What happens to an options contract during an all stock acquisition?
According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised.  This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place.  Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders.  However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.) Depends on your contract, cash or shares delivered? If shares, then you get 5     BIG shares. Theres no longer any options. If you sell instantly, theoretically you will net the $10 difference + profit above strike. If cash, same thing just that you get cash $50 less strike.  Applies to cash and stock deals Options are binary, never pro-rated. if converted, basically you end up with BIG shares.
"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call.  Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller.  You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement.  If you're selling it would commonly be called a ""sell to open"" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else.   A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. ""American"" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while ""European"" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example.  Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock.  The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do.  Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless.  If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100.  Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share.  You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share.  You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it.  You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity." If they own enough shares to vote to sell, you will be paid the offer price quoted to you. At that point if you do not wish to sell your only recourse will be to file a lawsuit. This is a common tactic for significant shareholders who have a minority stake and cannot block the sale because they have insufficient voting rights. What usually happens then is that they either settle the lawsuit out of court by paying a little more to the holdouts or the lawsuit is thrown out and they take the original offer from the buyer. Rarely does a lawsuit from a buyout go to trial. "When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the ""60-day window"" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company." "Investopedia explains how a stock split impacts the stock's options: Each option contract is typically in control of 100 shares of an underlying security at a predetermined strike price. To find the new coverage of the option, take the split ratio and multiply by the old coverage (normally 100 shares). To find the new strike price, take the old strike price and divide by the split ratio. Say, for example, you own a call for 100 shares of XYZ with a strike price of $75. Now, if XYZ had a stock split of 2 for 1, then the option would now be for 200 shares with a strike price of $37.50. If, on the other hand, the stock split was 3 for 2, then the option would be for 150 shares with a strike price of $50. So, yes, a 2 for 1 stock split would halve the option strike prices.  Also, in case the Investopedia article isn't clear, after a split the options still control 100 shares per contract. Regarding how a dividend affects option prices, I found an article with a good explanation: As mentioned above, dividends payment could reduce the price of a stock due to reduction of the company's assets. It becomes intuitive to know that if a stock is expected to go down, its call options will drop in extrinsic value while its put options will gain in extrinsic value before it happens. Indeed, dividends deflate the extrinsic value of call options and inflate the extrinsic value of put options weeks or even months before an expected dividend payment.  Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date.  It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is ""in the money"" or ""out of the money"" and by how much." 2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker. "First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has ""$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)"". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk." By buying the call option, you are getting the benefit of purchasing the underlying shares (that is, if the shares go up in value, you make money), but transferring the risk of the shares reducing in value. This is more apparent when you are using the option to offset an explicit risk that you hold. For example, if you have a short position, you are at unlimited risk of the position going up in value. You could decide you only want to take the risk that it might rise to $X. In that case, you could buy a call option with $X strike price. Then you have transferred the risk that the position goes over $X to the counterpart, since, even if the shares are trading at $X+$Y you can close out the short position by purchasing the shares at $X, while the option counterpart will lose $Y. Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company. If the buyer exercises your option, you will have to give him the stock.  If you already own the stock, the worst that can happen is you have to give him your stock, thus losing the money you spend to buy it.  So the most you can lose is what you already spent to buy the stock (minus the price the buyer paid for your option). If you don't own the stock, you will have to buy it.  But if the stock skyrockets in value, it will be very expensive to buy it.  If for instance you buy the stock when it is worth $100, sell your covered call, and the next day the stock shoots to $1000, you will lose the $100 you got from the purchase of the stock.  But if you had used a naked call, you would have to buy the stock at $1000, and you would lose $900. Since there is no limit to how high the stock can go, there is no limit to how much money you may lose. The original option writer (seller) can close his short position in the contracts he wrote by purchasing back matching contracts (i.e. contracts with the same terms: underlying, option type, strike price, expiration date) from any others who hold long positions, or else who write new matching contract instances. Rather than buyer and seller settling directly, options are settled through a central options clearing house, being the Options Clearing Corporation for exchange-listed options in the U.S. See also Wikipedia - Clearing house (finance). So, the original buyer of the put maintains his position (insurance) and the clearing process ensures he is matched up with somebody else holding a matching obligation, if he chooses to exercise his put. I also answered a similar question but in more detail, here. Clawback Provision. Stock grants and options were either canceled or forfeited if they'd already been paid out. None of the execs became destitute because of it but the action was significant.  Does anybody know how this compares to other cases of clawback? "I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question.  I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising.  You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place.  Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of ""cancelling"" an option you purchased: No, you cannot ""cancel"" an option contract, per se.  But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market.  When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value.  Once you sell, you're back to ""no position"".  That's not the same as ""cancelled"", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who ""sold to open"" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote.  However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market.  Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time.  This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a ""buy to close"", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position.  (The other kind of buy is the ""buy to open"".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who ""sold to open"" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract.  For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation.  Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities   options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the   National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the   entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately   cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the   opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes   the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows   options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having   to find the original opposite party.   [...]   [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment.  (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: ""I know my counter party cannot sell his shares"" ... that's not strictly true.  You are thinking of a covered call.  But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares.  Look up Naked call (Wikipedia).  Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call ""is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk"".  The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC)." "Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees ""share options"" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a ""strike price"" specified when the option is granted. Typically these ""vest"" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question." It basically only affects the company's dealings with its own stock, not with operational concerns.  If the company were to offer more stock for sale, it would get less cash.  If it had a stock buy-back program, it could buy more shares for the same money.  If it was to offer to acquire another company in exchange for its own stock, the terms would be less attractive to the other company's owners.  Employee stock remuneration, stock options, and so forth would be affected, so there might be considerations and tax consequences for the company. "To explain why you have to be 18: If you are not 18, then any contract that you sign can be voided (made invalid) by either you or your parents. So it would be completely legal for you to go to the bank, ask for a $1000 loan, and for the bank to give you the loan. But then you could spend the money, and tell the bank ""sorry, I changed my mind, I don't want that loan, and sorry again, but the money is gone"". At that point, there would be nothing the bank could do to get their money back.  Obviously, banks don't like this, so they won't lend you money."