IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-00618477.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Employee Stock Options Incentive Effects: A Cpt-Based Model

Author

Listed:
  • Hamza Bahaji

    (DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This paper examines the incentives from stock options for loss-averse employees subject to probability weighting. Employing the certainty equivalence principle, I built on insights from Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT) to derive a continuous time model to value options from the perspective of a representative employee. Consistent with a growing body of empirical and experimental studies, the model predicts that the employee may overestimate the value of his options in-excess of their risk-neutral value. This is nevertheless in stark contrast with a common finding of standard models based on the Expected Utility Theory (EUT) framework that options value to a risk-averse undiversified employee is strictly lower than the value to risk-neutral outside investors. In particular, I proved that loss aversion and probability weighting have countervailing effects on the option subjective value. In addition, for typical setting of preferences parameters around the experimental estimates, and assuming the company is allowed to adjust existing compensation when making new stock option grants, the model predicts that incentives are maximized for strike prices set around the stock price at inception. This finding is consistent with companies' actual compensation practices that standard EUT-based models have difficulties accommodating their existence.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamza Bahaji, 2011. "Employee Stock Options Incentive Effects: A Cpt-Based Model," Working Papers halshs-00618477, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00618477
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00618477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00618477/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chip Heath & Steven Huddart & Mark Lang, 1999. "Psychological Factors and Stock Option Exercise," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(2), pages 601-627.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Ingolf Dittmann & Ernst Maug, 2007. "Lower Salaries and No Options? On the Optimal Structure of Executive Pay," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(1), pages 303-343, February.
    4. Johnson, Shane A. & Tian, Yisong S., 2000. "The value and incentive effects of nontraditional executive stock option plans," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 3-34, July.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Ingolf Dittmann & Ernst Maug & Oliver Spalt, 2010. "Sticks or Carrots? Optimal CEO Compensation when Managers Are Loss Averse," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(6), pages 2015-2050, December.
    7. Huddart, Steven & Lang, Mark, 1996. "Employee stock option exercises an empirical analysis," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 5-43, February.
    8. Vicky Henderson, 2005. "The impact of the market portfolio on the valuation, incentives and optimality of executive stock options," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 35-47.
    9. Kevin F. Hallock & Craig Olson, 2006. "The Value of Stock Options to Non-Executive Employees," NBER Working Papers 11950, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hamza Bahaji, 2011. "Incentives from stock option grants: a behavioral approach," Post-Print halshs-00681607, HAL.
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/9550 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Hamza Bahaji, 2011. "Employee Stock Options Incentive Effects: A Cpt-Based Model," Post-Print halshs-00681609, HAL.
    4. Hamza Bahaji, 2011. "Incentives from stock option grants: a behavioral approach," Post-Print halshs-00681611, HAL.
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/13098 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Bahaji, Hamza & Casta, Jean-François, 2016. "Employee stock option-implied risk attitude under Rank-Dependent Expected Utility," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 52(PA), pages 144-154.
    7. Tang, Chun-Hua, 2012. "Revisiting the incentive effects of executive stock options," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 564-574.
    8. Hamza Bahaji, 2011. "Incentives from stock option grants: a behavioral approach," Review of Accounting and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(3), pages 200-227, August.
    9. Jean-François Casta & Hamza Bahaji, 2014. "Juste Valeur Et Risque De Modele : Le Cas De La Valorisation Des Stock-Options," Post-Print hal-01899601, HAL.
    10. Zacharias Sautner & Martin Weber, 2009. "How Do Managers Behave In Stock Option Plans? Clinical Evidence From Exercise And Survey Data," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 32(2), pages 123-155, June.
    11. repec:oup:rfinst:v:21:y:2017:i:5:p:1805-1846. is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Ulrike Malmendier, 2018. "Behavioral Corporate Finance," NBER Working Papers 25162, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Steffen Brenner, 2015. "The Risk Preferences of U.S. Executives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1344-1361, June.
    14. Hamza Bahaji, 2018. "Are employee stock option exercise decisions better explained through the prospect theory?," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 262(2), pages 335-359, March.
    15. Ingolf Dittmann & Ko-Chia Yu & Dan Zhang, 2017. "How Important Are Risk-Taking Incentives in Executive Compensation?," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 21(5), pages 1805-1846.
    16. Stacey Beaumont & Raluca Ratiu & David Reeb & Glenn Boyle & Philip Brown & Alexander Szimayer & Raymond Silva Rosa & David Hillier & Patrick McColgan & Athanasios Tsekeris & Bryan Howieson & Zoltan Ma, 2016. "Comments on Shan and Walter: ‘Towards a Set of Design Principles for Executive Compensation Contracts’," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 52(4), pages 685-771, December.
    17. Susana Alvarez-Diez & J. Samuel Baixauli-Soler & Maria Belda-Ruiz, 2016. "Early Exercise Behaviour in Performance-vested Stock Option Grants," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 17(1), pages 55-78, May.
    18. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    19. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    20. de Meza, David & Webb, David C., 2003. "Principal agent problems under loss aversion: an application to executive stock options," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 24676, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    21. Muurling, Rutger & Lehnert, Thorsten, 2004. "Option-based compensation: a survey," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 365-401.
    22. Merz, Alexander, 2017. "What have we learned from SFAS 123r and IFRS 2? A review of existing evidence and future research suggestions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 14-33.
    23. Grasselli, Matheus & Henderson, Vicky, 2009. "Risk aversion and block exercise of executive stock options," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 109-127, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stock options; Cumulative Prospect Theory; Incentives; Subjective value;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00618477. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.