Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SAJ
Take a company. On July 15th, it has no outstanding executive options. Its share price is $20. On July 16th, it issues EOs to the extent of 100,000 shares, exercisable at $40 within five years.

This is not the way ISO's or NQSO's are granted or work.

There is no 'exercise price' written into the grant. The exercise price is whatever the stock trades at on the day the option is exercised, as per the vesting schedule and the holder's decision to exercise. Depending on the option type, the exercise price affects the companies tax position. Also, depending on option type, both the exercise price and the sale price (if and only if stock is also sold) affects the individuals tax position.

Other 'performance clauses' may exist in employment contracts that peg compensation to stock price, e.g. 'bonus of additional 1M shares when stock price exceeds $40 for a 1 year period'...but again that is not part of a stock option.

ISO's and NQSO's have a only grant price which must be within 85% of the FMV on the day the option is granted. The exercise price floats with the market but years into the future as per the vesting schedule. That's why they can't be reliably estimated.

If the future FMV of a stock could be reliably estimated for accounting purposes, we'd all get rich 'knowing' what the future price of any given stock would be. But it can't and we won't.

90 posted on 07/21/2002 4:29:00 AM PDT by Starwind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]


To: Starwind
Thanks for the clarification. I'd erroneously assumed that NQs were functionally identical to 'standard' securities options. One statement is puzzling, though.


The exercise price is whatever the stock trades at on the day the option is exercised, as per the vesting schedule and the holder's decision to exercise.

If this is so, how can a granted option ever be 'wnderwater'? Why would repricing ever be an issue, if the exercise price floats?

Also, if the exercise price (once the option has vested, of course) is indeed the market price on the day the holder exercises, the holder who intended to own the stock, as opposed to flipping it, would in fact be rooting for the share price to FALL while he held the option(s). A rather perverse incentive, wouldn't yuo say? Would you please clarify here, because something doesn't smell quite right.

94 posted on 07/21/2002 9:18:18 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson