Consequences Of Stock Options

Compensation systems can take on many forms, all of which have positives and negatives related to it. However, certain components are noted to be determinants of solid compensation plans. One agreement of a solid compensation system is the use of incentives. “Clearly a successful companies set objectives that will provide incentives to increase profitability” (Needles & Powers, 2011). Incentive bonuses should be measures that the company finds important to long-term growth. According to Needles & Powers (2011) the most successful companies long term focused on profitability measures. For large for-profit firms, compensation programs should offer stock options. The interweaving between the market value of a company’s stock and company’s performance both motivate and increase compensation to employees As the market value of the stock goes up, the difference between the option price and the market price grows, which increases the amount of compensation” (Needles & Powers, 2011). Conclusively, a compensation plan should serve all stakeholders, be simple, group employees properly, reflect company culture and values, and be flexible (Davis & Hardy, 1999; The Basics of a Compensation Program).

Such an intense focus has been placed on quarterly earnings as an indication of a company’s success by everyone from analysts to executives that ethics have for the most part been thrown out the window, sacrificed to the all important number, i.e. earnings per share. This is the theory in Alex Berenson’s book “The Number: How the Drive for Quarterly Earnings Corrupted Wall Street and Corporate America.” This number has become part of a game to be played, a figure to be manipulated – beat the number and Wall Street all but throws a parade, miss it and a company’s stock may be abandoned. Take into account the incentives that executives have to beat the number and one can find plenty of reasons to manage earnings.

As Director of Human Resources for Wilson Bros, the conclusions that I draw with respect to the status of the company’s compensation strategies is that they lack security for their employee’s compensation and lack flexibility to the changing economy, competitive environment, and growing organizational needs.

7. Option compensation will continue to be a critical component of compensation for executives as it simplistically aligns the executives’ pay to shareholder value in its simplest sense. I don’t believe that options compensation is the primary driver of behavior when things shift from the legal to the illegal. As with most senior executives in industry, ego is a huge driver in individual behavior. Compensation is important, but the recognition of your performance is sometimes even more important. We have created a performance driven culture without the necessary control framework for people to operate within. One minute you are doing a great job, the next you have crossed an imaginary line. The frameworks don’t do enough to quantify behavior as legal and illegal leaving inconsistent rules for organizations to operate within. How does Enron compare to the subprime mortgage debacle, or to Steve Jobs backdating options. There remains too much room for interpretation.

However, there have been many cases where the CEO and executive officers receive outrageous compensation even when the companies suffer. Overall, there is a wide disconnect between the incentive of the executives and the financial performance of their company, which needs to be fixed. By passing regulations and rules such as the Dodd-Frank Act, there is hope of shedding light on the connection between the company’s performance and the executives pay. Although it will provide a clear insight, it will not be able to set a strict regulated compensation or define what an executive should earn. Instead regulations will allow for more transparency for the shareholders regarding corporate governance issues such as executive pay. Along with that, it will force companies to take accountability for their actions. If they do poorly, then the executives should be paid less, and vice versa. Overall, there should be a direct alignment between executive pay and the company’s

Is it in the workers’ best interest to unionize? As part of their retention and benefit plan, many companies offer stock options. Do stock option plans for unionized companies perform better than for non-unionized companies? This question will be answered by a study authored by representatives of Rutgers University and New York Institute of Technology. Do the proposed union rules by The National Labor Relations Board and the Department of Labor help workers and support job creation? Two major components of the proposed legislation are snap elections and the formation of micro unions. According to James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation, these measures would undermine employees’ rights and discourage job creation. Data from a Hearing before

While these citizen protests and legislative actions could be an overreaction to a few isolated cases of executive compensation excess, the data suggests otherwise. According to the AFL-CIO (2013), executive pay has increased dramatically over the past several decades compared to worker compensation. In 1982, the pay ratio between executives and workers was 42:1, but by 2012 it had increased to 354:1. This 8.4-fold differential in compensation suggests that the productivity of executives has also increased 8.4-fold relative to productivity of workers. If executive pay is positively correlated with a firm's bottom line, then higher pay should predict success. Unfortunately, researchers have found the opposite to be true.

According to the case study, managers are undoubtedly conscious of the convincing indication that authorizes that companies stand to increase when they distribute their profits with personnel. Furthermore, the article demonstrates how managers are mindful of the disagreement that to interest favorably experienced workers, companies must offer bonuses like higher salaries and stock options. This study detonates the misunderstanding that fiscal incentives function too inversely across the corporate scale to be exchangeable to low-level employees. Through widespread examination of asset

The second compensation package was not well designed nor did it help define what the corporate strategy would be. For a second time the compensation package focused on maximizing shareholder’s wealth and didn’t take into consideration the stakeholder’s position at all. Dunlap’s package was deeply weighted in company options ($3.75M). In fact it was weighted heavier than before. The stock grants were

It was reasonable for a CEO’s compensation to increase as the company expanded and became a larger entity, and the newly-granted shares and increasing stock options further aligned the CEO’s personal interests with those of the company and shareholders. In this sense, the second compensation package was also well-structured and not excessive. Seeing Sunbeam’s revenue rising and stock price climbing steeply upwards, Sunbeam’s shareholders and directors were fully convinced by Dunlap’s leadership, so they might perceive the increase in compensation amount necessary to retain and better motivate Dunlap to enhance the company’s value. Nonetheless, they neglected the fact that the increased portion of the equity-based compensation also further motivated the CEO’s dangerous behaviors pertaining to improper earnings management.

Murray Compensation, Inc. (Murray), an SEC registrant that provides payroll processing and benefit administration services to other companies, granted 100,000 “at-the-money” employee share options on January 1, 2006. The awards have a grant-date fair value of $6, vest at the end of the third year of service (cliff-vesting), and have an exercise price of $21.

This report explores the issue of the pay that top executives make, and the reasons why they do. It also suggests improvements that can be made to make the system better. High Pay Seems Small When Compared To Company Profits Many companies pull in profits that are extremely high. When an employee of such a companies salary is compared to the amount of profit that the company earns, it starts to seem reasonable. It only makes sense that if the employee is directly responsible for the success of their company, then they deserve to get their payback. It seems ironic, but many salaries even look small once compared with a companies profits. Top Executives Are Under A Lot Of Pressure Being the CEO of a

Given the effect a CEO can have on a company's success, we can understand why their compensation packages

Stock options compensation may also lead to the market being deeply suspicious of the corporation. When top executives are paid in stock options compensation, they get huge compensation packages which are hidden away from public scrutiny. Furthermore, stock options also dilute shareholders. Management may also manipulate the market before the stock options grant date to get a better deal for themselves which would lead to excess volatility. Thus, having stock options compensation may lead to distrust

In 1993, the FASB created a standard that required companies to expense costs related to employee stock options – previously, those costs were not recorded as they allowed companies to avoid related income tax expenses. Many companies in the high-tech industry resented this decision as a significant portion of their employee compensation took the form of stock options, and the expensing of such compensation left them with much higher operating costs than in previous years. In response to this standard, these companies appealed to Congress in effort to halt the enactment of this rule. However, Warren Buffet, along with several large companies such as Coca-Cola and GE agreed with the FASB’s decision and lobbied in support of this issue. The standard was discussed again in 2002 with FASB’s attempt to converge with the IASB’s rule on the expensing of stock options. This created one of the largest issues in the FASB’s history, as it resulted in the FASB receiving over 14,000 comment letters – a record number of letters for a single proposal.