請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10158完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 傅承德,王耀輝 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Li-Jiun Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳麗君 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T21:06:13Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2012-07-07 | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T21:06:13Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2011-07-07 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2011-06-30 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Aggarwal, R. K., Samwick, A. A., 2003. Performance incentives within firms: The effect of managerial responsibility. Journal of Finance 58, 1613-1649.
Agrawal, A., Mandelker, G. N., 1987. Managerial incentives and corporate investment and financing decisions. Journal of Finance 42, 823-837. Bergman, N. K., Jenter, D., 2007. Employee sentiment and stock option compensation. Journal of Financial Economics 84, 667-712. Bettis, C. J., Bizjak, J. M., Lemmon, M. L., 2005. Exercise behavior, valuation, and the incentive effects of employee stock options. Journal of Financial Economics 76, 445-470. Bryan, S., Hwang, L., Lilien, S., 2000. CEO stock-based compensation: An empirical analysis of incentive-intensity, relative mix and economic determinants. Journal of Business 73, 661-693. Carpenter, J. N., 1998. The exercise and valuation of executive stock options. Journal of Financial Economics 48, 127-158. Carpenter, J.N., 2000. Does option compensation increase managerial risk appetite? Journal of Finance 55, 2311-2331. Chang, C., Fuh, C. D., Hsu, Y. H., 2008. ESO compensation: the role of default risk, employee sentiment, and insider information. Journal of Corporate Finance 14, 630-641. Core, J. E., Guay, W., 2001. Stock option plans for non-executive employees. Journal of Financial Economics 61, 253-287. DeFusco, R. A., Zorn, T. S., Johnson, R. R., 1991. The association between executive stock option plan changes and managerial decision making. Financial Management 20, 36-43. Dittmann, I., Maug, E., 2007. Lower salaries and no options? On the optimal structure of executive pay. Journal of Finance 62, 303-343. Duffee, G. R., 1999. Estimating the price of default risk. The Review of Financial Studies 12, 197-226. Fruhwirth, M., Sogner, L., 2006. The Jarrow/Turnbull default risk model-evidence from the German market. European Journal of Finance 12, 107-135. Gabaix, X., Landier, A., 2008. Why has CEO pay increased so much? Quarterly Journal of Economics 123, 49-100. Gukhal, C. R., 2001. Analytical valuation of American options on jump-diffusion processes. Mathematical Finance 11, 97-115. Hall, B. J., Murphy, K. J., 2002. Stock options for undiversified executives. Journal of Accounting and Economics 33, 3-42. Hemmer, T., Kim O., Verrechia, R. K., 2000. Introducing convexity into optimal compensation contracts. Journal of Accounting and Economics 28, 307-327. Hemmer, T., Matsunaga S., Shevlin, T., 1996. The influence of risk diversification on the early exercise of employee stock options by executive officers. Journal of Accounting and Economics 21, 45-68. Hodge F.D., Rajgopal, S., Shevlin, T., 2009. Do managers value stock options and restricted stock consistent with economic theory? Contemporary Accounting Research 26, 899-932. Holland, L.C., Elder, E. M., 2006. Employee stock options in compensation agreements: A financing explanation. Journal of Corporate Finance 12, 367-379. Huddart, S., Lang, M., 1996. Employee stock option exercises: an empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Economics 21, 5-43. Hull, J., White, A., 2004. How to value employee stock options. Financial Analysts Journal 60, 114-119. Ingersoll, J. E., 2006. The subjective and objective evaluation of incentive stock options. The Journal of Business 79, 453-487. Jensen, M. C., Meckling, W. H., 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305-360. Kou, S. G., 2002. A jump-diffusion model for option pricing. Management Science 48, 1086-1101. Kou, S. G., Wang, H., 2003. First passage times of a jump diffusion process. Advances in Applied Probability 35, 504-531. Kou, S. G., Wang, H., 2004. Option pricing under a double exponential jump diffusion model. Management Science 50, 1178-1192. Lambert, R. A., Larcker, D. F., Verrecchia, R. E., 1991. Portfolio considerations in valuing executive compensation. Journal of Accounting Research 29, 129-149. Liao, F. Y., Lyuu, Y. D., 2009. An expanded model for the valuation of employee stock options. Journal of Futures Markets 29, 713-735. Meulbroek, L. K., 2001. The efficiency of equity-linked compensation: Understanding the full cost of awarding executive stock options. Financial Management 30, 5-44. Mordecki, E., 1999. Optimal stopping for a diffusion with jumps. Finance and Stochastics 3, 227-236. Mozes, H. A., 1995. An upper bound for the firm’s cost of employee stock options. Financial Management 24, 66-77. Nohel, T., Todd, S., 2005. Compensation for managers with career concerns: the role of stock options in optimal contracts. Journal of Corporate Finance 11, 229-251. Oyer, P., Schaefer S., 2005. Why do some firms give stock options to all employees?: An empirical analysis of alternative theories. Journal of Financial Economics 76, 99-133. Ross, S. A., 2004. Compensation, incentives, and the duality of risk aversion and riskiness. Journal of Finance 59, 207-225. Ryan, H. E., Wiggins, R. A., 2001. The influence of firm- and manager-specific characteristics on the structure of executive compensation. Journal of Corporate Finance 7, 101-123. Ryan, H. E., Wiggins, R. A., 2001. Zhang, G., 2002. Why do firms grant employee stock options? Working paper. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10158 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在考量違約風險、員工風險趨避程度及限制持股比例的條件下,本研究提供一套評價公式,得到美式員工認股權的主觀價值。進一步地,我們探討不同風險對員工認股權主觀價值的影響。研究發現,員工的風險趨避程度及限制持股比例愈大,則主觀價值愈小。然而,情感認知(sentiment) 如過度自信(over-confidence) 或私有訊息(private information) 可以抵銷限制持股比例造成的價格貶值影響。利用Compustat 經理人報酬資料庫1992 至2004 年員工認股權及報酬資料,我們發現經理人評價其所得之員工認股權高於Black-Scholes 價值的48%,此可由12% 年超額報酬的情感認知水準解釋,隱含經理人有高度的過度自信或私有訊息。
本文發現:員工認股權主觀價值與限制持股比例有負向的關係,而與情感認知有正向的關係;情感認知高者願意延後履約時間,然而無論是限制持股比例、系統性或非系統性風險增加皆誘使員工提早履約。由傳統選擇權定價理論可得,當標的資產總風險愈高時,選擇權的價值也會愈高。但本研究發現增加股價波動性(volatility) 除非大部分來自於系統性風險,否則對員工認股權的主觀價值很可能帶來負面的影響,進而影響員工投資決策。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study provides an analytic approximation for finite horizon American employee stock options (ESOs) and a closed form solution for perpetual American ESOs, which take into account risk aversion, stock holding constraint and default risk. Accounting for stock holding constraint, option pricing models generally imply a discount to market value. In contrast, our model further considers the role of sentiment, which offsets the impact of stock holding constraint. Using executive stock options and compensation data paid between 1992 and 2004 for firms covered by Compustat Executive Compensation Database, we find that executives value ESOs at a 48% premium to Black-Scholes value and ESO premia are explained by a sentiment level of 12% in risk-adjusted, annualized excess return, suggesting a high level of executive over-confidence.
Subjective value is positively related to sentiment, and negatively related to stock holding constraint and idiosyncratic risk in all specifications, consistent with the offsetting roles of sentiment and risk aversion. Based on our proposed model, we can observe that exercise boundary decreases with stock holding constraint and idiosyncratic risk, while employee with high sentiment will postpone the exercise timing. Moreover, ESOs may not generate the sort of risk-taking behavior implied by more traditional options pricing formulae owing to the restriction of the employee’s holdings. Full diversification is impossible, hence, as idiosyncratic risk increases, the risk-premium associated with holding the asset likewise increases. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T21:06:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-D93723007-1.pdf: 757336 bytes, checksum: 811957b6994dec3243a61da609148bb2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書i
誌謝ii 中文摘要iii Abstract iv 1 Introduction 1 2 Literature Review 8 2.1 Valuation of Employee Stock Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 Exercise Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3 Sentiment Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.4 Risk Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3 Employee Stock Option Valuation 13 3.1 Model Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2 Optimal Portfolio Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3 Derivation of Risk-Neutral Probability P∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4 Valuation of Employee Stock Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.4.1 European ESO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.4.2 Finite Horizon American ESO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.4.3 Perpetual American ESO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.5 ESO Value with Sentiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.6 Testable Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4 Simulation Results 26 4.1 Exercise Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.2 Factors Effect on ESOs and the Exercise Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.2.1 Stock Holding Constraint, Level of Risk Aversion, Moneyness . . . 30 4.2.2 Dividend, Time to Maturity, Volatility Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.3 Perpetual American Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.4 Default Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.5 Sentiment Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5 Empirical Study 40 5.1 Data and Preliminary Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5.2 Compensation-based Approach to Subjective Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5.3 Preliminary findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.4 Main Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.4.1 Regression results and variable sensitivities implications . . . . . . 48 5.4.2 Normalized results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 5.4.3 Subjective value and risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.5 Robustness Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.5.1 Estimation of subjective values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.5.2 Sub-sample tests and outlier controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5.5.3 Test and model re-specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 6 Conclusions and Future Work 60 6.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Bibliography 74 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.title | 風險及情感認知對員工認股權價值及履約決策之影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Impact of Risk and Sentiment on Executive Stock Options and Exercise Decision | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張森林,陳聖賢,銀慶剛,張士傑 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 員工認股權,履約界限,跳躍擴散模型,情感認知,主觀價值,限制持股, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Employee stock options,exercise boundary,jump diffusion model,sentiment,subjective value,stock holding constraint, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 77 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2011-06-30 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 財務金融學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 財務金融學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-100-1.pdf | 739.59 kB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
