Abstract
We examine if different stock option reporting formats affect bank loan officers' judgments and decisions. Three formats were used: (1) descriptive note of stock options plan only, (2) descriptive note that included a pro forma disclosure showing the impact of expensing the cost of stock options on net income, and (3) recognition of the stock options cost in the income statement. Our results show that loan officers estimated a higher risk rating and a more pessimistic trend rating, were less inclined to grant the loan, and charged a higher risk premium when the stock option expense was recognized in the income statement. Judgments and decisions did not significantly differ for the two methods of footnote disclosure, suggesting that loan officers are functionally fixated on reported earnings. Overall, our results support the FASB's claim that “disclosure is not an adequate substitute for recording.”
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
