Does Recognition Versus Disclosure Really Matter? Evidence from the Market Valuation of Recognition of Employee Stock Option Expenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the market valuation of employee stock option expenses recognized by using the fair value approach under the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accounts Handbook section (CICA HB) 3870. Based on a sample of Canadian public firms traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX), we find that investors value employee stock option expenses differently prior to and after the implementation of the new standard. Specifically, pro forma compensation expenses disclosed prior to the new accounting regulation are negatively associated with annual stock returns, suggesting that the market interprets these expenses to have negative valuation consequences. In contrast, recognized stock option expenses from using the fair value approach mandated by the HB 3870 are positively associated with stock returns, indicating that the market now interprets these expenses as a type of “asset ” that contributes positively to firm valuation. Overall, the evidence suggests that the mandatory expensing of employee stock options increases the perceived quality of financial statements and mitigates the perception that firms use stock options opportunistically. Consequently, the market is able to translate the incentive effect of
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".