• About
    • Site Profile
    • Pam Agnew, ABC (editor)
    • Dominic Jones (editor)
  • Contacts
IR Web Report
  • Latest Posts
  • Categories
    • Web Disclosure
    • Annual Reports
    • Quarterly Reporting
    • Presentations
    • Social Media
    • IR Law
    • Governance
    • Shareholder Services
    • Video
    • Mobile
  • Book Store
  • Jobs
Browse: Home / Pros and Cons of Options, Restricted Stock Analyzed


Pros and Cons of Options, Restricted Stock Analyzed

By Dominic Jones on August 27, 2006

  • Tweet

By IR Web Report Staff 

COMPENSATION at many companies is swinging away from stock options to restricted stock, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

In 2005, S&P 500 firms cut options grants by 20% over the prior year and their value was 22% lower, according to Bear Stearns research. Nasdaq 100 companies, meanwhile, reduced options grants by 14% while their value fell 16%.

The report ascribes the decline in options grants to new accounting rules requiring companies to expense stock options.

At the same time, however, companies have dramatically increased their use of resrticted stock. According to Jack Ciesielski, author of the Analyst’s Accounting Observer newsletter, S&P companies granted $15.3 billion in restricted stock in 2005, up 44 percent.

The newspaper notes that shareholders want options and restricted-stock grants linked to specific goals. But performance-based stock grants are rare, says the article. It cites a Radford Surveys & Consulting study which found that only 14% of 393 technology companies have performance-based stock grants.

The report quotes a variety of commentators on the reasons behind the lack of performance thresholds.

It also notes that restricted stock results is less stock dilution.

Read the article: Companies reassess stock-option grants


Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones (bio) created IR Web Report in 2001. He is a consultant to leading public companies and investor relations service providers worldwide. You can contact him via the contacts page.

Posted in Disclosure, Issues | Tagged analyst, Disclosure, financial reporting, Jack Ciesielski, nasdaq

« Previous Next »

Search the Site

Latest Stories

  • SEC’s Social Media Guidance Has Devil in Details
  • Crisis investor relations in the age of social media
  • Private meetings undermine fair disclosure, study finds
  • What makes a good annual report?
  • CEO pushes Reg FD limits on Twitter
  • For IROs, XBRL errors a wake-up call
  • Despite Reg FD, study finds traders profit from private CEO meetings

Get Our Free Email Newsletter

Close
Note: We don't sell or rent our email list. Unsubscribe instructions come with each email.
Investor relations jobs by IR Web Report

Full Disclosure

All articles on IR Web Report are unpaid editorial. We do not charge a fee to outside contributors. Sponsors or advertisers are not automatically entitled to become contributors or receive editorial coverage. We accept contributors based on their individual expertise and experience. Contributors are required to disclose when they write about or refer to any company with which they have a business relationship, either directly or indirectly. If you believe that any contributor or IR Web Report is not living up this policy, please contact us or leave a comment on the relevant post. Editorial integrity is important to us and we take all complaints seriously.

Site Map

  • Home
  • Terms of Use
  • IR Web Report’s Book Store
  • IR News
  • About
  • Contacts

Archives

  • 2013
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001

About IR Web Report

Founded in 2001, we are the world's leading source of information about online investor relations communications. Our core philosophy is that investors' needs must come first or companies' online communications efforts will fail to be effective. More about us

Follow @irwebreport
Feed Subscribe to feed

Copyright © 2001 - 2013 IR Web Reporting International Inc. By using this site you agree to the Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.