Summary of Significant Accounting Policies | 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions about future events that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ materially from those estimates. Fair Value of Financial Instruments We determine the fair value of financial and nonfinancial assets and liabilities using the fair value hierarchy, which describes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value, as follows: Level 1 —Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities; Level 2 —Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities; and Level 3 —Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities. We determine the fair value of Level 1 assets using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets. We review trading activity and pricing for Level 2 investments as of each measurement date. Level 2 inputs, which are obtained from various third-party data providers, represent quoted prices for similar assets in active markets and were derived from observable market data, or, if not directly observable, were derived from or corroborated by other observable market data. There were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 securities in the periods presented. In certain cases where there is limited activity or less transparency around inputs to valuation, we classify securities as Level 3 within the valuation hierarchy. We do not have any assets or liabilities measured using Level 3 inputs as of June 30, 2017. The following table summarizes our financial instruments that were measured at fair value on a recurring basis by level of input within the fair value hierarchy defined above (in thousands): June 30, 2017 Basis of Fair Value Measurements Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Assets Money market funds $ 44,600 $ 44,600 $ — $ — U.S. Treasury securities 291,009 291,009 — — Certificate of deposit 1,543 — 1,543 — Total cash equivalents and marketable securities $ 337,152 $ 335,609 $ 1,543 $ — December 31, 2016 Basis of Fair Value Measurements Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Assets Money market funds $ 432 $ 432 $ — $ — U.S. Treasury securities 414,095 414,095 — — Certificate of deposit 1,543 — 1,543 — Total cash equivalents and marketable securities $ 416,070 $ 414,527 $ 1,543 $ — Net Loss Per Share of Common Stock We compute basic net loss per common share by dividing net loss attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. We excluded the following securities from the calculation of diluted net loss per share as the effect would have been antidilutive (in thousands): Three Months Ended Six Months Ended June 30, June 30, 2017 2016 2017 2016 Options to purchase common stock 3,879 2,561 3,796 2,739 Restricted stock awards (RSAs) 834 1,319 940 1,412 4,713 3,880 4,736 4,151 Accounting Pronouncements Adopted in 2017 In March 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted In May 2014, FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Topic 606 In March, April, May and December 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Principal versus Agent Considerations , ASU 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing , ASU 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients to provide supplemental adoption guidance and clarification to ASU 2014-09 and ASU 2016-20, Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers , respectively. The effective date for these new standards is the same as the effective date and transition requirements for ASU 2014-09. We expect to adopt ASU 2014-09 in the first quarter of 2018 using the modified retrospective method. Our adoption of ASU 2014-09 may have a material effect on our financial statements. To date, we have derived our revenues from license and collaboration agreements. The consideration we are eligible to receive under these agreements includes upfront payments, research and development funding, milestone payments and royalties. Each license and collaboration agreement is unique and will need to be assessed separately under the five-step process set forth in under the new standard. We are currently assessing our active license and collaboration agreements. We expect that our evaluation of the accounting for license and collaboration agreements under the new revenue standard could identify material changes from the current accounting treatment. ASU 2014-09 differs from the current accounting standard in many respects, such as in the accounting for variable consideration, including milestone payments. Under our current accounting policy, we recognize milestone revenue using the milestone method specified in ASC 605-28, which generally results in the recognition of the milestone payment as revenue in the period that the milestone is achieved. However, under the new accounting standard, it is possible to start to recognize milestone revenue before the milestone is achieved, subject to management’s assessment of whether it is probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognized will not occur when the uncertainty associated with the variable consideration is subsequently resolved. In addition, the current accounting standards include a presumption that revenue from up-front non-refundable fees would be recognized ratably over the performance period, unless another attribution method was determined to more closely approximate the delivery of the goods or services to the customer. The new accounting standard does not have a presumption that entities would default to a ratable attribution approach and will require entities to determine an appropriate attribution method using either output or input methods. As such, the amount and timing of revenue recognition for our license and collaboration agreements may change under the new revenue standard. In February 2016, FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases all annual and interim reporting periods thereafter. E In May 2017, FASB issued ASU 2017-09, Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718) – Scope of Modification Accounting |