How To Report Stock Options (for Optionees)
Here are instructions for how to report stock options. Stock options are defined as a company's offer to selected employees the option to buy a specific number of shares in the company's stock within a period and at a price that is pre-set by their employers. These are usually offered to employees belonging to the supervisory or the managerial brackets. Companies offer stock options to its employees for varied reasons: to be a valued employer, to give employees a sense of ownership in the company thus increasing morale, but more importantly, aside from the salary and benefits that are already involved in their contracts, it is a way for the company to show a potential employee an additional perk with which the employee has the power or option to choose.
To report stock options, you will need. more. . .http://bit.ly/aWM5f7
| Topic | Replies | Likes | Views | Participants | Last Reply |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Restricted stock, RSUs, and Restricted Securities: What to Know | 0 | 0 | 50 | ||
| CEP Level 1 | 0 | 0 | 152 | ||
| Webinar on Financial Planning With Stock Comp | 0 | 0 | 137 |
I believe this info in inaccurate/incomplete on several points? Perhaps we should remove?
Rather than just remove the article, can someone reply with a link to good information on the same subject? That way folks can see where this article inaccurate/incomplete?
The only comprehensive info of which I'm aware is on the NASPP website, which is for members only. Let me know if you can think of/find another source.
I know there are several members here who work for firms that have this information in a more complete and accurate form. Hopefully someone will volunteer a link to their information. If not, we can work together to annotate or correct the information provided on this link.
One of the real problems we have in our industry is that there are people who have the time to create poor information, but very few of us are willing, have the time or, perhaps, the confidence to create truly useful and accurate information.
Until we create good information we need to expect people to be confused and misinformed.
I am in agreement that we should remove this link from this forum because it appears that the posting member is endorsing what the article says. As an alternative, when posting a link to such bad information the poster should specifically say "this is bad information" instead of just posting part of the article and the link. It would not serve for newer members to this group to happen upon this posting and get the impression that ECE experts don't know enough to point out bad information or think that it's useful to post bad information to this forum.
I don't have time to look up external resources to respond to all of the errors contained in the article, but it certainly triggers my pet peeve which is the misstatement that ISOs do not have any tax consequences upon exercise. Why does everyone always forget about that action triggering the AMT calculation? Even real experts often overlook mentioning this potentially big tax issue.
Maybe that would be a good answer. Each of us that sees the myriad errors in this article could post here on his or her specific pet peeve error ;o)
Well, suppose a less savvy member found the article themselves? They might rely on it unware of its flaws. It's been said a couple of times already that the information is wrong or misleading. Part of the education process is to bring folks to a place where they can learn right from wrong. Despite the name of the group, not everyone who posts articles here is an expert. Should there be a review of every article that gets posted for its integrity? Perhaps, but then someone has to decide who is going to review it be it taxes, accounting, vesting etc. . .I'm not qualified.
The name of the group is Equity Compensation Experts, why can't articles be posted and reviewed and critiqued by the members? That's my impression of what this group is all about. Not everything that gets posted needs to be gospel.
Another thought occured to me. I'd agree that it should be pulled down if I claimed to be an "Expert" wrote and posted it. Is the name of the group misleading? Equity Compensation Experts??? I haven't checked, but if there isn't already, perhaps there ought to be a disclaimer warning folks that we're not all experts and that you should seek out your own expert counsel before relying on these articles. I'd do that anyway, disclaimer or not. Just a dose common sense goes a long way.
Maybe we should only post a llink if we ARE experts on that topic and can assess the correctness/incorrectness of the link. If you don't feel qualified to do that, don't post the link?
I'd LOVE to create more content for the ECE group, but honestly there's no way that I have time to create more content with my job/family demands. I'm happy to share links to the articles I write for SOS... I'll try to do more of that.
Hi Everyone:
I have been thinking about how to best
respond to this all weekend. So here goes:
The ECE was created for two reasons.
1) Help drive the evolution of equity
compensation programs.
interactivity, discussion and solutions. I believe the ECE has been
growing well in this area. Providers are posting their information. Professionals are reading articles
and, where justified, proving comments.
2) Serve as a resource for information
on equity compensation.
information we can find. The ECE post more articles, links calendar
events and presentations than any other group or professional organization
for our industry. Things are
posted regardless if they are fantastic, average, on the edge, disputed or
just plain wrong. We cannot evolve our industry if we are unaware of
what is happening with it. This means that often articles are posted
that contain erroneous information, processes or controversial opinions. As ECE members I believe it is
each of our responsibility to point out the errors and help get them
corrected.
To
the extent that is done via a comment on the ECE site…excellent. At least other ECE members will have a
better understanding of the facts *(imagine if an ECE member who did not know
any better used one of these wrong resources without other members input). To the extent that we can provide
comment to the source and perhaps even get them to correct their material…even
better.
I
NEVER want an ECE member to avoid posting or commenting because they feel they
do not have the background, education or expertise on a topic. Everyone in this group should, and
must, feel that it is a place where professionals want to know things and
professionals will be willing to share their thoughts, opinions and expertise.
So,
if you see something out there in the world and believe it shines either a good
light or bad light on out industry, please post it. If you see something on the ECE site that you believe is
wrong, or that you disagree with, please comment on it.
The
world of equity is not always black and white. Where you believe you have a clear answer, provide it. Where you look at things from a
different perspective, share it.
Lastly,
use anything on this site, or any other site, without first reviewing it with
your own experts. In my more than
15 years in this industry I have seen far too many occasions where there were
more than one “right” answer to a question.
Feel free to email me directly with any comments, or, even better, post them on
the site.
Thanks,
Dan
Walter
ECE
Founder
+1-415-625-3406
dwalter@performensation.com
President
and CEO
Performensation
www.performensation.com
Thanks Dan, I appreciate your thoughts SO MUCH!
Your last paralgraph?
Lastly, (never?) use anything on this site, or any other site, without first reviewing it with your own experts. In my more than 15 years in this industry I have seen far too many occasions where there were more than one "right" answer to a question.
Thanks Taeho. You are correct.
NEVER use anything on this site, or any other site, without first reviewing it with your own experts.