人気ブログランキング | 話題のタグを見る
nnのCPA試験の旅 in Hawaii CPA試験の旅 in Hawaii

Hello again!


by nn_77
カレンダー
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

I figured it out! (わーかった!)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
「ストックオプション見直し
会計基準変更受けインテル、報酬に現物株


インテルがオプション縮小に動くのは、今年から企業に費用としての計上が義務付けられ、利益の押し下げ要因となるため。ほぼゼロコストで優秀な人材を獲得できるとして活用してきたが、費用計上の対象だった現物株支給と差がなくなる。」

「日本経済新聞 1月31日 朝刊」 より抜粋
http://it.nikkei.co.jp/business/news/index.aspx?i=2006013008678aa
------------------------------------------------------------------

Everytime I read such articles reporting the change in the accounting rule for stock option, I always wondered, “Compensation cost accrued as a result of the issuance of Stock option is to be expensed over a period either under the intrinsic value method (APB25) or under the fair value method (FAS123). Why do they report as if such expense recognition had been exempted so far until this change?
(↑「今年から企業に費用としての計上が義務付けられ」って、どーゆーコト? ストックオプションって、以前から費用計上の対象やったんちゃうの?あれェ~?)


But, today, I figured it out on my own! Following is MY understanding. (Disclaimer: Please note that I don’t guarantee the correctness of the description below)
(↑ そうか、わかったゾ!つまり、下記のようなことっちゅうわけやね!!
、って言っても、nnが勝手にそう思ってるだけなので、信じるかどうかは自己責任でお願いします)


In the application of APB #25 rule, the compensation cost is the excess, if any, of the quoted market price of the stock on the grant date over the amount an employee must pay to acquire the stock in exercising the option. I wrote "if any." This means if there's no difference between the amount of the option's exercise price and the fair market price of the stock at the grant date, the company doesn't recognize any (deferred) compensation expense in issuing stock option.
(↑APB25のやり方やったら、行使価格と株価時価が同じ、つまり、付与時の内在的価値=0なら費用計上せんでも済んだんや)

Under the fair-value method of FAS123, however, the compensation cost is measured, at the grant date, based on the value of the award, which is computed using an option pricing model. Thus a certain amount of the compensation cost is figured out under FAS123, thus the company always recognize deferred compensation cost, which is expensed over the average remaining service period.
(↑FAS123やったら、オプションプライシングモデルなんかを活用して、価値が算出されてしまうから、費用計上せんわけにはいかんかったけど。)

Application of APB#25 has been rather popular among companies because it makes it possible for companies to avoid the recognition of labor expense even when they issue stock options as a kind of bonus.
(↑せやから、APB25的方法の方が、企業に人気があったっちゅうわけだ。費用計上せずに、報酬を従業員に払ってやれるもんなぁ)

And this APB#25 application had been accepted by FASB only if the pro forma NI and EPS under FAS123 were disclosed together, until recently.
(↑これ(=APB25的方法)って、「もしもFAS123適用してたら」的情報を別途開示しておけば、最近までは、FASBでも一応許されてきたんやね)

Such a treatment under APB#25, which doesn't seem to reflect the reality of the transaction, is no longer accepted by FASB, which now permits only FAS123 method, which enforce companies to have compensation expense accrued for the issue of stock options.
(↑でも、ルールが変わって、やっぱ、そんなん、あかんやろ、って、なってしもたんやなぁ)

This means a big advantage of using Stock Option system is lost now. Companies, including INTEL Co no longer have any reason to pay for their employees' service with Stock options.
(↑企業の方も「そんなんやったら、もう、ストックオプションとか、わざわざせんでもエエわ」ってなるわなぁ)

Now things are very clear to me.
(↑ああ、わかってスッキリした!)

I haven’t inquired at Anjo School about what they think about the effect of this change to USCPA exam. I’ll do it.
(↑この変更って今年かららしいけど、7月のCPA試験でもう反映されるんかなあ?ANJOに聞いとこぉっと)
by nn_77 | 2006-02-02 18:45 | >FARE