Interesting study, but does not seem to consider or exclude certain clearly non-abusive situations such as: (A) the likelihood that (i) firms that grant options tend to be firms with a favorable stock price outlook (otherwise the CEO's will opt for cash or other comp), (ii) many firms, in fact the majority in my view, tend to make grants on the first of a month to simplify future reporting and record-keeping, thus typically for firms who's stock is rising - options will always have been granted at the low price of the month -bad by defintion of the study, but with no bad intent - just a result of routine policies.
Its not clear that the study did anything to negate or control for this effect;
(B) Also, for senior executives, many receive their first grant on the date they sign their employment contract or commence employment - and given "reload" features under many plans, they will thus in the future receive reload grants on or about an anniversary of that date - options granted at such times should be removed from the study but do not appear to have been.

does anyone know how to find out precisely which companies the professor(s) examined in this study? given the points in the comment above from R.Webb, it seems more likely that the so-called "old economy" firms examined could fall under those types of explanations, which are apprently unaccounted for. Perhaps a closer look at this study's results is thus warranted.