How do estimated vs. actual forfeitures of stock options affect compensation expense, and what is a true-up adjustment?
I'm confused about forfeiture accounting for CFA Level II. I know companies estimate how many options will be forfeited and adjust the expense, but what happens when the actual forfeitures differ from the estimate? Is there a true-up? And does the approach differ between IFRS and US GAAP?
Forfeiture accounting determines how many option grants are expected to vest, directly affecting total compensation expense. The treatment differs subtly between IFRS and US GAAP.
US GAAP (ASC 718):
Companies have a policy election (since ASU 2016-09):
- Option 1: Estimate forfeitures at grant date and adjust for actual forfeitures as they occur (true-up approach)
- Option 2: Recognize forfeitures as they actually occur (no estimation)
IFRS 2:
- Companies MUST estimate expected forfeitures and revise the estimate at each reporting date. No option to recognize as they occur.
How the Estimation Works:
At each reporting date, the company revises its estimate of the number of awards expected to vest. The cumulative compensation expense is adjusted to reflect the revised estimate — this is the true-up.
Worked Example — Keystone Dynamics:
On January 1, 2024, Keystone grants 200,000 stock options to 100 employees (2,000 each). Grant-date fair value: $15/option. 3-year cliff vesting.
Estimated forfeiture rate: 5% per year
Expected to vest: 200,000 × (1 − 0.05)^3 = 200,000 × 0.8574 = 171,475 options
Total expected compensation: 171,475 × $15 = $2,572,125
Year 1:
Expense = $2,572,125 / 3 = $857,375
Actual departures: 3 employees (6,000 options forfeited)
Year 1 True-Up:
Revised estimate: 97 employees remain. New forfeiture estimate revised to 4%/year for remaining 2 years:
Expected to vest: 97 × 2,000 × (1 − 0.04)^2 = 194,000 × 0.9216 = 178,790 options
Revised total expense: 178,790 × $15 = $2,681,850
Year 1 cumulative expense should be: $2,681,850 / 3 = $893,950
Already recognized: $857,375
True-up adjustment in Year 1: $893,950 − $857,375 = $36,575 additional expense
Year 2:
Target cumulative = $2,681,850 × 2/3 = $1,787,900
Already recognized: $893,950
Year 2 expense = $1,787,900 − $893,950 = $893,950
(If another revision is needed based on Year 2 departures, another true-up occurs.)
Year 3 — Vesting Date:
Actual vesting: 90 employees × 2,000 = 180,000 options
Final total expense: 180,000 × $15 = $2,700,000
Previously recognized (cumulative): $1,787,900
Year 3 expense = $2,700,000 − $1,787,900 = $912,100
Impact on Financial Analysis:
- True-up adjustments create P&L volatility — a sudden increase in forfeitures can reduce expense, while lower-than-expected forfeitures increase it
- Under the no-estimation election (US GAAP), expense is reversed when forfeitures occur, creating more period-to-period variability
- Companies with high employee turnover will have more significant forfeiture adjustments
Key Exam Points:
- IFRS requires estimation; US GAAP allows a policy choice.
- True-up adjustments are prospective — they affect current and future periods, not prior periods.
- At vesting date, cumulative expense = actual awards vested × grant-date fair value.
- The total expense over the vesting period reflects actual forfeitures regardless of the estimation method used.
Practice forfeiture scenarios in our CFA Level II question bank.
Master Level II with our CFA Course
107 lessons · 200+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
What exactly is the Capital Market Expectations (CME) framework and why does it matter for asset allocation?
How do business cycle phases affect asset class return expectations?
Can someone explain the Grinold–Kroner model step by step with numbers?
How do you forecast fixed-income returns using the building-blocks approach?
PPP vs Interest Rate Parity for forecasting exchange rates — when do I use which?
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.