Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Controversy Over Accounting for Stock Options: A Historical Perspective

The Controversy Over Accounting for Stock Options: A Historical Perspective In October 1995, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 entitled “Accounting for Stock‐BasedCompensation.” The FASB began looking at the issue in 1984, at the request of many, including the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the largest public accounting firms, industry representatives, and others in the accounting profession. Even before the FASB issued its exposure draft on the subject in 1993, however, controversy began to surround its deliberations and decisions. The FASB’s exposure draft proposed that the cost ofstock options be expensed on the income statement, consistent with other forms of compensation. This differed greatly from the accounting rules of APB Opinion 25 in effect at the time, which usually resulted in no compensation expense on the income statement. As might have been expected, many companies did not relish the idea of expensing something that previously had no effect on their bottom line. Pressure to modify its position was exerted on the FASB by the very organizations that had asked FASB to look into the issue in the first place. As a result of the controversy and accompanying pressure placed on the FASB, Statement 123 is a compromise that encourages, but does not require, the recording of compensation expense as it relates to stock options.Footnote disclosures of the effects of the new standard on net income and earnings per share are required for companies that elect to continue to apply the provisions of Opinion 25. Although the FASB took up this issue in 1984, and the intense controversy over it began in 1993, the discussions and disagreements over accounting for stock‐based compensation are not new. Differences of opinions are evident in the accounting literature as far back as the 1920s. While the definition of a stock option has not changed much since those early days, the exact purposes,uses, and accounting treatments have never been agreed upon. This paper examines some of the various positions that have been put forth over the years, looks at the recent FASB actions and controversy, and attempts to look forward at what might lie ahead in this area. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Journal of Business Emerald Publishing

The Controversy Over Accounting for Stock Options: A Historical Perspective

Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/the-controversy-over-accounting-for-stock-options-a-historical-N0IlGbTb1B

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 MCB UP Ltd. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1935-5181
DOI
10.1108/19355181199700011
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In October 1995, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 entitled “Accounting for Stock‐BasedCompensation.” The FASB began looking at the issue in 1984, at the request of many, including the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the largest public accounting firms, industry representatives, and others in the accounting profession. Even before the FASB issued its exposure draft on the subject in 1993, however, controversy began to surround its deliberations and decisions. The FASB’s exposure draft proposed that the cost ofstock options be expensed on the income statement, consistent with other forms of compensation. This differed greatly from the accounting rules of APB Opinion 25 in effect at the time, which usually resulted in no compensation expense on the income statement. As might have been expected, many companies did not relish the idea of expensing something that previously had no effect on their bottom line. Pressure to modify its position was exerted on the FASB by the very organizations that had asked FASB to look into the issue in the first place. As a result of the controversy and accompanying pressure placed on the FASB, Statement 123 is a compromise that encourages, but does not require, the recording of compensation expense as it relates to stock options.Footnote disclosures of the effects of the new standard on net income and earnings per share are required for companies that elect to continue to apply the provisions of Opinion 25. Although the FASB took up this issue in 1984, and the intense controversy over it began in 1993, the discussions and disagreements over accounting for stock‐based compensation are not new. Differences of opinions are evident in the accounting literature as far back as the 1920s. While the definition of a stock option has not changed much since those early days, the exact purposes,uses, and accounting treatments have never been agreed upon. This paper examines some of the various positions that have been put forth over the years, looks at the recent FASB actions and controversy, and attempts to look forward at what might lie ahead in this area.

Journal

American Journal of Business – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jan 1, 1997

Keywords: Financial accounting standards; FASB; Stock‐based compensation; Accounting for stock options

There are no references for this article.