3.7 Multiple Conditions for Employee Awards
ASC
718-10
Market, Performance, and Service
Conditions
25-20
Accruals of compensation cost for an award with a
performance condition shall be based on the probable outcome
of that performance condition — compensation cost shall be
accrued if it is probable that the performance condition
will be achieved and shall not be accrued if it is not
probable that the performance condition will be achieved. If
an award has multiple performance conditions (for example,
if the number of options or shares a grantee earns varies
depending on which, if any, of two or more performance
conditions is satisfied), compensation cost shall be accrued
if it is probable that a performance condition will be
satisfied. In making that assessment, it may be necessary to
take into account the interrelationship of those performance
conditions. Example 2 (see paragraph 718-20-55-35) provides
an illustration of how to account for awards with multiple
performance conditions.
25-21 If
an award requires satisfaction of one or more market,
performance, or service conditions (or any combination
thereof), compensation cost shall be recognized if the good
is delivered or the service is rendered, and no compensation
cost shall be recognized if the good is not delivered or the
service is not rendered. Paragraphs 718-10-55-60 through
55-63 provide guidance on applying this provision to awards
with market, performance, or service conditions (or any
combination thereof).
Performance or Service
Conditions
30-12 Awards of share-based
compensation ordinarily specify a performance condition or a
service condition (or both) that must be satisfied for a
grantee to earn the right to benefit from the award. No
compensation cost is recognized for instruments forfeited
because a service condition or a performance condition is
not satisfied (for example, instruments for which the good
is not delivered or the service is not rendered). Examples 1
through 2 (see paragraphs 718-20-55-4 through 55-40) and
Example 1 (see paragraph 718-30-55-1) provide illustrations
of how compensation cost is recognized for awards with
service and performance conditions.
Market,
Performance, and Service Conditions That Affect Vesting and
Exercisability
55-61 Analysis
of the market, performance, or service conditions (or any
combination thereof) that are explicit or implicit in the
terms of an award is required to determine the employee’s
requisite service period or the nonemployee’s vesting period
over which compensation cost is recognized and whether
recognized compensation cost may be reversed if an award
fails to vest or become exercisable (see paragraph
718-10-30-27). If exercisability or the ability to retain
the award (for example, an award of equity shares may
contain a market condition that affects the grantee’s
ability to retain those shares) is based solely on one or
more market conditions compensation cost for that award is
recognized if the grantee delivers the promised good or
renders the service, even if the market condition is not
satisfied. If exercisability (or the ability to retain the
award) is based solely on one or more market conditions,
compensation cost for that award is reversed if the grantee
does not deliver the promised good or render the service,
unless the market condition is satisfied prior to the end of
the employee’s requisite service period or the nonemployee’s
vesting period, in which case any unrecognized compensation
cost would be recognized at the time the market condition is
satisfied. If vesting is based solely on one or more
performance or service conditions, any previously recognized
compensation cost is reversed if the award does not vest
(that is, the good is not delivered or the service is not
rendered or the performance condition is not achieved).
Examples 1 through 4 (see paragraphs 718-20-55-4 through
55-50) provide illustrations of awards in which vesting is
based solely on performance or service
conditions.
55-61A
An employee award containing one or more market conditions
may have an explicit, implicit, or derived service period.
Paragraphs 718-10-55-69 through 55-79 provide guidance on
explicit, implicit, and derived service periods.
55-62 Vesting or exercisability
may be conditional on satisfying two or more types of
conditions (for example, vesting and exercisability occur
upon satisfying both a market and a performance or service
condition). Vesting also may be conditional on satisfying
one of two or more types of conditions (for example, vesting
and exercisability occur upon satisfying either a market
condition or a performance or service condition). Regardless
of the nature and number of conditions that must be
satisfied, the existence of a market condition requires
recognition of compensation cost if the good is delivered or
the service is rendered, even if the market condition is
never satisfied.
55-63
Even if only one of two or more conditions must be satisfied
and a market condition is present in the terms of the award,
then compensation cost is recognized if the good is
delivered or the service is rendered, regardless of whether
the market, performance, or service condition is satisfied
(see Example 5 [paragraph 718-10-55-100] for an example of
such an employee award).
55-66 The
following flowchart provides guidance on determining how to
account for an award based on the existence of market,
performance, or service conditions (or any combination
thereof).
Accounting for Awards With
Market, Performance, or Service Conditions
(a) The award shall be classified and
accounted for as equity. Market conditions are included in
the grant-date fair value estimate of the award.
(b) Performance and service conditions that
affect vesting are not included in estimating the grant-date
fair value of the award. Performance and service conditions
that affect the exercise price, contractual term, conversion
ratio, or other pertinent factors affecting the fair value
of an award are included in estimating the grant-date fair
value of the award.
55-72 An
award with a combination of market, performance, or service
conditions may contain multiple explicit, implicit, or
derived service periods. For such an award, the estimate of
the requisite service period shall be based on an analysis
of all of the following:
- All vesting and exercisability conditions
- All explicit, implicit, and derived service periods
- The probability that performance or service conditions will be satisfied.
55-73 Thus,
if vesting (or exercisability) of an award is based on
satisfying both a market condition and a performance or
service condition and it is probable that the performance or
service condition will be satisfied, the initial estimate of
the requisite service period generally is the longest of the
explicit, implicit, or derived service periods. If vesting
(or exercisability) of an award is based on satisfying
either a market condition or a performance or service
condition and it is probable that the performance or service
condition will be satisfied, the initial estimate of the
requisite service period generally is the shortest of the
explicit, implicit, or derived service periods.
55-74 For
example, a share option might specify that vesting occurs
after three years of continuous employee service or when the
employee completes a specified project. The employer
estimates that it is probable that the project will be
completed within 18 months. The employer also believes it is
probable that the service condition will be satisfied. Thus,
that award contains an explicit service period of 3 years
related to the service condition and an implicit service
period of 18 months related to the performance condition.
Because it is considered probable that both the performance
condition and the service condition will be achieved, the
requisite service period over which compensation cost is
recognized is 18 months, which is the shorter of the
explicit and implicit service periods.
55-75 As illustrated in the
preceding paragraph, if an award vests upon the earlier of
the satisfaction of a service condition (for example, four
years of service) or the satisfaction of one or more
performance conditions, it will be necessary to estimate
when, if at all, the performance conditions are probable of
achievement. For example, if initially the four-year service
condition is probable of achievement and no performance
condition is probable of achievement, the requisite service
period is four years. If one year into the four-year
requisite service period a performance condition becomes
probable of achievement by the end of the second year, the
requisite service period would be revised to two years for
attribution of compensation cost (at that point in time,
there would be only one year of the two-year requisite
service period remaining).
55-76 If an
award vests upon the satisfaction of both a service
condition and the satisfaction of one or more performance
conditions, the entity also must initially determine which
outcomes are probable of achievement. For example, an award
contains a four-year service condition and two performance
conditions, all of which need to be satisfied. If initially
the four-year service condition is probable of achievement
and no performance condition is probable of achievement,
then no compensation cost would be recognized unless the two
performance conditions and the service condition
subsequently become probable of achievement. If both
performance conditions become probable of achievement one
year after the grant date and the entity estimates that both
performance conditions will be achieved by the end of the
second year, the requisite service period would be four
years as that is the longest period of both the explicit
service period and the implicit service periods. Because the
performance conditions are now probable of achievement,
compensation cost will be recognized in the period of the
change in estimate (see paragraph 718-10-35-3) as the
cumulative effect on current and prior periods of the change
in the estimated number of awards for which the requisite
service is expected to be rendered. Therefore, compensation
cost for the first year will be recognized immediately at
the time of the change in estimate for the awards for which
the requisite service is expected to be rendered. The
remaining unrecognized compensation cost for those awards
would be recognized prospectively over the remaining
requisite service period. An entity that has an accounting
policy to account for forfeitures when they occur in
accordance with paragraph 718-10-35-3 would assume that the
achievement of a service condition is probable when
determining the amount of compensation cost to recognize
unless the award has been forfeited.
If a share-based payment award contains multiple conditions
(service, performance, or market) that affect a grantee’s ability to vest in or
exercise the award, an entity recognizes compensation cost associated with the award
on the basis of whether all or just one of the conditions must be met for the
grantee to vest in or exercise the award. For employee awards, this analysis also
affects the requisite service period. As discussed in Section 3.6, for certain nonemployee awards,
an entity may analogize to the guidance on calculating a requisite service period
when that guidance is relevant to the entity’s determination of whether it should
recognize compensation cost. For additional discussion of a nonemployee’s vesting
period, see Section
9.3.2.
The table below contains answers to questions about various
scenarios in which an award has two conditions that affect an employee’s requisite
service period and the subsequent recognition of compensation cost.
Answer if the award consists of:
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Question
|
A market condition or a performance/
service condition that must be met for the employee to vest
in or exercise the award
|
A market condition and a performance/
service condition that must be met for the employee to vest
in or exercise the award
|
A service condition or a performance
condition that must be met for the employee to vest in or
exercise the award
|
A service condition and a performance
condition that must be met for the employee to vest in or
exercise the award
|
What is the requisite service period if all
performance/service conditions are probable?
|
The shortest of the
derived, implicit, or explicit service period.
|
The longest of the
derived, implicit, or explicit service period.
|
The shorter of the
implicit or explicit service period.
|
The longer of the
implicit or explicit service period.
|
How is the requisite service period affected
if one of the performance/service conditions is not
probable?
|
The derived service period is the requisite
service period because the performance/service condition is
excluded from the assessment of the requisite service
period. However, If an entity has a policy of recognizing
forfeitures when they occur, and there is not a performance
condition (i.e., there is a market condition and a service
condition), the requisite service period is the shorter of the derived or explicit
service period.
|
Compensation cost is not recorded until it
is probable that the award will vest. However, if an entity
has a policy of recognizing forfeitures when they occur, and
there is not a performance condition (i.e., there is a
market condition and a service condition), the requisite
service period is the longer of the
derived or explicit service period.
|
The implicit/explicit service period
associated with the other vesting condition is the requisite
service period. Since meeting the performance/service
condition is not probable, it is excluded from the
assessment of the requisite service period. However, if an
entity has a policy of recognizing forfeitures when they
occur and the performance condition is probable, the
requisite service period is the shorter of the implicit or explicit service
period.
|
Compensation cost is not recorded until it
is probable that the award will vest. If an entity has a
policy of recognizing forfeitures when they occur, and
meeting the performance condition is probable, the requisite
service period is the longer of the
implicit or explicit service period.
|
Under what circumstances can an entity
reverse previously accrued compensation cost and record no
compensation cost for the award?
|
The employee is expected to forfeit the
award (if an entity’s policy is to estimate forfeitures) or
actually forfeits the award (if an entity’s policy is to
recognize forfeitures when they occur) before the end of the
derived service period and before
the performance/service condition is met.
|
The employee is expected to forfeit the
award (if an entity’s policy is to estimate forfeitures) or
actually forfeits the award (if an entity’s policy is to
recognize forfeitures when they occur) before the end of the
derived service period or before the
performance/service condition is met.
|
The employee is expected to forfeit the
award (if an entity’s policy is to estimate forfeitures) or
actually forfeits the award (if an entity’s policy is to
recognize forfeitures when they occur) before the service and performance conditions are
met.
|
The employee is expected to forfeit the
award (if an entity’s policy is to estimate forfeitures) or
actually forfeits the award (if an entity’s policy is to
recognize forfeitures when they occur) before the service or performance condition is
met.
|
Does an entity subsequently revise the
initial estimate of the derived service period on the basis
of updated assumptions?
|
No, unless the market condition is met
earlier than estimated if the award is equity-classified. If
the award is liability-classified, there are two acceptable
approaches. See Section
7.2.2.
|
No, unless the market condition is met
earlier than estimated if the award is equity-classified. If
the award is liability-classified, there are two acceptable
approaches. See Section 7.2.2.
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Does an entity subsequently revise the
estimate of an implicit service period for updated
assumptions?
|
Yes.
|
Yes.
|
Yes.
|
Yes.
|
3.7.1 Only One Condition Must Be Met — Employee Awards
If the terms of an award contain multiple conditions but only one condition must be met for an employee to vest
in or exercise the award, the requisite service period is the shortest of the explicit, implicit, or derived service
period because the employee must only remain employed until any one of the
conditions is met. Compensation cost should be recognized over that requisite
service period.
A condition that is not expected to be met must be excluded from
the determination of the shortest of the explicit, implicit, or derived service
period. However, if an entity has a policy of recognizing forfeitures when they
occur, it would not disregard any service condition in the determination of the
requisite service period; rather, the entity would assume that a service
condition would be met unless the award is actually forfeited. If the award is
forfeited in the future (on the basis of the service condition), the service
condition can no longer be used as the basis for the requisite service
period.
If an award that is classified as equity includes a market
condition and neither that nor any other condition was ultimately met,
compensation cost should still be recorded as long as the employee provides the
requisite service under the market condition’s derived service period. An entity
should not consider the probability that the market condition will be met when
it recognizes compensation cost because a market condition is not a vesting
condition. Rather, it should factor the probability of meeting the market
condition into the fair-value-based measure of the award.
ASC 718-10-55-100 through 55-105 provide an example of an award
in which only the market condition or the service condition must be met for the
award to vest.
ASC
718-10
Example 5: Employee Share-Based
Payment Award With Market and Service Conditions
and Multiple Service Periods
55-100 The following Cases
illustrate the guidance in paragraph 718-10-35-5
applicable to employee awards in circumstances in which
an award includes both a market condition and a service
condition:
- When only one condition must be met (Case A)
- When both conditions must be met (Case B).
55-101 Cases A and B share
the following assumptions.
55-102 On January 1, 20X5,
Entity T grants an executive 200,000 share options on
its stock with an exercise price of $30 per option. The
award specifies that vesting (or exercisability) will
occur upon the earlier of the following for Case A or
both are met for Case B:
- The share price reaching and maintaining at least $70 per share for 30 consecutive trading days
- The completion of eight years of service.
55-103 The award contains an
explicit service period of eight years related to the
service condition and a derived service period related
to the market condition.
Case
A: When Only One Condition Must Be Met
55-104 An entity shall make
its best estimate of the derived service period related
to the market condition (see paragraph 718-10-55-71).
The derived service period may be estimated using any
reasonable methodology, including Monte Carlo simulation
techniques. For this Case, the derived service period is
assumed to be six years. As described in paragraphs
718-10-55-72 through 55-73, if an award’s vesting (or
exercisability) is conditional upon the achievement of
either a market condition or performance or service
conditions, the requisite service period is generally
the shortest of the explicit, implicit, and derived
service periods. In this Case, the requisite service
period over which compensation cost would be attributed
is six years (shorter of eight and six years). (An
entity may grant a fully vested deep out-of-the-money
share option that would lapse shortly after termination
of service, which is the equivalent of an award with
both a market condition and a service condition. The
explicit service period associated with the explicit
service condition is zero; however, because the option
is deep out-of-the-money at the grant date, there would
be a derived service period.)
55-105 Continuing with this
Case, if the market condition is actually satisfied in
February 20X9 (based on market prices for the prior 30
consecutive trading days), Entity T would immediately
recognize any unrecognized compensation cost because no
further service is required to earn the award. If the
market condition is not satisfied as of that date but
the executive renders the six years of requisite
service, compensation cost shall not be reversed under
any circumstances.
Example 3-24
Service or Performance
Condition
On January 1,
20X1, Entity A grants employee stock options that vest
upon the earlier of (1) the end of the fifth year of
service (cliff vesting) or (2) A’s obtaining a patent
for the prescription drug it is currently developing.
Entity A believes that it is probable that the patent
will be obtained at the end of four years. The options
contain an explicit service condition (i.e., the options
vest at the end of the fifth year of service) and a
performance condition (i.e., the options vest when the
entity obtains a patent for the prescription drug it is
currently developing), with an implicit service period
of four years. Because the options vest when either
condition is met, the requisite service period is the
shorter of the two service periods: four years.
The implicit service period is simply
an estimate. Therefore, if the award becomes exercisable
because the patent is obtained before A’s original
estimate of four years, A should immediately record any
unrecognized compensation cost on the date the
performance condition is met.
Example 3-25
Service or Market
Conditions
On January 1, 20X1, when Entity A’s share price is $25 per share, A grants
equity-classified employee stock options that vest on
the earlier of (1) the end of the fifth year of service
(cliff vesting) or (2) an increase in A’s share price to
$50 per share. By using a lattice model valuation
technique, A estimates that its share price will reach
$50 in four years.
The options contain an
explicit service condition (i.e., the options vest at
the end of the fifth year of service) and a market
condition (i.e., the options vest if A’s share price
increases to $50 per share), with a derived service
period of four years. Because the options vest when
either condition is met, the requisite service period is
the shorter of the two service periods: four years. If
the options vest sooner because the $50 share price
target is attained before the derived service period of
four years, A should immediately record any unrecognized
compensation cost on the date the market condition is
met. Conversely, if the options never become exercisable
because the share price target is never achieved, but
the employee remains employed for at least four years,
compensation cost should still be recorded.
Example 3-26
Performance or
Market Conditions
On January 1, 20X1, when its share price
is $30 per share, Entity A grants equity-classified
employee stock options that vest on the basis of
continued employment through the earlier of (1) the
launch of Product X within six years of the grant date
(i.e., a performance condition) or (2) an increase in
A’s share price to $45 per share within six years of the
grant date (i.e., a market condition). By using a
lattice model valuation technique, A estimates that its
share price will reach $45 in four years and that the
grant-date fair-value-based measure of each stock option
is $5 if the market condition is included in the
calculation and $7 if the market condition is not
included.
For an award in which vesting or
exercisability is based on a market or performance
condition, an entity would determine the grant-date
fair-value-based measure separately depending on whether
the market condition is included in the calculation. The
total amount of compensation recognized over the award’s
service period would depend on whether the performance
condition is probable.
On January 1, 20X1, it is determined
that it is not probable that the performance condition
will occur. Accordingly, A concludes that the requisite
service period is the derived service period of four
years.
If it continues not to be probable that
the performance condition will occur during the
requisite four-year service period, A would recognize
compensation over such period at a grant-date
fair-value-based measure of $5 per option. If the
options vest sooner because the $45 share price target
is attained before the derived service period of four
years, A should immediately record any unrecognized
compensation cost by using the grant-date
fair-value-based measure of $5 on the date the market
condition is met.
However, if the entity determines that
it is probable that the launch of Product X will occur
before the market condition is achieved, A should
recognize compensation cost by using the grant-date
fair-value-based measure of $7 over the applicable
requisite service period.
Conversely, if (1) the options never
become exercisable because the share price target is
never achieved and Product X is not launched within six
years of the grant date and (2) the employee completes
the derived service period of four years, A should still
record compensation cost but use the grant-date
fair-value-based measure of $5.
3.7.2 Multiple Conditions Must Be Met — Employee Awards
If all of the conditions in the terms of
an award must be met for an employee to vest in or exercise the award, the
requisite service period is the longest of the explicit,
implicit, or derived service period because the employee must still be employed
when the last condition is met. Compensation cost should be recognized over that
requisite service period.
However, when one of the conditions is a service or performance
condition, recognition of compensation cost will depend on the probability that
the condition will be met. That is, if it is not probable that the service or
performance condition will be met, no compensation cost should be recognized.
On the other hand, if one of the conditions is a market condition, the entity
should not consider the probability of meeting the market condition when it
recognizes compensation cost because a market condition is not a vesting
condition. Rather, the probability of meeting the market condition should be
factored into the fair-value-based measure of the award. See Section 4.5 for a
discussion of how a market condition affects the valuation of a share-based
payment award. Even if the market condition is never met, compensation cost
should be recognized if the employee provides the requisite service and the
other vesting conditions are met.
For awards that include a performance condition and a service
condition, an entity should consider the probability that the conditions will be
met independently. For example, if it is probable that the performance condition
will be met, the entity should still consider its policy election for forfeiture
estimates with respect to the service condition when recognizing compensation
cost. Conversely, if an entity has a policy of recognizing forfeitures when they
occur, it would assume that the service condition will be met unless the award
is actually forfeited. In this case, it considers only the probability of a
performance condition and would recognize compensation cost only if it is
probable that such condition will be met.
Case B in ASC 718-10-55-106 is based on the same facts as in ASC
718-10-55-100 through 55-103 (see Section 3.7.1) and illustrates an award in
which both a market condition and a service condition must be met for the award
to vest.
ASC
718-10
Case
B: When Both the Market and Service Condition Must Be
Met
55-106 The
initial estimate of the requisite service period for an
award requiring satisfaction of both market and
performance or service conditions is generally the
longest of the explicit, implicit, and derived service
periods (see paragraphs 718-10-55-72 through 55-73). For
example, if the award described in Case A [see Section
3.7.1] required both the completion of 8
years of service and the share price reaching and
maintaining at least $70 per share for 30 consecutive
trading days, compensation cost would be recognized over
the 8-year explicit service period. If the employee were
to terminate service prior to the eight-year requisite
service period, compensation cost would be reversed even
if the market condition had been satisfied by that
time.
Example 3-27
Both a Service Condition and a
Performance Condition
On
January 1, 20X1, Entity A grants employee stock options
that vest at the end of the fourth year of service
(cliff vesting). The options can be exercised only by
employees who are still employed by the entity when it
successfully completes an IPO.
The options contain an explicit service condition
(i.e., the options vest at the end of the fourth year of
service) and a performance condition (i.e., the options
can be exercised only upon successful completion of an
IPO by employees who are still employed by A upon the
IPO’s completion). Entity A’s treatment of the
exercisability condition should be similar to its
treatment of a vesting requirement. Under ASC
718-10-55-76, if the vesting (or exercisability) of an
award is based on the satisfaction of both a service and
performance condition, the entity must initially
determine which outcomes are probable and recognize the
compensation cost over the longer of the explicit or
implicit service period. Because an IPO generally is not
considered to be probable until the IPO is effective, no
compensation cost would be recognized until the IPO
occurs. For example, if an IPO becomes effective on
December 31, 20X2, and the four years of service are
expected to be rendered upon the IPO’s becoming
effective, A would (1) recognize a cumulative-effect
adjustment to compensation cost for the service that has
already been provided (two of the four years) and (2)
record the unrecognized compensation cost ratably over
the remaining two years of service.
Example 3-28
Both a Service Condition and a
Market Condition
On
January 1, 20X1, Entity A grants employee stock options
that vest if A’s share price is at least $50 and the
employee provides service for at least one year (to
exercise the options, the employee must also be employed
when the share price is at least $50). Using a Monte
Carlo valuation technique, A estimates that its share
price will reach $50 in three years.
The options contain an explicit service
condition (i.e., the options vest at the end of one year
of service) and a market condition (i.e., the options
become exercisable if A’s share price is at least $50
per share), with a three-year derived service period.
Because the options vest when both conditions are met,
the requisite service period is the longer of the two
service periods — three years. In addition, because a
market condition is not a vesting condition, the market
condition should be factored into the fair-value-based
measure of the options. In accordance with ASC
718-10-30-14, as long as the employee provides service
for three years, compensation cost must be recognized
regardless of whether the market condition is
satisfied.
If, to vest in the award, the employee was not required
to be employed at the time the market condition is met,
the derived service period would not be relevant since
there would be no requisite service requirement tied to
achievement of the target share price.
Example 3-29
Both a Performance Condition and a
Market Condition
On
January 1, 20X1, Entity A grants employee stock options
that vest if (1) A’s share price is at least $50 and (2)
A’s cumulative net income over the next two annual
reporting periods exceeds $12 million. As of January 1,
20X1, A’s share price is $40. By using a Monte Carlo
valuation technique, A estimates that its share price
will reach $50 in three years.
The options contain a performance condition (i.e., the
options vest if A exceeds $12 million in cumulative net
income over the next two annual reporting periods) and a
market condition (i.e., the options vest if A’s share
price is at least $50 per share), with a derived service
period of three years. Since the market condition is not
a vesting condition, the market condition should be
factored into the fair-value-based measure of the
options.
The award’s vesting is
based on the satisfaction of both a market condition and
a performance condition, and if it is probable that the
performance condition will be satisfied in accordance
with ASC 718-10-55-73, the initial estimate of the
requisite service period would generally be the longest
of the explicit, implicit, or derived service period.
The performance condition provides an explicit service
period of two years. The three-year derived service
period is based on an increase in A’s share price to
$50. Since the derived service period of three years
represents the longer of the two service periods,
compensation cost would be recognized over that
three-year period.
If the market
condition is satisfied on an earlier date, any
unrecognized compensation cost would be recognized
immediately upon its satisfaction. However, this
accelerated service period cannot be shorter than the
explicit service period of two years that is associated
with the performance condition. Note that in accordance
with ASC 718-10-25-20, if meeting the performance
condition were to become improbable, all previously
recognized compensation cost would be reversed. In
addition, if the options never vest because the share
price target is never achieved, but the employee remains
employed for at least the derived service period of
three years and the performance condition is satisfied,
compensation cost still should be recorded.
If, to vest in the award, the employee was not required
to be employed at the time the market condition is met,
the derived service period would not be relevant since
there would be no requisite service requirement tied to
achievement of the target share price.
Example 3-30
Both a Performance Condition and a
Market Condition — Payoff Matrix
On January 1, 20X1, Entity A grants to its employees 100,000 equity-classified
RSUs with a four-year service period (cliff vesting).
The number of RSUs that vest will be determined at the
end of the four-year service period on the basis of the
combination of an EBITDA outcome (i.e., performance
conditions) and a TSR outcome (i.e., a market
condition). The threshold outcomes for both conditions
must be met for the employees to vest in any portion of
the award. The number of RSUs that vest is determined in
accordance with the following payoff matrix:
Assume that the grant-date
fair-value-based measure of each RSU is $25 (determined
by using a Monte Carlo valuation technique), which
incorporates the possible outcomes of the market
condition (i.e., the TSR). Compensation cost is
recognized by using the number of shares expected to
vest on the basis of (1) the outcome of the performance
condition and (2) the target market condition. If A
estimates that the service and performance conditions
will be achieved at the target outcome, total
compensation cost would be $2.5 million (100,000 RSUs ×
$25 grant-date fair-value-based measure × 100%).
If the outcome of the performance
condition is different from the initial estimate,
compensation cost is adjusted. However, compensation
cost is not adjusted for changes in the outcome of the
market condition, because the RSUs’ grant-date
fair-value-based measure of $25 already takes into
account the potential outcomes of the market condition.
For example, if the outcome of the performance condition
is the maximum amount, A would recognize $3.75 million
(100,000 RSUs × $25 grant-date fair-value-based measure
× 150%) of compensation cost, irrespective of the
outcome of the market condition.
Example 3-31
Both a Performance Condition and a Market Condition —
Two Awards
On January 1, 20X1, Entity A grants to
its employees 100,000 equity-classified RSUs. The number
of RSUs earned is based on (1) a range of A’s revenue
growth objectives (i.e., performance conditions) and (2)
a specified stock price objective (i.e., a market
condition) over the year ending December 31, 20X1.
A revenue growth objective includes a
minimum threshold for vesting in 20 percent (i.e.,
20,000) of the RSUs, a target threshold for vesting in
50 percent (i.e., 50,000) of the RSUs, and a maximum
threshold for vesting in 100 percent (100,000) of the
RSUs. If the target or maximum growth objective is met
and the stock price objective is met, the
number of RSUs earned will increase by 50 percent.
Therefore, up to 150 percent of the awards can be earned
if both (1) the maximum (i.e., 100 percent) revenue
growth objective and (2) the stock price objective are
met. If only the minimum growth objective is met, the
stock price objective will have no effect on the RSUs
earned.
In this example, unlike the scenario in
the previous example, 20,000 RSUs may be earned solely
on the basis of the achievement of the performance
condition (i.e., the revenue growth objective).
Therefore, the 20,000 RSUs may be accounted for
separately and the grant-date fair-value-based
measurement should not incorporate the market
condition associated with the stock price objective
because the 20,000 RSUs can be earned and remain
unaffected by whether the stock price objective is
achieved if only the minimum growth objective is
met.
The remainder of the RSUs may be
evaluated separately since they are subject to both a
performance condition and a market condition. If the
stock price objective is met, either 75,000 or 150,000
RSUs may vest depending on the outcome of the revenue
growth objective. If the stock price objective is not
met, either 50,000 or 100,000 RSUs may vest depending on
the outcome of the revenue growth objective. Because it
may be challenging to determine the grant-date
fair-value-based measure for the portion of an award
that excludes RSUs that may be earned solely on the
basis of the achievement of a performance condition,
companies should consult with their valuation
specialists for assistance.
3.7.2.1 Liquidity Event and Target IRR
The accounting for share-based payment awards that contain multiple
conditions is based on the type of conditions (service, performance, or
market) associated with the awards. For example, certain awards may vest
only if both:
- A target IRR to shareholders is achieved while the grantee is employed.
- The IRR is based on the payment of sufficient proceeds tendered (1) as a result of either a full or partial sale of the shareholders’ equity (e.g., because of a liquidity event) or (2) through distributions (e.g., dividends).
In such cases, we believe that attaining a specified
IRR that is based on the payment of sufficient proceeds made as a result of
either a full or partial sale of the shareholders’ equity is functionally
equivalent to achieving a specified rate of return on an entity’s stock,
which is an example of a market condition under ASC 718 (see Section 3.5).
Market conditions are treated as nonvesting conditions that
are factored into the award’s fair-value-based measure. Further, the award’s
ability to vest on the basis of (1) sufficient proceeds distributed to
shareholders (e.g., dividends) or (2) the sale of sufficient equity each
represents a performance condition under ASC 718 (see Section 3.4.2).
Therefore, this type of award vests on the basis of a performance condition
(i.e., sufficient proceeds) or a performance and market condition (i.e., the
sale of sufficient equity to achieve the IRR).
In determining the award’s requisite service period, an entity must consider
the multiple conditions associated with it (see Section 3.7). Accordingly, during the service (vesting)
period, an entity would assess the probability that any performance
conditions (i.e., the payment of sufficient proceeds either through
distributions or the sale of sufficient equity) will be met (i.e., the
probability that the employee will earn the award). However, the entity may
conclude that it is not probable that there will be sufficient proceeds
through distributions for the specified IRR to be attained and that for the
award to vest, a liquidity event would be necessary in which the payment of
sufficient proceeds could be made through a full or partial sale of the
shareholders’ equity. Therefore, although a liquidity event may not be an
explicit vesting condition, the probability that a liquidity event will
occur may govern whether the performance condition (i.e., the sale of
sufficient equity) is achieved.
An entity generally does not recognize compensation cost related to awards
that vest upon certain liquidity events such as a change in control or an
IPO until the event takes place (see Section
3.4.2.1). That is, a change in control or an IPO is generally
not considered probable until it occurs. This position is consistent with
the guidance in ASC 805-20-55-50 and 55-51 on liabilities that are triggered
upon the consummation of a business combination. Thus, if it is not probable
that (1) the entity will declare and pay sufficient distributions to meet
the IRR target and (2) sufficient equity will be sold, the entity should not
record any compensation cost. However, if a liquidity event occurs that
results in the sale of all relevant equity and satisfaction of the requisite
service period, compensation cost should be recognized regardless of whether
the IRR target is achieved. Similarly, in circumstances in which it is
explicit that the IRR market condition must be met upon the occurrence of a
liquidity event, compensation cost would be recognized as of the date of the
liquidity event regardless of whether the IRR market condition has been met
because a market condition is factored into the fair-value-based measure of
the award.
Further, in instances in which the IRR market condition can only be met upon
the occurrence of the liquidity event, the entity does not need to calculate
a derived service period to determine the requisite service period. In that
scenario, the implicit service period is determined on the basis of the
expected date of the liquidity event, so the requisite service period would
always equal the implicit service period. However, because the occurrence of
a liquidity event is generally not considered probable until the event has
occurred, no compensation cost would be recognized until such time.
Example 3-32
Entity C was formed with two classes of legal-form
equity: Series A Units and Series B Units. The
Series A Units were issued by C in exchange for a
capital contribution from P, a private equity
investment fund.
Entity C granted 1,000 Series B
Units to its employees. The Series B Units vest on
the basis of a target MOIC and IRR on the capital
contribution from P for the Series A Units. The MOIC
and IRR on the Series A Units are based on the
payment of sufficient proceeds tendered (1) as a
result of either a full or partial sale of the
target shareholder’s equity (e.g., a liquidity
event) or (2) through distributions (e.g.,
dividends) to the Series A Unit holders. The number
of Series B Units that vest on the basis of the
target MOIC and the IRR are as follows:
- Forty percent upon a 2.00 × MOIC and 15% IRR.
- An additional 30% upon a 2.50 × MOIC and 20% IRR.
- The remaining 30% upon a 3.00 × MOIC and 25% IRR.
The requirements to achieve a target
MOIC and IRR based on the sale of equity represent
market conditions because they depend on a specified
return on the Series A Units. Market conditions are
treated as nonvesting conditions that are factored
into the fair-value-based measure of the award. The
requirements that the award vest on the basis of
sufficient proceeds through distributions or through
the sale of sufficient equity by P represent
performance conditions under ASC 718.
During the service (vesting) period,
an entity must assess the probability that any
performance condition (i.e., the payment of
sufficient proceeds either through distributions or
the sale of sufficient equity) will be met. For
example, if it is not probable that the entity will
declare and pay sufficient distributions to meet the
IRR and MOIC target or that, in the absence of a
liquidity event, sufficient equity would be sold,
the entity should not record any compensation
cost.
3.7.2.2 Multiple Performance Conditions That Affect Vesting and Nonvesting Factors
If a share-based payment award contains multiple performance
conditions that affect both vesting factors and nonvesting (e.g., exercise
price) factors, a grant-date fair-value-based measure should be calculated
for each possible nonvesting condition outcome. If the vesting condition is
not expected to be met, no compensation cost should be recorded. If the
vesting condition is expected to be met, the amount of compensation cost
should be based on the grant-date fair-value-based measure associated with
the nonvesting condition outcome whose achievement is probable. This
analysis applies to both employee and nonemployee awards. See Section 4.6 for a
discussion of the effect of performance conditions that affect factors other
than vesting or exercisability.
Example 3-33
On January 1, 20X1, Entity A grants 1,000 equity-classified at-the-money
employee stock options with an exercise price of
$10. The options vest in two years if its EBITDA
growth rate exceeds the industry average by 10
percent. The grant-date fair-value-based measure of
this option is $3. However, the exercise price will
be reduced to $5 if regulatory approval for Product
X is obtained within two years. The grant-date
fair-value-based measure of this option with the
reduced exercise price is $6.
The EBITDA target is
expected to be achieved by December 31, 20X2, but it
is not probable that regulatory approval will be
obtained by that time. Therefore, compensation cost
of $1,500 should be recorded in 20X1 (1,000 options
× $3 grant-date fair-value-based measure × 50% for
one of two years of service provided).
On December 31, 20X2, regulatory approval is obtained and A’s EBITDA target is
met. Therefore, in 20X2, A should recognize
compensation cost of $4,500, or (1,000 options × $6
grant-date fair-value-based measure × 100% of
services provided) – $1,500 of compensation cost
previously recognized.
3.7.3 Multiple Conditions and Multiple Service Periods — Employee Awards
An award’s terms and conditions can sometimes result in multiple
service periods. In such cases, an entity must evaluate each condition to
determine whether there are multiple (1) grant dates, (2) service inception
dates, and (3) service periods. The examples below in ASC 718 illustrate
scenarios in which multiple service periods can exist.
3.7.3.1 Multiple Performance Conditions and Multiple Service Periods
ASC 718-10
Example 3: Employee
Share-Based Payment Award With a Performance
Condition and Multiple Service
Periods
55-92 The following Cases
illustrate employee share-based payment awards with
a performance condition (see paragraphs 718-10-25-20
through 25-21; 718-10-30-27; and 718-10-35-4) and
multiple service dates:
- Performance targets are set at the inception of the arrangement (Case A).
- Performance targets are established at some time in the future (Case B).
- Performance targets established up front but vesting is tied to the vesting of a preceding award (Case C).
55-93 Cases A, B, and C share
the following assumptions:
- On January 1, 20X5, Entity T enters into an arrangement with its chief executive officer relating to 40,000 share options on its stock with an exercise price of $30 per option.
- The arrangement is structured such that 10,000 share options will vest or be forfeited in each of the next 4 years (20X5 through 20X8) depending on whether annual performance targets relating to Entity T’s revenues and net income are achieved.
Case A: Performance Targets Are Set at the
Inception of the Arrangement
55-94 All of the annual
performance targets are set at the inception of the
arrangement. Because a mutual understanding of the
key terms and conditions is reached on January 1,
20X5, each tranche would have a grant date and,
therefore, a measurement date, of January 1, 20X5.
However, each tranche of 10,000 share options should
be accounted for as a separate award with its own
service inception date, grant-date fair value, and
1-year requisite service period, because the
arrangement specifies for each tranche an
independent performance condition for a stated
period of service. The chief executive officer’s
ability to retain (vest in) the award pertaining to
20X5 is not dependent on service beyond 20X5, and
the failure to satisfy the performance condition in
any one particular year has no effect on the outcome
of any preceding or subsequent period. This
arrangement is similar to an arrangement that would
have provided a $10,000 cash bonus for each year for
satisfaction of the same performance conditions. The
four separate service inception dates (one for each
tranche) are at the beginning of each
year.
Case B: Performance Targets Are Established at Some
Time in the Future
55-95 If the arrangement had
instead provided that the annual performance targets
would be established during January of each year,
the grant date (and, therefore, the measurement
date) for each tranche would be that date in January
of each year (20X5 through 20X8) because a mutual
understanding of the key terms and conditions would
not be reached until then. In that case, each
tranche of 10,000 share options has its own service
inception date, grant-date fair value, and 1-year
requisite service period. The fair value measurement
of compensation cost for each tranche would be
affected because not all of the key terms and
conditions of each award are known until the
compensation committee sets the performance targets
and, therefore, the grant dates are those
dates.
Case C: Performance Targets Established Up Front
but Vesting Is Tied to the Vesting of a Preceding
Award
55-96 If the
arrangement in Case A instead stated that the
vesting for awards in periods from 20X6 through 20X8
was dependent on satisfaction of the performance
targets related to the preceding award, the
requisite service provided in exchange for each
preceding award would not be independent of the
requisite service provided in exchange for each
successive award. In contrast to the arrangement
described in Case A, failure to achieve the annual
performance targets in 20X5 would result in
forfeiture of all awards. The requisite service
provided in exchange for each successive award is
dependent on the requisite service provided for each
preceding award. In that circumstance, all awards
have the same service inception date and the same
grant date (January 1, 20X5); however, each award
has its own explicit service period (for example,
the 20X5 grant has a one-year service period, the
20X6 grant has a two-year service period, and so on)
over which compensation cost would be recognized.
Because this award contains a performance condition,
it is not subject to the attribution guidance in
paragraph 718-10-35-8.
Case A of Example 3 in ASC 718-10-55-94 above illustrates a
scenario in which the grant date precedes the service inception date. The
example describes four tranches with four annual performance targets (i.e.,
performance conditions) and notes that “the failure to satisfy the
performance condition in any one particular year has no effect on the
outcome of any preceding or subsequent period.” In accordance with the
example, each tranche should be accounted for as a separate award with its
own service inception date. This conclusion was reached on the basis of the
following facts:
- All performance conditions are set at the inception of the arrangement.
- The performance condition for each tranche is independent of the other tranches.
- The grantee’s ability to vest in the award for each tranche is not based on the service provided beyond the vesting term of that specific tranche.
The guidance in this example should not be applied by
analogy to other scenarios. See Section 3.2.3 for additional
discussion.
3.7.3.2 Multiple Service Periods Related to Exercise Price
ASC 718-10
Example 4: Employee
Share-Based Payment Award With a Service Condition
and Multiple Service Periods
55-97 The following Cases
illustrate the guidance in paragraph 718-10-30-12 to
determine the service period for employee awards
with multiple service periods:
- Exercise price established at subsequent dates (Case A)
- Exercise price established at inception (Case B).
Case A: Exercise Price Established at Subsequent
Dates
55-98 The
chief executive officer of Entity T enters into a
five-year employment contract on January 1, 20X5.
The contract stipulates that the chief executive
officer will be given 10,000 fully vested share
options at the end of each year (50,000 share
options in total). The exercise price of each
tranche will be equal to the market price at the
date of issuance (December 31 of each year in the
five-year contractual term). In this Case, there are
five separate grant dates. The grant date for each
tranche is December 31 of each year because that is
the date when there is a mutual understanding of the
key terms and conditions of the agreement — that is,
the exercise price is known and the chief executive
officer begins to benefit from, or be adversely
affected by, subsequent changes in the price of the
employer’s equity shares (see paragraphs
718-10-55-80 through 55-83 for additional guidance
on determining the grant date). Because the awards’
terms do not include a substantive future requisite
service condition that exists at the grant date (the
options are fully vested when they are issued), and
the exercise price (and, therefore, the grant date)
is determined at the end of each period, the service
inception date precedes the grant date. The
requisite service provided in exchange for the first
award (pertaining to 20X5) is independent of the
requisite service provided in exchange for each
consecutive award. The terms of the share-based
compensation arrangement provide evidence that each
tranche compensates the chief executive officer for
one year of service, and each tranche shall be
accounted for as a separate award with its own
service inception date, grant date, and one-year
service period; therefore, the provisions of
paragraph 718-10-35-8 would not be applicable to
this award because of its structure.
Case B: Exercise Price Established at
Inception
55-99
If the arrangement described in Case A provided
instead that the exercise price for all 50,000 share
options would be the January 1, 20X5, market price,
then the grant date (and, therefore, the measurement
date) for each tranche would be January 1, 20X5,
because that is the date at which there is a mutual
understanding of the key terms and conditions. All
tranches would have the same service inception date
and the same grant date (January 1, 20X5). Because
of the nature of this award, Entity T would make a
policy decision pursuant to paragraph 718-10-35-8 as
to whether it considers the award as in-substance,
multiple awards each with its own requisite service
period (that is, the 20X5 grant has a one-year
service period, the 20X6 grant has a two-year
service period, and so on) or whether the entity
considers the award as a single award with a single
requisite service period based on the last
separately vesting portion of the award (that is, a
requisite service period of five years). Once
chosen, this Topic requires that accounting policy
be applied consistently to all similar
awards.
3.7.3.3 Multiple Service Periods Related to Transferability
ASC 718-20
Example 4: Share Option
Award With Other Performance
Conditions
55-47
This Example illustrates the guidance in paragraph
718-10-30-15.
55-47A
This Example (see paragraphs
718-20-55-48 through 55-50) describes employee
awards. However, the principles on how to account
for the various aspects of employee awards, except
for the compensation cost attribution and certain
inputs to valuation, are the same for nonemployee
awards. Consequently, the concepts about valuation,
expected term, and total compensation cost that
should be recognized (that is, the consideration of
whether it is probable that performance conditions
will be achieved) in paragraphs 718-20-55-48 through
55-50 are equally applicable to nonemployee awards
with the same features as the awards in this Example
(that is, awards with performance conditions that
affect inputs to an award’s fair value). Therefore,
the guidance in those paragraphs may serve as
implementation guidance for similar nonemployee
awards.
55-47B
Compensation cost attribution for awards to
nonemployees may be the same or different for
employee awards. That is because an entity is
required to recognize compensation cost for
nonemployee awards in the same manner as if the
entity had paid cash in accordance with paragraph
718-10-25-2C. Additionally, valuation amounts used
in this Example could be different because an entity
may elect to use the contractual term as the
expected term of share options and similar
instruments when valuing nonemployee share-based
payment transactions.
55-48 While performance
conditions usually affect vesting conditions, they
may affect exercise price, contractual term,
quantity, or other factors that affect an award’s
fair value before, at the time of, or after vesting.
This Topic requires that all performance conditions
be accounted for similarly. A potential grant-date
fair value is estimated for each of the possible
outcomes that are reasonably determinable at the
grant date and associated with the performance
condition(s) of the award (as demonstrated in
Example 3 [see paragraph 718-20-55-41)].
Compensation cost ultimately recognized is equal to
the grant-date fair value of the award that
coincides with the actual outcome of the performance
condition(s).
55-49 To illustrate the
notion described in the preceding paragraph and
attribution of compensation cost if performance
conditions have different service periods, assume
Entity C grants 10,000 at-the-money share options on
its common stock to an employee. The options have a
10-year contractual term. The share options vest
upon successful completion of phase-two clinical
trials to satisfy regulatory testing requirements
related to a developmental drug therapy. Phase-two
clinical trials are scheduled to be completed (and
regulatory approval of that phase obtained) in
approximately 18 months; hence, the implicit service
period is approximately 18 months. Further, the
share options will become fully transferable upon
regulatory approval of the drug therapy (which is
scheduled to occur in approximately four years). The
implicit service period for that performance
condition is approximately 30 months (beginning once
phase-two clinical trials are successfully
completed). Based on the nature of the performance
conditions, the award has multiple requisite service
periods (one pertaining to each performance
condition) that affect the pattern in which
compensation cost is attributed. Paragraphs
718-10-55-67 through 55-79 and 718-10-55-86 through
55-88 provide guidance on estimating the requisite
service period of an award. The determination of
whether compensation cost should be recognized
depends on Entity C’s assessment of whether the
performance conditions are probable of achievement.
Entity C expects that all performance conditions
will be achieved. That assessment is based on the
relevant facts and circumstances, including Entity
C’s historical success rate of bringing
developmental drug therapies to market.
55-50 At the grant date,
Entity C estimates that the potential fair value of
each share option under the 2 possible outcomes is
$10 (Outcome 1, in which the share options vest and
do not become transferable) and $16 (Outcome 2, in
which the share options vest and do become
transferable). The difference in estimated fair
values of each outcome is due to the change in
estimate of the expected term of the share option.
Outcome 1 uses an expected term in estimating fair
value that is less than the expected term used for
Outcome 2, which is equal to the award’s 10-year
contractual term. If a share option is transferable,
its expected term is equal to its contractual term
(see paragraph 718-10-55-29). If Outcome 1 is
considered probable of occurring, Entity C would
recognize $100,000 (10,000 × $10) of compensation
cost ratably over the 18-month requisite service
period related to the successful completion of
phase-two clinical trials. If Outcome 2 is
considered probable of occurring, then Entity C
would recognize an additional $60,000 [10,000 × ($16
– $10)] of compensation cost ratably over the
30-month requisite service period (which begins
after phase-two clinical trials are successfully
completed) related to regulatory approval of the
drug therapy. Because Entity C believes that Outcome
2 is probable, it recognizes compensation cost in
the pattern described. However, if circumstances
change and it is determined at the end of Year 3
that the regulatory approval of the developmental
drug therapy is likely to be obtained in six years
rather than four, the requisite service period for
Outcome 2 is revised, and the remaining unrecognized
compensation cost would be recognized prospectively
through Year 6. On the other hand, if it becomes
probable that Outcome 2 will not occur, compensation
cost recognized for Outcome 2, if any, would be
reversed.