Stock Market and Stock Option Plan

control over the company. Also, as we discussed in the cash option, share price will

To get a better handle on the options and the risks associated with them, the company estimates the severity of each event and calculates the level of risk (based on severity of the event and the probability of occurrence). The events are then ranked with those exhibiting the highest risks placed at the top of the list. Next, the source of high-risk events is investigated.

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).

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.

Since the impact of the compensation deduction that a corporation can claim for tax purposes is not included in a company's GAAP income, many take the view that using options enables the company to overstate its income.

In the last 10 years, Microsoft has had to make several changes to their benefit package in order attract and retain quality employees, guarantee the company’s long term success, and to more closely align the interests of the employees and shareholders (Microsoft). The first part of these changes came in 2003, when the company began offering Stock Awards. Employees are “awarded actual shares of stock as part of their compensation, rather than options to buy

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

b) ESOP’s: Incentives that allow the employees to buy the share of the firm they are working at lower rates which creates the sense of ownership.

Such decisions may affect the company’s profitability today but judging from the fact that high risk means low stock price and vice-versa, high return waits in the future.

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.

Most important, the employees can earn stock, which gives them voice within the company to make pertinent decisions.

For each share purchased with the employee’s own funds, a French bank would lend them funds to purchase nine additional shares (up to 500 shares total). Employees would then place all ten shares in the bank’s custody as collateral for the loan. Employees would be prohibited from selling the shares for 4.5 years except under unusual circumstances. The loan could be repaid at the end of 4.5 years either from the employee’s pocket or through sale of the shares. BT would guarantee employees a minimum of 1.25 times the money employees put up to purchase the shares. In exchange for this guarantee, BT would take 1/3 of any price appreciation at the end of 4.5 years over the public offer price of 150Ffr per share. In terms of financial contracts this would be a combination of options (employees’ option to sell stock after 4.5years) and futures (BT’s obligation to pay 1.25 times employees’ personal contribution). This alternative seems to be fair for employees in the case of price depreciation, because they will have a secure profit. If shares appreciate, they will earn 33.7% of return per share less than in A1, but will also earn it on a higher amount of shares. Therefore, it is important which effect prevails. Moreover, with BT’s proposal employees lose share ownership, unless they decide to pay with their own resources.

Besides that, CSI also offer the stock options to all the employees in the first year they joined the company but the value of stock option component varied depending on tenure and position in the company. Employees will be given four years from the offered date to buy or not to buy the stock and it is limit to 25% per year. It will be expired 10 years after granting or within 30 days of leaving the company. However, CSI has not yet implement the formal plan for annual stock option grants. Hence, the grants would be awarded based on an ad hoc basis to ensure that employees’ stock holdings were in line with their current position and contribution to the company. Stock option actually is an effective motivational tool but not for CSI, this is because their employees do not understand the options and does not know how to value them. Moreover, the options were become worthless since the company is not a public company. In another word, CSI were lack of formalization to control stock options and does not give very clear direction to employees about the targeted areas and results through compensation system (stock option). Apart from that, stock option

Infosys provides strong property rights to its employees by providing employee stock option plans. Top management were given profit sharing plans based on the company performance as an incentives. ESOP’s usually guarantee long term employment. But later Infosys withdrew the stock options plan due to various complexities and accounting challenges.