1,400 said to profit from options dating

Study of stock grants over 10 years finds rigging directly benefited board members

December 19, 2006|By Kathy M. Kristof | Kathy M. Kristof,LOS ANGELES TIMES

board members director Nearly 1,400 corporate board members appear to have profited from the manipulation of stock option grant dates over a 10-year period, according to a study released yesterday.

The analysis raises the possibility that hundreds of board members were aware that options were backdated to boost their value to themselves and company executives. That could be seen as a conflict with their role as advocates for all company shareholders.

"Rather than merely failing to notice or stop the manipulation of executives' grants, many outside directors have received manipulated option grants and thus directly benefited from the manipulation practices," according to the study by Harvard professor Lucian Bebchuck and two other scholars.

Stock options are rights to buy company shares at a set price in the future. The option price generally is set at the market price on the grant date. The lower the price on that date, the more likely the recipient would be to profit.

The study reviewed 29,000 stock option grants from 1996 to 2005 to so-called outside directors, or board members who are not executives of the companies.

About 9 percent of the time, options were granted on days when the stock price was at a monthly low - a coincidence that suggests the date may have been picked in hindsight, or backdated, to ensure maximum benefit.

Corporate watchdogs said the 9 percent figure was significant, even though it suggested that the timing was not suspicious for the overwhelming majority of grants. That's because board members are supposed to be looking out for average investors, not using their positions for self-profit, these critics say.

"It's appalling," said Claudia Allen, chairwoman of the corporate governance practice with Chicago law firm Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg. "Directors are fiduciaries for all stockholders; to act in their own self-interest is a breach of loyalty. It's the cardinal sin."

The study did not identify any companies, nor did it offer any hard evidence that directors played a direct role in the backdating of options. It did conclude that backdating occurred across a wide range of industries. The one exception was the utilities sector, which issues few options to directors.

The backdating scandal emerged this year after academic research by Erik Lie of the University of Iowa, leading to resignations and investigations at scores of companies.

Most of the focus has been on corporate executives, who make far more in option grants than board directors. But the study's authors and others say the role of directors deserves more scrutiny.

"It seems less significant, because there is less money involved, but the betrayal of trust is far greater," said Paul Hodgson, senior research associate at Corporate Library, a governance research firm based in Maine.

Questionable grants were sometimes given to executives and directors on the same date, according to the study, co-written by Yaniv Grinstein of Cornell and Urs Peyer of the University of Chicago.

At other times, directors were given options on dates that executives did not receive them, the study found. In those cases, 71 percent of the options granted appeared to involve some kind of date manipulation.

Bebchuck said suspicious grants were far more likely to happen at companies that had management structures that tended to give chief executives more power. These include provisions for staggered terms of board members, weakening their clout, and so-called poison pill measures and other defenses against hostile takeovers.

Kathy M. Kristof writes for the Los Angeles Times.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.