Employee Stock Options And Diluted Earnings Per Share

Abstract

At the time of this writing, SFAS No.123 (1995) prescribes GAAP in accounting for employee stock options. It allows firms to choose either the intrinsic or fair value method in determining the amount of compensation expense recognized for employee stock options. The choice of method affects the numerator of the earnings per share (EPS) calculation. The FASB recently issued a revised SFAS No. 123 (2004) which will require uniform application of the fair value method. GAAP also requires that the denominator for the diluted EPS calculation be increased for incremental shares under the treasury stock method. SFAS 128 requires the treasury stock method be applied where the proceeds from the assumed exercise of options are used to acquire shares of the firm’s outstanding stock at the average market price for the period. Previous to SFAS No. 128, APB Opinion No. 15 required that the higher of average or period ending stock price be used in determining the number of shares reacquired with the proceeds from the assumed exercise of stock options. This paper develops a simple one period model that assumes a risk free environment with complete certainty conditions in testing the accuracy of EPS calculated under GAAP using the fair value method vs. the intrinsic value method. The results indicate that EPS reported under the intrinsic value method are overstated, and further indicate that a combination of both the fair value method and the treasury stock method is needed in calculating diluted EPS. This fair value and treasury stock method combination is shown to not “double count” the stock option’s impact upon EPS. The results also indicate a slight misstatement of diluted EPS under the fair value method when applying the treasury stock method requirements of SFAS No. 128. Correct EPS results when shares are assumed reacquired for the treasury at the higher year ending price, consistent with superseded APB 15. However, the diluted EPS misstatement is so slight that the FASB’s rationale for always requiring the use of average period price seems likely to be justified. The findings of this research support the requirements of SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004) and SFAS No. 128.