What drives executive stock option backdating?

We study motives for executive stock option backdating, the practice of changing the grant dates of current options to dates in the past using hindsight. We find that smaller, younger, and less profitable firms tend to be heavier involved in backdating. These results are consistent with the retention hypothesis. In line with the incentive hypothesis, we find that backdating occurs more for options that are out-of-the-money. We derive some evidence for the agency hypothesis, in the sense that backdating companies have a larger percentage of inside directors. However, contrary to this hypothesis, we conclude that backdating firms have better protection for minority shareholders compared to firms that do not backdate

Stock Options: The Backdating Issue

[Excerpt] Employee stock options are contracts giving employees the right to buy the company’s common stock at a specified exercise price, at a specified time or during a specified period, and after a specified vesting period. The value of the option when granted lies in the prospect that the market price of the company’s stock will increase by the time the option is exercised (used to purchase stock). At the grant date for the options, rather than selecting an exercise price based on the current market price for the stock, officials at some companies have selected a prior date with a lower market price; that is, they backdated stock options to an earlier grant date. If this backdating occurred without public disclosure, the recipient of the stock options received increased compensation in violation of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations, generally accepted accounting rules, and tax laws. Some backdating is said to involve “sloppiness,” not fraud. The backdating of stock options has imposed costs on shareholders, employees, bondholders, and taxpayers. A corporate official who has profited from undisclosed backdating of stock options may not be responsible or even knowledgeable of the backdating. “Nonqualified” stock options, which have no special tax criteria to meet, are the focus of the backdating controversy primarily because they can be granted in unlimited amounts. The magnitude of stock option grants grew dramatically in the 1990s, subsequent to passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, a stock market boom, and revised accounting rules. Recent corporate disclosure changes have reduced the opportunities and rewards for backdating stock options. Empirical studies about backdating have been done by academics and investigative journalists. Four recent regulatory actions may have reduced the backdating of stock options, but problems persist. On December 16, 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued new rules requiring companies to subtract the expense of options from their earnings. After August 29, 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act required that companies notify the SEC within two business days after granting stock options. In 2003, the SEC required increased disclosure of stock option plans. The SEC issued enhanced option grant disclosure rules effective December 15, 2006. Policy options to further reduce backdating and other timing manipulation include changes in SEC regulations and a change in the tax law. The SEC, various state prosecutorial, and Department of Justice (DOJ) probes into backdating abuses are ongoing. In addition, many firms have mounted their own internal probes into possible abuses. By November 2007, the SEC’s investigation caseload had fallen from a peak of 160 to about 80, and the SEC had brought civil enforcement actions against seven companies and 26 former executives associated with 15 firms. And according to reports from the DOJ, there were at least 10 criminal filings against defendants for backdating. As of January 2, 2008, the only CEO to be convicted of charges related to backdating was Greg Reyes, former Brocade CEO. This report will be updated as issues develop or new legislation is introduced

Lucky CEOs

We study the relation between corporate governance and opportunistic timing of CEO option grants via backdating or otherwise. Our methodology focuses on how grant date prices rank within the price distribution of the grant month. During 1996-2005, about 12% of firms provided one or more lucky grant -- defined as grants given at the lowest price of the month -- due to opportunistic timing. Lucky grants were more likely when the board did not have a majority of independent directors and/or the CEO had longer tenure -- factors associated with increased influence of the CEO on pay-setting. We find no evidence that gains from manipulated grants served as a substitute for compensation paid through other sources; total reported compensation from such sources was higher in firms providing lucky grants. Finally, opportunistic timing has been widespread throughout the economy, with a significant presence in each of the economy's twelve (Fama-French) industries.

Lucky Directors

While prior empirical work and much public attention have focused on the opportunistic timing of executives' grants, we provide in this paper evidence that outside directors' option grants have also been favorably timed to an extent that cannot be fully explained by sheer luck. Examining events in which public firms granted options to outside directors during 1996-2005, we find that 9% were "lucky grant events" falling on days with a stock price equal to a monthly low. We estimate that about 800 lucky grant events owed their status to opportunistic timing, and that about 460 firms and 1400 outside directors were associated with grant events produced by such timing. There is evidence that the opportunistic timing of director grant events has been to a substantial extent the product of backdating and not merely spring-loading based on private information. We find that directors' luck has been correlated with executives' luck. Furthermore, grant events were more likely to be lucky when the firm had more entrenching provisions protecting insiders from the risk of removal, as well as when the board did not have a majority of independent directors.

Options on the outs

Stock options

Technical Note: Elimination of Retroactive Settlement in the ACSS

Effective 1 November 2003, the Bank of Canada abandoned its practice of backdating the results of settlement of payments through the Automated Clearing Settlement System (ACSS). It has adopted instead a system of "next-day" settlement under which the results of the settlement process will appear on the central bank's books on the day the items actually settle in the ACSS. Since July 1986, settlement of these items had occurred at noon the day after items were presented for clearing, but the results were recognized on the Bank's books the previous day, through backdating, or "retroactive" settlement. The new system should simplify the payment process and improve the reporting of settlement risk, as well as promote cost-effectiveness within the payment systems. ACSS participants have agreed among themselves to implement an interest-compensation mechanism in order to avoid imposing a float charge on their customer base.