal to the market price at option exercise.
41
To be specific, the employers fiscal year must include the last day of the employees fiscal year. Note also that since the option
is taxed at the exercise date (and not the grant date), the options time value at the date of grant is irrelevant.
42
The Cox-Ross-Rubinstein binomial option pricing model was outlined in J. C. Cox, S. A. Ross, and M. Rubinstein, Option
Pricing: A Simplified Approach, Journal of Financial Economics 7 (1979): 229-263. This model is flexible enough to value
both American and European options, although it is computationally intensive.
43
This demonstration is available from the authors upon request.

A Piece of The Action - Employee Stock Options in The New Economy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Piece of The Action - Employee Stock Options in The New Economy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Piece of The Action - Employee Stock Options in The New Economy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON CORPORATION

You might also like