This paper examines whether stock option grants explain missed earnings targets, including reported losses, earnings declines and missed analysts' forecasts. Anecdotal evidence and surveys suggest that managers believe that missing an earnings target can cause stock-price drops (Graham, et al. 2006). Empirical studies corroborate this notion (Skinner and Sloan 2002, Lopez and Rees 2002). Thus, a missed target could benefit an executive via lower strike price on subsequent option grants. Prior option-grant studies explore only general downward earnings management (Balsam et al. 2003, Baker et al. 2003) but our study is the first to explore whether option grants encourage missed earnings targets. Indeed, if missed targets drive the prior results, the literature has failed to document an important negative outcome of stock option incentives. We use quarterly and annual data for fixed-date options granted after firms announce they have missed earnings targets. We find that firms that miss earnings targets have larger and more valuable subsequent grants. Further, we find that the likelihood of missing earnings targets for firms that manage earnings downward increases with stock-option grants. To control for the possibility that firms miss earnings targets for operational reasons, we only include firms that likely managed earnings downward (Dechow et al. 1996, Phillips et al. 2003). Backdating or opportunistic timing of grants cannot explain our results because we include only fixed-date grants. While many studies explicitly consider whether and why managers meet or beat earnings targets, ours is the first study to find that some managers may seek to miss earnings targets (Burstahler and Dichev, 1997).

We investigate incentives that led to the rash of restated financial statements at the end of the 1990s market bubble. We find the likelihood of a misstated financial statement increases greatly when the CEO has very sizable holdings of stock options "in-the-money" (i.e., stock price above exercise price). Misstatements are also more likely for firms that are constrained by an interest-coverage debt covenant, raise new debt or equity capital, or have a CEO who serves as board chair. Our results indicate that agency costs increased (Jensen 2005a) as substantially overvalued equity caused managers to take actions to support the stock price.