- December 26, 2022 at 10:32 pm #675115rr9125Participant
- Topics: 10
- Replies: 9
Say an entity has share price condition attached to its equity settled share based payment (.i.e share price must increase to $2.4/share) but the entity did not achieve the share price target. However, despite the entity not achieving this share price we will still recognise the expense based on the original fair value.
The ACCA articles state that the reason for this is because ‘The market-based condition is taken into account in measuring the fair value of the share option at the grant date..’.
So, this almost sounds as if the market based performance condition like this does not matter at all (since not achieving the target did not matter) which then makes me question why then even set out such redundant performance condition in the first place anyways? I am quite confused with this…
RRDecember 27, 2022 at 5:54 pm #675140Stephen WidbergKeymaster
- Topics: 12
- Replies: 2843
The condition is an incentive to the staff to make the company perform well. So it’s a sensible commercial idea.
It’s just the accounting that’s weird. If you choose AFM as an option paper you’ll see how the option is valued, taking account of share price volatility.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.