Options backdating a canadian perspective
Options backdating a canadian perspective - Sexdating nijmegen
Murray Edwards only referenced once his recent move to London during the Canadian Natural Resources annual general meeting.
The highest marginal tax rate for federal and provincial taxes for Albertans in 2014 was 39 per cent. This is because both federal and provincial tax rates have risen.
The backdating companies broke this rule: they reported how many options they were issuing, but conveniently omitted the fact that they had been backdated. The bigger reason for choosing to backdate is to get around some bothersome accounting regulations.
In Washington, people say that it’s not the crime that gets you—it’s the coverup. [C]ompanies didn’t need backdating to lavish huge sums of money on their executives: they could have issued more at-the-money options to make up the difference, or they could have just handed out grants of stock. Until recently, the regulations distinguished, for no good reason, between in-the-money and at-the-money options.
In 2016, Albertans will pay a 15 per cent tax rate provincially on income above 0,000 and 33 per cent federally, for a combined top tax rate of 48 per cent.
Add it up and it's a big hit for Alberta's wealthy.
Fourth, we proceed to an analysis of good corporate governance practice involving backdating options based on a series of ethical standards including: (1) trustworthiness; (2) utilitarianism; (3) justice; and (4) Kantianism.
We conclude that while executive compensation schemes (e.g., stock options) were originally intended to help remedy the agency problem by tying together the interests of the executives and shareholders, these schemes may have actually become “part of the problem,” and that the solution ultimately depends upon whether directors and executives accept that all of their actions must be based on a set of core ethical values.
The companies involved in the recent scandal were backdating options to a time when the stock price was lower, making them immediately lucrative. stock options by claiming that they’re an incentive for performance: the executives get rich only if they do a good job and the stock goes up.
As it happens, companies are perfectly free to issue options priced below the current market: those are called “in the money” options, and they’re worth something right when they’re issued. But there’s a rule that companies have to follow when they issue “in the money” options: they have to disclose it in their financial statements. Unless executives can time-travel, though, it’s hard to make that case for backdated options.
Beyond such negative controlling measures, a more positive empowering approach based on ethics may also be necessary.
What ethical measures need to be taken to address the agency problem?
The most common stock options are known as “at the money” options, which let you buy the company’s stock at the price that it had on the day of the grant.