MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078802368 · doi:10.2469/faj.v60.n1.2596

How to Value Employee Stock Options

2004· article· en· W2078802368 on OpenAlexaff
John Hull, Alan White

Bibliographic record

VenueFinancial Analysts Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVestingStock optionsAccountingFair valueRestricted stockBusinessNon-qualified stock optionStock (firearms)Financial accountingValue (mathematics)Financial statementActuarial scienceFinanceEconomicsAccounting information systemComputer scienceStock marketEngineeringAudit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the arguments often used against expensing employee stock options is that calculating their fair value at the time they are granted is very difficult. This article presents an approach to calculating the value of employee stock options that is practical, easy to implement, and theoretically sound. It explicitly considers the vesting period, the possibility that employees will leave the company during the life of the option, the inability of employees to trade their options, and the relevant dilution issues. This approach is an enhancement of the approach suggested by the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 because it does not require an arbitrary reduction in the life of the option to allow for early exercise caused by the inability of employees to trade their options.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations146
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFinancial Analysts JournalSame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207