Cash-settled Share-based Payments (SARs)
Why two employee incentive plans that feel almost identical to the employee receiving them — both tied to the company's share price — can create a completely different, and far less predictable, expense for the company issuing them.
In plain English
Recall from the Employee Stock Options article that a standard ESOP grant is expensed based on its FAIR VALUE, calculated ONCE, on the grant date, and that fixed figure never changes again regardless of what happens to the company's share price afterward. Share Appreciation Rights, or SARs, look superficially similar from an employee's perspective, but with one crucial structural difference: instead of the employee eventually receiving actual SHARES, they receive CASH, calculated based on however much the share price has risen by the time they exercise their right. That single difference — shares versus cash — completely changes how the company has to account for it, transforming a one-time, fixed expense calculation into an ongoing, unpredictable one.
Words you'll need first
The standard ESOP structure: the company will ultimately settle its obligation by issuing actual SHARES to the employee. Because the obligation is to deliver a FIXED thing (shares) rather than a variable amount of cash, the expense is calculated ONCE, at grant date fair value, and never remeasured again.
The company will ultimately settle its obligation in CASH, with the amount determined by the company's share price at settlement. Because the company's ultimate cash obligation genuinely depends on a FUTURE, currently unknown share price, the liability must be REMEASURED to its current fair value at every single reporting date, with each remeasurement change flowing through the P&L as it happens.
Same underlying idea, completely different accounting mechanics
Equity-settled (standard ESOPs)
Expense calculated ONCE at grant date, spread evenly over the vesting period, and NEVER remeasured for later share price movements — a fixed, predictable total expense known from day one, recorded as a credit to EQUITY, not a liability.
Cash-settled (SARs)
The liability is REMEASURED to fair value at every reporting date until settlement, with changes flowing through the P&L each time — an unpredictable, share-price-linked expense recorded as a growing or shrinking LIABILITY, since real cash will eventually be paid out.
A worked example, with numbers
| Year | Event | P&L expense recognised |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | Liability remeasured to ₹8 lakh (50% vested) | ₹4 lakh |
| Year 2 | Liability remeasured to final ₹15 lakh payout | ₹11 lakh (balancing remainder) |
| Total expense over 2 years | Matches the actual cash eventually paid out | ₹15 lakh total |
- Unlike a standard ESOP, where the total expense is FIXED and known from day one, the total expense here — ₹15 lakh — is only known for CERTAIN once the SAR is actually exercised, since it depends directly on the company's own future share price.
- The Year 2 expense (₹11 lakh) is considerably larger than the Year 1 expense (₹4 lakh), reflecting both the final year of vesting AND the fact that the company's share price rose further during that year — a form of expense volatility that simply doesn't exist for standard equity-settled ESOPs.
- If the company's share price had instead FALLEN during Year 2, the total expense could have been LOWER, potentially even requiring a reversal of some previously-recognised expense — cash-settled SARs can genuinely produce expense reversals in a way equity-settled ESOPs never can.
- Because the ultimate cash payout depends on the company's own future share price, forecasting the total future expense of an outstanding SAR programme requires forecasting the company's own share price — a genuinely unusual, circular dependency.
What it does to the financial statements
Impact on the P&L
- Cash-settled SARs create ONGOING, unpredictable P&L expense volatility directly linked to the company's own share price, in genuine contrast to the fixed, one-time-calculated expense of standard equity-settled ESOPs.
- A rising share price INCREASES the P&L expense for outstanding SARs, while a falling share price can DECREASE it, or even trigger an expense reversal — a company's own share price performance directly, mechanically affects its reported profit through this channel.
- A company with a large outstanding SAR programme faces genuine earnings unpredictability tied to its own stock price, worth understanding when analysing why compensation-related expenses might be moving in a way that seems disconnected from operating performance.
- Unlike equity-settled ESOP expense (a non-cash cost from the company's perspective), cash-settled SAR expense corresponds to a REAL, eventual cash outflow — the P&L expense and the ultimate cash cost converge by settlement.
Impact on the Balance Sheet
- Cash-settled SARs create a genuine LIABILITY on the balance sheet, not an equity reserve, reflecting the company's real, growing obligation to eventually pay cash — remeasured to fair value at every reporting date.
- Because SARs create a liability rather than an equity credit, they have NO dilutive effect on existing shareholders at all — no new shares are ever issued, precisely why companies wanting to avoid dilution sometimes prefer this structure.
- A large, growing SARs liability represents a real, quantifiable future cash outflow the company will need to fund, worth factoring into liquidity planning in a way an equity-settled ESOP's growing equity reserve doesn't require.
- For companies offering a MIX of equity-settled ESOPs and cash-settled SARs, the notes typically break down the total share-based payment expense and outstanding obligations by type, since the two carry genuinely different implications.
Which standard covers this
In India this is governed by Ind AS 102 – Share-based Payment, the same standard covered in the Employee Stock Options article, notified under the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, which distinguishes between equity-settled and cash-settled arrangements and prescribes the different measurement approaches this article describes.
How it's recognised globally
Globally, the equivalent is IFRS 2, and Ind AS 102 mirrors its equity-settled versus cash-settled distinction and the corresponding ongoing remeasurement requirement for cash-settled arrangements closely. Under US GAAP, equivalent guidance sits in ASC 718, sharing broadly the same fundamental distinction and the requirement to remeasure cash-settled (liability-classified) awards to fair value each period — a genuinely well-converged area of global accounting.
Real example — Indian listed company
Cash-settled Share Appreciation Rights are a particularly common structure among Indian startups and unlisted companies specifically BECAUSE there's no listed, liquid share price readily available for delivering actual shares to employees in a straightforward way, and because promoters and existing investors often want to avoid the immediate cap-table complexity of issuing more actual equity to a broad employee base. Flipkart, during its years as a large, high-profile unlisted Indian company, was widely reported to operate stock-linked employee incentive plans of this general nature, reflecting a common industry pattern among Indian unicorns and large private technology companies: offering employees genuine, meaningful upside tied to the company's rising valuation, without the complications of managing a large, illiquid equity cap table across potentially thousands of employees. This general industry pattern is a useful, real-world illustration of exactly why the cash-settled structure this article describes exists and remains genuinely popular, particularly among companies not yet listed on a public stock exchange.
Where you'll see this
Related concepts
Revenue Recognition
Why a builder selling you a flat under construction might now have to wait until you get the keys before it can call the money 'revenue' — even though you've been paying instalments for two years.
Employee Stock Options (ESOPs)
Why a company can hand an employee something worth crores of rupees, pay no cash for it today, and still have to book a real expense against its profit — years before the employee can even sell a single share.
Related Party Transactions
Why a company selling goods to its own promoter's other business, at a price nobody outside the family would ever agree to, is completely legal — as long as it's disclosed loudly enough for everyone to see.