SEE "DOCUMENT 1" FOR CRITERIA 2 "DOCUMENT 2" FOR CRITERIA 4 You are to write a 3 to 4 page paper following APA rules for the title page, citations and appropriate references within the body of the paper. The minimum number of content pages is 3 and the maximum is 4 for the two issues noted in ?a? and ?b? below Locate the following research article using the OCLS and EBSCOhost referenced below: Graham, J. R., Lang, M. H., & Shackelford, D. A. (2004). Employee Stock Options, Corporate Taxes, and Debt Policy. Journal of Finance , 59(4), 1585-1618. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2004.00673.x paper is to address the following What is a nonqualified stock option, how and why is it used to compensate executive management? You may use other sources, however, you must reference and cite them. Also, remember to reference and cite the textbook The author?s research indicates that by using stock options, corporations that trade on NASDAQ can reduce their estimated median marginal tax rate from 31% to 5%. Using information from the article, explain how these corporations use stock options to reduce their marginal tax rates In a page following your reference page, use the Accounting Standards Codification to locate the section which discusses accounting principles relevant to stock compensation. Next access the overview and background subsection. Copy subsection 05-3 and paste to the page. Also, properly cite this code section Go towww.irs.govand search for Publication 525. Use the Index located at the back of the publication to find the section on "stock options, nonstatutory." Next, select the "exercise or transfer" of option. Copy the section titled "Transfer in Arm?s Length Transaction" to the page. Include a citation of the source

THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LIX, NO. 4 AUGUST 2004 Employee Stock Options, Corporate Taxes, and Debt Policy JOHN R. GRAHAM, MARK H. LANG, and DOUGLAS A. SHACKELFORD ABSTRACT We find that employee stock option deductions lead to large aggregate tax savings for Nasdaq 100 and S&P 100 firms and also affect corporate marginal tax rates. For Nasdaq firms, including the effect of options reduces the estimated median marginal tax rate from 31% to 5%. For S&P firms, in contrast, option deductions do not affect marginal tax rates to a large degree. Our evidence suggests that option deductions are important nondebt tax shields and that option deductions substitute for interest deductions in corporate capital structure decisions, explaining in part why some firms use so little debt. THIS PAPER EXPLORES the corporate tax implications of compensating employees with nonqualified stock options. Corporations deduct the difference between current market and strike prices when an employee exercises a nonqualified stock option. For option-intensive companies with rising stock prices, this deduction can be very large. We focus on the effects of options on the year 2000 marginal tax rates (MTRs) for Nasdaq 100 and S&P 100 firms and the implications for debt policy.1 Understanding the tax implications of options is increasingly important because the proportion of compensation paid in stock options has soared in recent years. A perspective on the magnitude of options compensation and its increase over time can be gained from papers like the one by Desai (2002), who reports that in 2000 the top five officers of the 150 largest U.S. firms received options with grant values exceeding $16 billion, which he estimates is a tenfold increase over the decade. He estimates that proceeds from option exercises averaged 29% of operating cash f lows in 2000, up from 10% in 1996. In addition, We appreciate excellent research assistance from Courtney Edwards, Allison Evans, Laura Knudson, and Julia Wu and insightful comments from an anonymous referee, Alon Brav, John Core, Richard Frankel, David Guenther, John Hand, Mike Lemmon, Ed Maydew, Hamid Mehran, Vikas Mehrotra, Dan Rogers, Richard Sansing, Jim Schallheim, Jake Thomas, Mike Weisbach, workshop participants at the University of Colorado, Cornell, Duke, MIT, the University of North Carolina, Wharton, and audience participants at the 2003 American Accounting Association and American Finance Association meetings. Bob McDonald and Terry Shelvin's comments were especially helpful. All data were publicly available. Lang was visiting the University of Queensland when the first draft of this paper was completed. Graham acknowledges financial support from the Alfred P. Sloan Research Foundation. 1 We use a Scholes et al. (2002) MTR that accounts for the present value of current and future tax consequences associated with changes in today's income. 1585 1586 The Journal of Finance the exercise of these stock options has created large corporate income tax deductions. Sullivan (2002) estimates that the total corporate tax savings from the deduction of stock options jumped from $12 billion in 1997 to $56 billion in 2000.2 Cipriano, Collins, and Hribar (2001) report that the tax savings from employee stock option deductions for the S&P 100 and the Nasdaq 100 averaged 32% of operating cash f lows in 2000, up from 8% in 1997. Sullivan (2002) adds that option tax deductions in 2000 exceeded net income for 8 of the 40 largest U.S. companies (as determined by market capitalization): Microsoft, AOL, Cisco Systems, Amgen, Dell Computer, Sun Microsystems, Qualcomm, and Lucent. Furthermore, options compensation has spread beyond technology stocks. Companies as diverse as General Electric, Pfizer, Citigroup, and IBM deducted over $1 billion in stock option compensation in 2000. Our analysis confirms that employee stock option deductions substantially reduce corporate tax payments. We estimate that, in 2000, stock options reduce corporate taxable income by approximately $100 billion for our sample of S&P 100 and Nasdaq 100 firms. For the S&P 100 firms, aggregate stock option deductions equal approximately 10% of aggregate pretax income. For the Nasdaq 100 companies (which are more option-intensive), aggregate deductions exceed aggregate pretax income. This study, however, focuses primarily on the effect of employee stock options on MTRs and the resulting impact on capital structure. MTRs are an important consideration in many economic decisions. In particular, if employee stock options are large enough to affect MTRs, they can reduce the value of interest deductions and alter the incentives to issue debt. We find that stock option deductions substantially reduce MTRs. For Nasdaq firms, the deductions comprise such a large proportion of preoption income that the median MTR tumbles from 31% when we ignore option deductions to 5% when option deductions are included in the tax rate calculation. For the S&P firms, the median MTR is little affected by option deductions. As described in more detail in Section I, we isolate the effect of three classes of options on the MTR: those already exercised, those granted but not yet exercised, and those yet to be granted. Each class of options contributes to the overall reduction in MTRs. We then test whether the impact of employee stock options on MTRs affects debt policy. DeAngelo and Masulis (1980) argue that companies substitute between debt and nondebt tax shields (such as option deductions) when determining their optimal capital structure. Previous investigations of this substitution effect were inconclusive (see Graham (2003) for a review). Some papers conclude that high-MTR firms appear to carry insufficient debt in their capital structures. Hanlon and Shevlin (2002), however, point out that these previous studies may fail to detect the expected MTR-debt relation because they ignore tax deductions from stock option exercise. 2 It is important to note that this amount does not imply a reduction in overall tax revenues, because it fails to take into account the increase in individual tax burdens associated with option exercise. In particular, employees exercising nonqualified options face potential tax obligations for the difference between the market and strike price at the time of exercise. Employee Stock Options 1587 In our sample, we find that debt ratios and MTRs are not significantly pairwise correlated when we ignore option deductions in the construction of MTRs. In contrast, after adjusting for expected option deductions, the relation between debt and taxes is positive and significant. This result indicates that accounting for the tax deductions associated with stock options provides important incremental power to explain debt policy, which is consistent with managers factoring in the tax effects of options when they select capital structure. Furthermore, when we identify firms that appear to be underlevered when option deductions are ignored, we find that these firms are the ones that use the most options. Overall, our analysis is consistent with firms trading off debt and nondebt tax shields when making capital structure decisions, in the manner suggested by DeAngelo and Masulis (1980). Our results may also provide a partial answer to the puzzle as to why some firms currently use so little debt (Graham (2000)) once option deductions are considered, the MTRs for these firms ref lect a small tax incentive to use debt, so their low debt ratios may be appropriate. Our paper is related to several branches of academic research. The second half of our paper is most similar to Kahle and Shastri (2002), who investigate whether firms with large option deductions use less debt. However, Kahle and Shastri do not consider several issues that we address. First, they do not calculate MTRs or the effect of options on MTRs. These omissions are a shortcoming because option deductions should only affect capital structure decisions to the extent that they affect MTRs. Second, as discussed in more detail later, they measure option deductions with the \"tax benefits\" number found in the financial statements, rather than using the more accurate information contained in the stock options footnote (Hanlon and Shevlin (2002)). Third, Kahle and Shastri do not account for the effects of options that are already granted but not yet exercised, nor options not yet granted. Finally, Kahle and Shastri do not address the uncertainty of option exercise timing, nor more generally how option deductions interact with the dynamic aspects of the federal income tax code. We provide details in Sections I and II describing how we account for these sometimes subtle inf luences. Besides its relation to effective tax rate and capital structure research, this paper is related to two other branches of research. First, a series of papers investigates whether tax incentives play a role in the form of compensation a firm chooses to use. The early research in this area was inconclusive (e.g., Hall and Liebman (2000)); however, recent research by Core and Guay (2001) finds that high tax-rate firms issue fewer stock options to nonexecutive employees, presumably because the firms would rather use traditional forms of compensation that lead to an immediate deduction. Our paper does not investigate whether taxes affect the choice among various forms of compensation, but does suggest that firms consider the tax effects of compensation when deciding on corporate capital structure. In principle, if firms were to shift away from using option compensation to using another form of compensation (e.g., cash compensation or restricted stock) the implication from our paper is that deductions from these alternative forms of compensation would be traded off with debt interest deductions. Second, our paper is related to the literature 1588 The Journal of Finance that investigates how tax managers optimize corporate tax policy (e.g., Scholes et al. (2002)). We contribute to this body of literature by providing evidence consistent with tax managers considering the interaction of various corporate policies when choosing tax positions.3 In Section I, we discuss major conceptual issues that arise in assessing the effect of stock options on MTRs and our approach for addressing them. Section II discusses our empirical approach in detail and describes the data. Section III analyzes the effect of option deductions on corporate MTRs. Section IV examines the interaction between option deductions and corporate debt policy. Section V presents closing remarks. I. Tax Issues Related to Corporate Deductions from Employee Stock Options The simulation procedure that we use to estimate year 2000 MTRs incorporates dynamic features of the tax code, including tax loss carrybacks and carryforwards (Shevlin (1990) and Graham (1996)). The procedure determines the MTR based on the incremental tax effects associated with an extra dollar of income earned in 2000. The incremental effect of an extra dollar of income in 2000 can be realized anywhere between 1998 (because of the two-year tax loss carryback period) and 2020 (because of the 20-year tax loss carryforward period), or not at all (if losses are sufficient to offset all current and future profits). To model the carryforward effect, we first produce a baseline forecast of the future by forecasting future taxable income (discussed in Section II.B), future grant and exercise behavior (Section II.C), and future stock prices (Section II.D). Starting with the baseline forecast, we estimate the present value tax consequences associated with one additional dollar of income earned in 2000. If, because of carryforwards or carrybacks, the tax consequences occur in 2001 or later, we discount the incremental effect back to year-2000 dollars. In Section II.E, we explore issues related to discounting tax liabilities when a firm has stock option deductions. To capture uncertainty about the future, we produce 50 random baseline forecasts of the future, each of which produces an estimate of the MTR. The expected MTR is the mean tax rate among these 50 estimates. In the absence of stock options, estimating MTRs is relatively straightforward. One can use the mean implied growth rate and variance from the historic time-series of taxable income (estimated from pretax income adjusted for deferred taxes as described in more detail in the next section) as the seed parameters to produce the 50 random baseline forecasts of the future through 2020. However, the existence of options introduces several important issues into the standard simulation procedure. We discuss these issues in the remainder of this section. 3 Strictly speaking, our results are consistent with managers trading off interest and option deductions in 2000. In other years, when option deductions are less important, tax planners may accelerate non-option deductions. It would be interesting for future research to investigate whether managers trade off non-option deductions with interest in eras when option deductions are less prominent. Employee Stock Options 1589 First, one can no longer simply adjust pretax income for deferred taxes to estimate taxable income, because unlike other forms of compensation, stock options are not typically ref lected in pretax income or in deferred taxes. In terms of pretax income, options are generally not considered an income statement expense, and firms that opt not to expense stock options also do not reduce tax expense on the income statement to ref lect the effect of option deductions.4 Further, unlike many book/tax differences, the effect of options is not captured in deferred taxes because the difference between tax and book income never reverses. As a result, a firm can consistently report high tax expense (on financial statements) and never pay any taxes (on tax returns). Prior research has typically used income statement data to infer taxable income and thus ignored option compensation deductions for the majority of firms (because most firms do not expense options). An exception is Kahle and Shastri (2002), who make an adjustment for stock options using reported \"tax benefits from stock options\" numbers to adjust pretax income.5 Hanlon and Shevlin (2002) stress that using this approach is problematic for several reasons. First, many firms do not separately report the tax benefit from stock options in their financial statements. Even for the Nasdaq 100, for which stock options benefits are likely to be large, Hanlon and Shevlin note that only 63 companies report the tax benefits from options in their 1999 financial statements. Further, while adjusting pretax income for option tax benefits is relatively straightforward if taxable income is positive, cases with tax losses are more complex because of the effects of net operating loss carryforwards and tax valuation allowances. We avoid these issues by following Hanlon and Shevlin's advice and gathering our option deductions data from the detailed information on grants and exercises found in the financial footnotes. This information is reported consistently across firms irrespective of tax status. A second unique issue with stock options is that current-period MTRs can be affected by several classes of option deductions: those emanating from alreadyexercised options (because they affect the current level of taxable income and possibly tax loss carryforwards), as well as those attributed to the overhang of already-granted but not-yet-exercised options and not-yet-granted options (because these classes of options can create losses in the future that affect current-period MTRs via the carryforward and carryback features of the tax code). All the studies of which we are aware only consider one of these 4 Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 123 permits firms the choice of either expensing stock options on the income statement or disclosing in the footnotes the effect stock options would have had if expensed. In 2000, it was extremely rare for a firm to expense stock options on the income statement, with the vast majority of firms opting for footnote disclosure. If a firm opted not to expense options, it was not permitted to reduce tax expense for the deductions related to option exercise. The underlying logic was that since the original charge did not reduce pretax income, the tax benefit at exercise should not decrease tax expense. 5 Tax benefits from option deductions are sometimes explicitly reported on two financial statements: the statement of cash f lows and the statement of shareholders' equity. However, tax benefits from options are not always reported as a separate line item and instead are often aggregated with another item on these statements. 1590 The Journal of Finance types of options: already-exercised options. This limitation is acceptable for research examining effective tax burdens, such as Desai (2002), Hanlon and Shevlin (2002), and Sullivan (2002). However, it is important to consider all three classes of options when studying economic decisions based on marginal tax incentives. Options outstanding but not yet exercised, for example, create \"deduction overhang\" in the sense that firms may find themselves in positions where there are many deep-in-the-money options outstanding that are likely to be exercised in the future, reducing taxable income and (through the carryback feature of the tax code) current-year MTRs. As a result, two firms that currently grant similar amounts of compensation in options can find themselves in very different MTR positions, depending on past stock price behavior and the number of options that remain unexercised. We use footnote information on options outstanding and past option granting behavior to forecast the likely effects of outstanding options and future option grants on current MTRs. A third conceptual issue that is unique to stock option research is the uncertainty of if and when not-yet-exercised options will lead to corporate tax deductions. Because share prices are volatile and options have long lives (most often 10 years), currently outstanding options and future option grants can generate huge deductions in the future or no deductions at all, depending on the stock price path. The stochastic nature of stock option deductions can substantially complicate computations of estimated MTRs and consequently any corporate decisions in which taxes are relevant. The stock price path and employee exercise decisions are difficult to predict, and for efficient tax and financial planning, a manager would need to factor in the probabilities and amounts of future option deductions. We explicitly implement a simulation approach for considering stock option deductions using information on stock options, stock return volatility, dividends, and expected returns to modify the Graham (1996) simulation technology. We combine expected deductions with simulated future taxable income to arrive at probability-weighted estimates of MTRs. The analysis is very similar to the approach we envision a corporate manager would undertake to make decisions based on expected MTRs. To our knowledge, ours is the first study to take the ex ante perspective of explicitly incorporating preexercise option information into MTR estimates. II. Empirical Approach A. Sample We study the firms that were in the Standard and Poor's 100 and the Nasdaq 100 on July 17, 2001 (the day we began data collection). They comprise a substantial portion of the economy and pay substantial taxes.6 Analysis of S&P 100 firms provides insight about traditional and stable industrial firms. The 6 In 1998, the most recent year for which IRS data are available, the firms in our sample had tax expense equal to more than one-third of the taxes paid for the entire corporate sector. Employee Stock Options 1591 Nasdaq 100 firms are the most profitable and stable among option-intensive, high-technology firms. Seven firms are in both the Nasdaq and S&P, so the initial sample includes 193 firms. Throughout our MTR analysis, we include these seven firms in the S&P subsample but exclude them from the Nasdaq subsample to avoid double counting. We are unable to locate data for three firms, which reduce the sample to 190 companies.7 We limit the sample to these 190 firms because (1) hand-collecting stock option data in the financial statement footnotes is costly, and (2) our simulation method is less likely to produce reliable results for small and unstable firms. We envision a scenario in which a manager assesses his firm's MTR at the end of the fiscal year. Our reference point is the most recent year for which data were available at the inception of this project, which is fiscal year-end 2000 as defined by COMPUSTAT (year-ends from June 2000 through May 2001) for the vast majority of sample firms.8 Stock prices at year-end 2000 were substantially below market highs, although still above recent market levels, which raises the question of whether the findings in this study are period specific. Because the investigation period follows an extended bull market, managers may not have envisioned the magnitude of the eventual stock option deductions when they granted the options years earlier. Nonetheless, our characterization is representative of the situation firms found themselves in at year-end 2000, with managers facing MTRs similar to those estimated in this study.9 More generally, the approach that we develop in this study should be useful in any year for incorporating stock option deductions in MTR calculations, whether the option deductions are large or small in a given year. B. Estimating Historic and Future Income (Ignoring Option Deductions) We implement a variation of the simulation algorithm used in Shevlin (1990) and Graham (1996), which requires a forecast of future income in order to calculate current-year MTRs. Our procedure assumes that income next year equals income this year plus an innovation. The innovation is drawn from a normal distribution, with growth and volatility calculated from firm-specific historic data. Because options do not create a charge to accounting earnings, our COMPUSTAT-based measure of historic pretax earnings, adjusted for deferred 7 Of the three missing companies, two are foreign companies (Erickson and Checkpoint). The other (JPM) is not listed on Edgar for unspecified reasons. 8 In the sample, 124 firms have December 2000 year-ends, and 22 have year-ends between September and November 2000. Another 20 have year-ends in 2000 earlier than September, and in eight of these cases we use 1999 data because the year-end is in May (and 10-Ks for fiscal year 2000 were not available when we collected the data). Finally, the remaining 24 companies have year-ends between January and May 31, 2001. 9 To estimate the effects of the stock market run-up, we perform a robustness check in which we assume that historic stock prices and returns, as well as historic grant and exercise prices, are only half what they actually were. Even with dampened stock prices, the sheer number of options granted and exercised is such that this robustness check produces a mean tax rate that is only modestly higher than the base case tax rate we report below. 1592 The Journal of Finance taxes, does not include the effect of stock option deductions.10 By extension, neither do our base forecasts of future income include the effects of option deductions. Additionally, since our data are from financial statements, our measure of taxable income faces the usual limitations when book numbers are used to approximate tax payments, including book-tax differences in consolidation and recognition of foreign profits.11 We use COMPUSTAT data from the last 20 years to calculate firm-specific growth and volatility. Some firms have extreme historical earnings information that seems implausible going forward. Therefore, we bound each firm's earnings growth and volatility to fall within their respective 25th and 75th percentiles among all firms in the same 2-digit SIC code.12 Using these growth rate and volatility estimates, we forecast preoption taxable income for the next 20 years. C. Including Historic and Future Option Exercises Since 1996, SFAS 123 has required firms to include in their financial footnotes, among other things, (1) a description of option terms; (2) the number of options, weighted average strike price, and remaining contractual life for options outstanding at the end of the period; (3) three years of exercise, grant, and cancellation history (number of shares and weighted average price); and (4) the Black-Scholes value of options granted during the period, including the underlying assumptions for dividend yield, risk-free rate, annual return volatility, and expected term before exercise.13 Firms have relatively little discretion 10 Stock option deductions can show up in our pre-option measure of taxable income if they affect deferred taxes. This should only occur when option deductions contribute to tax loss carryforwards (Hanlon and Shevlin (2002)). Due to data limitations, we are unable to determine the extent to which this occurs in our sample. Therefore, in our main analysis we assume that option deductions do not affect deferred taxes. We also perform an unreported robustness analysis in which we do not adjust income for deferred taxes, thereby guaranteeing that options do not affect our pre-option earnings figure. Relative to the base case results reported below, the mean tax rate is 70 basis points lower in this \"no deferred taxes adjustment\" analysis, but the qualitative implications are unchanged. 11 See Plesko (2003) for a comparison of the actual MTR based on the tax return versus estimated tax rates based on financial statement data, such as the simulation tax rate used in this paper. Note that Plesko's analysis ignores potentially important dynamic features of the tax code, such as tax loss carrybacks and carryforwards, by using a static tax return tax rate as the benchmark. Nonetheless, Plesko concludes that of the various tax variables he considers, the simulated tax rate is the most highly correlated with tax return tax rates. 12 This approach is consistent with the common procedure of using industry inputs when calculating a firm's cost of capital. Note that our qualitative results do not change if we do not bound growth rates or volatility, nor if we set each firm's growth and volatility equal to industry medians. 13 Specifically, SFAS 123 states that \"the fair value of a stock option (or its equivalent) granted by a public entity shall be estimated using an option-pricing model (for example, the Black-Scholes or a binomial model) that takes into account as of the grant date the exercise price and expected life of the option, the current price of the underlying stock and its expected volatility, expected dividends on the stock . . . , and the risk-free interest rate for the expected term of the option.\" Appendix B of SFAS 123 provides detailed guidance on estimating the inputs into the valuation formula, and firms are required to disclose the assumptions used in valuation. Employee Stock Options 1593 in their Black-Scholes assumptions, and the footnote format is generally consistent across firms. For those firms with unusual disclosures, our results are robust to their exclusion.14 For illustrative purposes, the appendix includes Microsoft's stock option footnote for the year ended June 30, 2000. Hall and Leibman (2000) find that 95% of all stock options are nonqualified, so we make the simplifying assumption that all options reported in the footnote are nonqualified. The footnote contains historic exercise information for the preceding two and current fiscal years (1998, 1999, and 2000 for most of our firms). For each firm, we calculate option deductions as the number of options exercised in a given year times the difference between the average strike price for those options and the share price at exercise. We measure the share price at exercise for a given year using the average stock price for options granted in that same year.15 Incorporating historic option deductions into our analysis is straightforward: We subtract the historic employee option deductions from the historic income figures derived in the previous section. Note that historic option deductions can affect the MTR in 2000 by reducing taxable income in 2000 and also by creating a tax loss in 1998 or 1999 that is carried forward into 2000. We also experiment with gathering historic options data for 1995, 1996, and 1997 for a random sample of eight firms to investigate whether losses in these years carry forward into 2000 sufficiently to affect the MTR in 2000. However, the cost of hand-gathering the data is large and the benefit small (these extra data barely affect our results), so we do not pursue gathering pre-1998 option data for other firms. The footnote also contains information on options already granted, but not yet exercised. To incorporate these future deductions into our analysis, we make assumptions about option exercise behavior. Huddart and Lang (1996) and Core and Guay (2001) report that early exercise of employee stock options is common, 14 Most companies with multiple plans combine all plans into one aggregate disclosure. In the 12 cases in which firms separate information across plans, we aggregate shares and use weighted averages of variables such as share price and expected term to exercise. Similarly, exercise decisions are disclosed separately for 13 sample firms (e.g., cancellations separated from forfeitures or reloads separated from new grants), and Black-Scholes assumptions are disclosed separately for 15 firms (e.g., different expected lives for executives relative to non-executive employees). Again, we aggregate the disclosures and use a weighted average of the variables, weighted by the number of options in the respective plan. Twenty-eight companies disclose a range for Black-Scholes assumptions, and five disclose a range of exercise prices rather than a weighted average, perhaps ref lecting the fact that they use different assumptions for different groups of employees. In these cases, we use the midpoint of the range because sufficient detail is not available to calculate a weighted average. Finally, eight firms disclose dividends per share rather than dividend yield. In these cases, we compute dividend yield based on year-end share price. In total, 73 firms report in one of these nonstandard formats. If we exclude these 73 firms, the mean tax rate increases by approximately 150 basis points, but the overall implications of our study do not change. 15 For example, using the Microsoft footnote disclosure in the appendix for the year ended June 30, 2000, we estimate the 2000 tax deduction for stock options to be $13,925,340,000, which is the product of the 198 million options exercised and the difference in the weighted average grant price of $79.87 and the weighted average strike price of $9.54. 1594 The Journal of Finance with much of the exercise occurring about halfway through the option's life, and that exercise tends to spread smoothly over time. Thus, we use the disclosed expected option life as our estimate of when average exercise will occur and assume that exercise is spread smoothly over a period beginning two years before that year and ending two years after that year.16 Some stock price paths imply that option exercise is not optimal because the market price is close to or below the strike price (our derivation of future stock price paths is described in the next section). Therefore, we follow the convention in Huddart and Lang (1996) and assume no exercise in years in which options are in-the-money by 15% or less (unless the option is at expiration, in which case we assume all in-the-money options are exercised). In cases in which options are out-of-the-money or barely in-the-money, we defer exercise until the first year in which they are in-the-money by at least 15% (or until expiration).17 Future option deductions can affect the current-period MTR in two ways. First, if they are exercised in the next two years and are large enough to generate a tax loss, the tax loss can be carried back to offset taxes paid in 2000. This carryback treatment can result in a refund in 2001 or 2002 for taxes paid in 2000, thereby reducing the 2000 MTR. Second, for firms that do not pay taxes in 2000 but instead carry losses forward, future option deductions potentially add to the amount carried forward. This carryforward treatment can delay the date at which taxes are eventually paid, thereby reducing the (present value of the) current-period MTR. The last group of options we consider are those that are not yet granted. As just described, these options potentially affect 2000 MTRs via carrybacks if they lead to deductions in 2001 or 2002 (which, given our assumptions about exercise behavior, only occurs for firms with an average option life of four years or less) 16 We do not explicitly incorporate vesting schedules because the stock option footnotes are often vague and indicate a range of vesting periods. Further, our use of expected lives should incorporate the effects of vesting. To get a sense for the typical vesting schedule, we gather the available information from the option footnotes. The average vesting period (using the midpoint when a range is indicated) is 3.5 years for our sample firms, and most firms indicate that vesting occurs ratably over time, typically beginning within the first year. As a result, our assumption that option exercise is spread over the period beginning two years prior to and ending two years following the expected life (4.8 years on average) seems consistent with the likely vesting schedules. Huddart and Lang (1996) suggest that exercise is common immediately following vesting dates. On another note, it is possible that in 2000 the expected option life that companies report in the footnotes is low by historic standards, due to the bull market of the 1990s, which may have encouraged early exercise and shorter option lives. To investigate how a longer expected life would affect our results, we perform a robustness check in which we add two years to the expected life of all options. The mean estimated tax rate in this analysis is only 20 basis points higher than what we report below, and overall qualitative results are unchanged. 17 For example, the Microsoft footnote disclosure in the appendix reports a weighted average expected life of 6.2 years and an expiration of 10 years for options granted in 2000. Thus, we assume the options granted in 2000 will be exercised evenly over the period from 2004 to 2008 if they are in the money by at least 15% during those years. If they are not in-the-money by 15%, exercise is deferred until the first year in which they are in-the-money by 15%. In 2010 (the presumed date of expiration), all options that remain outstanding are exercised if they are in the money by any amount. Employee Stock Options 1595 or by creating large tax losses that will be carried forward. We assume that firms grant future options in an amount equal to the average number granted (net of cancellations) during the past three years, times a growth factor.18 The growth factor is based on a given firm's preoption income growth (bounded between the 25th and 75th percentiles for income growth rates of other firms in the same two-digit SIC code).19 The strike price for a given firm-year's newly granted options is assumed to be the forecasted stock price for that firm-year. In the next section we describe how the stock price is determined. To incorporate future option deductions into our analysis, we subtract the future option deductions along a given simulation path from preoption income (as forecast in Section II.B). This yields a forecast of taxable income after accounting for options. An alternative approach would be to subtract the effect of options from all historic data (up to 20 years of data) and then directly forecast postoption income into the future. Unfortunately, because the stock option disclosures have been required only since 1996, we cannot adjust the estimates of taxable income in all prior years, so this alternative approach is infeasible. Finally, throughout the study we ignore repricing, that is, reducing the strike price of already granted options. To the extent that firms are committed to a policy of repricing during downward price movements, our approach would lead us to understate future option deductions. D. Estimating Future Stock Prices We forecast future stock prices so that we can project the magnitude of future stock option deductions. We project a separate future stock price path associated with each of the 50 simulations of future income described in Sections I and II.B. This procedure allows the value of stock options to vary with stock prices (and because we link stock prices to earnings, to vary with different earnings simulations). To project future stock prices, we compute an expected return for each firm, based on the CAPM market model. This total return calculation requires a firm-specific beta (taken from CRSP), the risk-free rate (from each firm's stock option footnote), and an equity risk premium of 3% (which is consistent with recent estimates of the risk premium in Fama and French (2002) and Graham and Harvey (2002)).20 We are interested in capital appreciation in stock price, so we subtract the firm-specific dividend-yield from each firm's total return. 18 For example, the Microsoft footnote disclosure in the appendix reports grants (cancellations) of 138 (25) million in fiscal year 1998, 78 (30) in 1999, and 304 (40) in 2000. We assume that fiscal year 2001 grants are 141.7 million (i.e., 173.3 million (the mean of 1998, 1999, and 2000 grants) less 31.6 million (the mean of 1998, 1999, and 2000 cancellations)) times a growth factor. 19 In unreported analysis, we find qualitatively similar results when we perform our calculations based on sales revenue growth, rather than income growth. Sales growth rates are typically much larger than income growth rates in our sample, so we use the latter so that our estimate of future options grant numbers is conservative. 20 In a robustness check, we use an estimated risk premium of 8.1% (the Ibbotson historic average). This premium leads to a mean tax rate that is 40 basis points lower than the base case mean reported below. All results are qualitatively similar whether we use an 8.1% or a 3% risk premium. 1596 The Journal of Finance Stock prices tend to vary with earnings. Easton and Harris (1991) show that changes in annual earnings and annual returns are positively related (Pearson correlation of approximately 20%). Therefore, to incorporate this positive empirical association between stock returns and earnings, we modify expected returns to link them to the earnings projections derived in Section II.B. We assume that unexpectedly high earnings are accompanied by proportionally positive expected stock returns. For example, consider a case in which earnings were expected to increase at 10% and stock price was expected to increase at 12%. Suppose that in a given simulation we end up on a path with earnings increasing by 15% in the first year (50% higher growth rate than expected). To link the two series, we assign an expected stock return of 18% on that path for that year (50% higher than expected). This adjustment modifies the expected stock return in a way that links earnings and returns.21 Robustness checks, however, indicate that the degree of assumed correlation is not particularly important. When we replicate the study assuming independence between annual earnings and annual returns, inferences are qualitatively unaltered (mean tax rates are 50 basis points higher than those reported in the base case below). Moreover, our qualitative results do not change if we assume an expected stock price increase of 12% annually for all firms.22 Given an expected stock return, we project future stock prices by drawing returns from a lognormal distribution. For each year, the mean of this distribution equals the expected return, calculated as just described, and the variance is that reported in the stock option footnotes.23 In our approach, we use historic data to estimate income growth (as described in Section II.B) and a modified CAPM expected return (as just described). In a robustness check, we use Value Line projections for the 131 firms in our sample for which Value Line provides estimates. For income growth, we annualize the Value Line \"four year growth rate\" estimate of sales growth when it is available, or use the Value Line earnings growth rate when sales growth is not available. For stock returns, we annualize the return implicit in the average of 21 While we directly link growth of earnings and expected stock prices, we do not directly link realized future earnings and stock prices. That is, we use the realized draw for earnings growth on a given earnings path for a given period (15% in our example) to determine the mean expected stock price growth for that period on the associated stock price path (18% in our example). However, on top of that mean, we layer a variance based on the past returns series and draw a return from that distribution. The resulting \"realized\" return can be substantially different from 18% because of high return variances. In fact, the correlation of simulated earnings and simulated stock prices is approximately 15% in our analysis, which puts our simulated correlation in line with that observed empirically by Easton and Harris. 22 A related issue is the potential that management makes decisions based on unrealistic or optimistic expectations of future returns. We do not believe that reasonable alternative management beliefs would greatly alter our results. For example, if we set the expected return to 15% and halve the variance of expected returns to capture optimistic managerial beliefs, the mean tax rate falls by only 13 basis points relative to what is reported below. 23 Since the annual stock price is based on log returns, implied prices cannot be negative. Note also that if we assume that volatility is 25% for all firms (rather than using the volatility firms report in the footnotes), the mean tax rate is only 10 basis points different from that reported below in the base case. Employee Stock Options 1597 the high and low \"four year ahead target stock prices.\" Using these alternative earnings and stock growth rates yields mean MTRs that are only 12 basis points higher than those we report below, and no difference in the overall qualitative results. E. Discounting Future Stock Option Deductions In this section we discuss the discount rate that we use to determine the present value tax consequences of stock option deductions for MTRs. Recall that because of the carryback and carryforward features of the tax code, the effects of today's deductions can potentially be felt far into the future. The issue is determining what rate should be used to discount these future tax consequences. Some previous research (e.g., Graham (1996, 2000)) uses the corporate bond yield as the discount rate to determine the present value of the tax effect of various deductions (e.g., debt interest) on MTRs and firm value. This approach implicitly assumes that the tax effects of these deductions have the same risk as debt, as assumed by Modigliani and Miller (1958) for interest deductions. It seems less reasonable to discount the effects of future option deductions using the debt rate. Options generate deductions on exercise, and option exercise is correlated with stock returns; therefore, options lead to higher compensation costs, as well as tax benefits, when share prices are high.24 In the remainder of this section we discuss conceptually how we think that tax liabilities in a stock option world should be discounted, and we link this conceptual framework with our empirical implementation of discounting tax liabilities within the simulation procedure. To keep the discussion focused on the discount rate, we start by making several simplifying assumptions. We assume that options are cash settled, or equivalently, that firms purchase shares in the open market to deliver to employees when they exercise their options. Shares are repurchased at a fair and efficient market price, using funds that would have otherwise been invested in zero-net present value projects, so there are no dilution concerns and no change in the number of shares outstanding. We also assume that there are no incentive effects from options (and therefore that option incentive effects do not cause employees to work harder in some states, nor change the cash f lows or correlation of pretax income and the market return).25 Finally, we assume that 24 While the per-share option deduction is directly the result of stock price appreciation, the correlation between option deductions and contemporaneous-year returns is likely to be well below one for at least two reasons. First, options are typically exercised in about the fifth year of their lives and the per-share deduction is determined by the multi-year return, so the current year return is a relatively small part of the deduction. Second, the number of options exercised is a function of many factors beyond current year return (e.g., prior exercise, cancellation, market/strike ratio, and liquidity concerns), so the current year return may be high but exercise low because employees opt not to exercise. 25 We thank Terry Shevlin for pointing out these incentive possibilities. We thank Bob McDonald for suggesting the basic framework that we discuss next. 1598 The Journal of Finance no-option cash f lows are positively correlated with the market, so the firm's no-option cash f low beta is positive, as is the beta on no-option taxable income. Given these assumptions, how should tax liabilities be discounted for a firm that uses options as part of their compensation package? (Note that the only place where we use a discount rate is within the simulation procedure, to discount the incremental future tax liability stream associated with earning an extra dollar in 2000). If a firm pays a fixed wage W, after-tax income (ignoring carrybacks and carryforwards) is CF W C (CF min[CF, W ]), where CF is cash f low (before the effects of wages or options) and C is the corporate income tax rate. The \"min\" appears because tax liabilities cannot be negative. When min(CF, W) = W, this becomes simply (CF W) (1 t). For convenience, it is assumed that wage payments are uncorrelated with stock prices. With option cash settlement and assuming that options have a negligible strike price, after-tax income is CF m S C (CF min[CF, m S]), where S is the stock price and m is the number of options exercised. Our variable of interest, the tax liability, is C (CF min[CF, m S]), which is the quantity we discount in the simulation procedure. The covariance of tax liabilities with the stock price is C Cov(CF min[CF, m S], S) = C {Cov(CF, S) Cov(min[CF, m S], S)}. Both covariance terms in the braces will generally be positive, so the sign of the overall correlation between tax liabilities and stock price depends on which covariance is larger. Because cash f lows are generally substantially larger than option deductions, the overall correlation between tax liabilities and stock price will typically be positive, but if the second term in the braces is large enough in absolute magnitude, the overall correlation can be negative. If the second term is small, the correlation does not differ much from the correlation in the \"no options\" case. It is an empirical matter as to whether the overall correlation is positive or negative. Using data for the firms in our sample, we determine that the correlation between tax liabilities and stock price is positive on average for the levels of these two variables, and also for percentage changes for these two series. Therefore, our argument is that the beta is positive for tax liabilities and the appropriate rate to discount tax liabilities lies somewhere between the risk-free rate and the equity rate. We show below that the implications in our paper do not change for various discount rates in this range. In the base case for this paper, to determine the present value of incremental tax liabilities associated with earning an extra dollar in 2000 (i.e., to determine the year-2000 MTR), we discount using a firm-specific equity rate. This is conservative relative to using a smaller discount rate because it will reduce the Employee Stock Options 1599 effect of changes in future tax liabilities on current-period MTRs. Discounting with an equity rate is an approximation because it misses the fact that option deductions are zero below some exercise price, and hence do not contain pure equity risk. It is also an approximation because it does not explicitly account for the association between earnings and stock prices inherent in our approach (see Section II.D for details). However, these approximations are likely to have only a modest effect because our ultimate variable of interest is the MTR, which is bounded between 0 and 35%.26 This implies that any errors we make in discounting will have an attenuated effect on our MTR estimates (because the MTR cannot vary outside of the range from 0 to 35%, no matter how we discount). To ensure that our results are not sensitive to the discount rate, we conduct several sensitivity analyses. Technically, option deductions could be discounted as options rather than as pure equity. Therefore, we implement an approach based on the contingent claims valuation outlined in Schwartz and Moon (2000). Specifically, we assume an earnings risk premium of 2% per year, increase stock prices at the risk-free rate, and discount everything at the risk-free rate. In another set of robustness checks, we follow our standard simulation approach but discount using very high (e.g., double the CAPM market-model discount rate) and very low (e.g., the risk-free rate) discount rates. The empirical results indicate that the discounting assumption has only a second-order effect on the estimated MTR. For example, doubling the discount rate reduces the estimated tax rate 120 basis points relative to what we report below, and does not change the qualitative results. The Schwartz and Moon (2000) approach reduces the estimated MTR by 100 basis points. All other robustness checks on the discount rate lead to smaller changes in the estimated MTR. While conceptually important, the choice of discount rate only has a modest effect on our empirical estimates of the MTR. This ref lects the fact that the magnitudes of historic, current, and very near-term option deductions are the dominant effects on current MTRs, more so than distant option deductions (for which the discount rate would be more important). III. Empirical Analysis of the Effect of Option Deductions on Corporate MTRs A. Descriptive Statistics Table I presents descriptive statistics for the stock option disclosures of the S&P 100 and Nasdaq 100 samples. For both groups, the average expected option life is close to five years, although it is slightly shorter for Nasdaq firms, consistent with the higher volatility for Nasdaq firms, possibly coupled with risk aversion, precipitating early exercise. Not surprisingly, given GAAP reporting requirements, the risk-free rate is very similar for the two samples, equaling approximately 6%. The small difference in the risk-free rate for the 26 We thank Bob McDonald for pointing this out. 1600 The Journal of Finance Table I Descriptive Statistics on Option Characteristics All variables are from the Black-Scholes option valuation assumptions in the company financial statement footnotes. Expected life is years from grant until average exercise. The risk-free interest rate is the rate on zero-coupon U.S. government issues with remaining term equal to the expected life of the options. The dividend yield is dividends as a percentage of share price. The annual return volatility is the standard deviation of the continuously compounded rates of return on the stock (i.e., standard deviation of the difference in the natural logarithm of stock prices). Mean Median Std. Dev. 25th Perc. 75th Perc. 4.20 5.90 0.13 28.6 6.40 6.48 2.40 42.1 3.27 5.60 0.00 55.0 5.00 6.25 0.00 93.4 S&P 100 in 2000 Expected Life Risk-Free Rate Dividend Yield (%) Annual Return Volatility 5.26 6.11 1.48 36.4 5.00 6.20 1.24 33.4 1.57 0.50 1.40 12.9 Nasdaq 100 in 2000 Expected Life Risk-Free Rate Dividend Yield (%) Annual Return Volatility 4.41 5.88 0.09 74.6 4.40 6.00 0.00 73.0 1.79 0.59 0.50 25.5 two samples probably ref lects differences in year-ends (because risk-free rates should be similar for firms with common year-ends), with noncalendar yearends being more common for Nasdaq firms. Dividend yield averages 1.5% for S&P 100 firms with most firms paying dividends. Conversely, few Nasdaq 100 firms pay dividends; the mean dividend yield is 0.1% and the 75th percentile is zero. Annual stock return volatility is higher for Nasdaq 100 firms, with a mean volatility of 75% versus 36% for the S&P firms. The volatility of returns is important because it affects the probability that stock price appreciates greatly, which would lead to large option deductions in good scenarios. Table II summarizes firm characteristics. Not surprisingly, the market capitalization of the typical S&P 100 firm is roughly five times larger than that for Nasdaq 100 firms. However, there is substantial overlap between the two distributions, with the 75th percentile of Nasdaq firms being one-third larger than the 25th percentile of S&P firms. The difference in size between the two subsamples is more pronounced for total assets, ref lecting the fact that Nasdaq valuation is based more prominently on intangibles and growth options. In terms of profitability, the median return on assets (ROA) is quite similar for the two samples, and is actually a little higher for the Nasdaq firms (4.9%) than for the S&P firms (4.7%). The 75th percentiles are also similar for the subsamples. However, the dispersion of profitability is higher for Nasdaq firms, with a much higher proportion reporting losses. In fact, the 25th percentile ROA is 3.4% for the Nasdaq firms versus 1.5% for the S&P firms. Nasdaq firms tend to use less debt in their capital structure, with a mean (median) debt Employee Stock Options 1601 Table II Descriptive Statistics on Firm Characteristics The measure asset is total assets; market equity is the value of common equity at fiscal year-end; return on assets is net income divided by assets; debt/value is total debt divided by the market value of the firm; and beta is the market-model beta as reported on CRSP. Mean Median Std. Dev. 25th Perc. 75th Perc. 10,673 12,123 1.5 5.1 0.56 52,150 80,879 10.9 24.5 1.33 1,379 5,136 3.4 0.0 0.76 6,178 16,885 10.3 7.1 1.61 S&P 100 in 2000 Asset ($M) Market equity ($M) Return on assets (%) Debt/value (%) Beta 76,887 65,006 6.6 17.5 0.98 27,445 28,777 4.7 13.4 0.98 139,659 82,705 6.7 15.9 0.53 Nasdaq 100 in 2000 Asset ($M) Market equity ($M) Return on assets (%) Debt/value (%) Beta 5,716 13,453 1.3 6.7 1.16 2,270 8,605 4.9 1.0 1.22 11,441 14,014 39.5 11.2 0.59 ratio of 6.7% (1%) versus 17.5% (13.4%) for the S&P firms. Both samples have average betas of approximately one, although the S&P firms are slightly below one while the Nasdaq firms have betas slightly above one. Figure 1 summarizes the overall effect of option deductions on the year-2000 corporate MTR (i.e., the effect of all historic and future exercises). The histogram shows MTRs for all 190 firms in our sample, with and without the effects of options. Options cause a significant shift in MTRs. Before options, 24% of the sample face MTRs of less than 10% while after considering options, 35% face such rates. Similarly, before options, 65% of the sample firms face MTRs above 30% as compared with 46% after factoring in options. In the next two sections, we analyze the effects of options separately for S&P and Nasdaq firms, and break out the effects by historic versus future exercise activity. B. Tax Effects for S&P 100 Companies Table III presents evidence on the effects of option deductions on MTRs, segregated by sample. The first row contains estimated MTRs for fiscal yearend 2000, produced using standard tax deductions and deferred taxes to infer taxable income, but before taking stock options into account. This computation is comparable to the one used in Graham (1996), with the only differences being that we bound income growth and volatility to lie within the 25th and 75th industry percentiles and that we discount the tax consequences of option deductions with the cost of equity. The median MTR for the S&P 100 firms in 1602 The Journal of Finance Figure 1. Histogram for marginal tax rates for the 190 firms in the S&P 100 and Nasdaq 100 in July, 2000. The columns before options are simulated tax rates based on earnings before tax (EBT) but ignoring option deductions. The columns after options are simulated tax rates based on EBT, including the effect of option deductions. 2000 is the top statutory rate of 35%, while the mean is 29%, which is consistent with prior studies that show clustering at the upper end of the statutory rates. The 25th percentile MTR is 32%, ref lecting the fact that most S&P 100 firms face relatively high tax rates. However, the 5th percentile is zero, consistent with a few S&P 100 firms not expecting to pay any taxes over a 23-year period (e.g., after carrying losses in 2000 back two years to 1998 and forward 20 years to 2020). The next three rows of Table III illustrate the impact of stock option deductions on MTRs. Recall that there are several groups of stock option deductions: already exercised (second row: \"MTR w/exercised options\"), already granted but not yet exercised (third row: \"MTR w/current grants\"), and not yet granted (fourth row: \"MTR w/future grants\"). For the S&P 100 sample, we find that incorporating stock options into the simulations has relatively little effect on the MTRs. In the fourth row of Table III, when all option deductions are considered (including future grants and future exercises), the median MTR is still 35%. For the 25th percentile, the estimated MTR drops from 32% to 26%. The fifth row of Table III summarizes the change in MTRs brought about by option deductions (\" MTR w/future grants\"). Inferences are the same. Options materially reduce MTRs for only about one-fourth of S&P firms. When we consider all options, the mean reduction is 1%. Among the firms with the largest drop in tax rates, the 25th percentile MTR falls by 1% and the 5th percentile MTR decreases by 5%. Employee Stock Options 1603 Table III Effect of Employee Stock Option Deductions on Marginal Tax Rates This table summarizes the effect of option deductions on corporate marginal tax rates (MTRs) for all 190 firms for which we can calculate tax rates. The measure MTR w/o options is a simulated MTR, assuming there are no employee stock option deductions, based on earnings before tax (EBT). A simulated MTR accounts for the tax-loss carryback and carryforward features of the tax code. The measure MTR w/exercised options is the simulated rate except that historic deductions from options exercised in 1998, 1999, and 2000 are subtracted from EBT. The measure MTR w/current grants is the simulated MTR, with historic deductions and future deductions associated with already granted options deducted from EBT. The measure MTR w/future grants is the simulated MTR, with historic deductions, future deductions for already granted options, and deductions for not-yetgranted options deducted from EBT. The measure MTR w/future grants is MTR w/future grants minus MTR w/o options, so a negative number indicates that option deductions lead to a reduction in the tax rate. The measure 2000 stock option deductions is the dollar figure (in millions) of option deductions in 2000. The measure 2000 deductions/pretax income is 2000 deductions divided by pre-option EBT. The columns show the mean and standard deviation across all sample firms, as well as the 5th , 25th , 50th , 75th , and 95th percentiles. Mean Std. Dev. 5% 25% 50% 75% 95% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0 0.00 0.32 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.01 16 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 102 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 389 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 3,099 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 52 0.18 0.31 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.02 173 0.14 0.35 0.34 0.27 0.26 0.00 449 1.03 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 1,637 4.73 S&P 100 in 2000 MTR w/o options MTR w/exercised options MTR w/current grants MTR w/future grants MTR w/future grants 2000 Stock Option Deductions 2000 Deductions/Pretax Income 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.01 640 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.04 1764 0.59 Nasdaq 100 in 2000 MTR w/o options MTR w/exercised options MTR w/current grants MTR w/future grants MTR w/future grants 2000 Stock Option Deductions 2000 Deductions/Pretax Income 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.08 387.8 0.23 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.12 557 5.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0 2.35 Even though employee stock option deductions do not substantially reduce the MTR for many S&P 100 firms, the deductions have a noticeable effect on corporate tax liabilities. The bottom two rows of Table III present gross deductions expressed in dollar terms and as a percentage of earnings before tax. The mean S&P firm had $640 million of option tax deductions in 2000. With 99 firms in the sample, this implies total deductions of $63.4 billion. With aggregate pretax earnings of approximately $349 billion for S&P 100 firms, stock option deductions represent nearly one-fifth of aggregate pretax income. Option deductions are 4% of pretax income for the median firm, 12% for the 75th percentile, and 111% for the 95th percentile. To summarize, S&P 100 firms substantially reduce their tax liabilities through deductions for nonqualified employee stock options. However, while 1604 The Journal of Finance option deductions reduce tax rates for some firms, the tax savings do not translate into significantly lower MTRs for the typical (highly profitable) S&P 100 firm. Though option deductions slash their tax bills, only about one-fourth of S&P 100 firms have enough deductions to (1) fully offset the current year's preoption income and also eliminate the past two years of taxable income; (2) generate losses in 2001 and 2002 that can be carried back to fully offset income in 2000; or (3) for currently nontaxable firms, delay when tax consequences are realized for year-2000 option deductions. One or more of these conditions must be met for option deductions to reduce MTRs. C. Tax Effects for Nasdaq 100 Companies Options dramatically affect the MTRs of Nasdaq 100 companies. The median MTR before options is 31% and the mean is 20% (see the bottom panel in Table III), suggesting that Nasdaq firms have relatively high MTRs before the effects of options, though not as high as the MTRs of S&P 100 firms. For the median firm, just considering historic exercises reduces the MTR from 31% to 15%. Incrementally considering options that are already granted but not yet exercised reduces the median MTR from 15% to 8%. Considering all forms of option deductions, including those