Summary Of Significant Accounting Policies | NOTE 2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Basis of Presentation In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (“Financial Statements”) of Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. have been prepared on a consistent bas is with our December 31, 2014 audited Consolidated Financial Statements and include all adjustments, consisting of only normal recurring adjustments, necessary to fairly state the information set forth herein. Certain prior year amounts in the Financial Statements and notes thereto have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. The Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and, as permitted by such rules and regulations, omit certain information and footnote disclosures necessary to present the statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). These Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 . The results of operations for the first six- month period of 2015 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the entire fiscal year or any future periods. Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes to the financial statements. Our estimates include, but are not limited to, the valuation of inventory, revenue valuation, the valuation of a financing derivative and long-term notes, the valuation and recognition of share-based compensation, the delivery period for collaboration agreements, the useful lives assigned to long-lived assets, and the computation provisions for income taxes. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates. During the first quarter of 2015, we revised the estimated period over which the delivery of elements pursuant to the Development, Commercialization and License Agreement (the “Roche Agreement”) with F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (“Roche”) is expected to occur, due to an increased level of certainty regarding the development period. As a result, we are, on a prospective basis, recognizing the remaining deferred contractual revenue associated with the upfront payment received under the Roche Agreement over the revised estimated remaining development period. For the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2015, th is change in estimate increased contractual revenue by $1.9 million and $3.8 million , respectively, and decreased loss per share by $0.03 and $0.05 , respectively. There have been no other material changes to the critical accounting policies and estimates discussed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. Reclassifications In the condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2014 , certain immaterial reclassifi cations were made from “Prepaid expenses and other assets” to the “Other items” in order to conform to current period presentation. Such reclassifications did not impact our financial position, net loss , or cash used in operations in the condensed consolidated statement of cash flows. Fair Value of Financial Instruments Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis The following table sets forth the fair value of our financial assets and liabilities measured on a recurring basis as of June 30 , 2015 and December 31, 2014: (in thousands) June 30, 2015 December 31, 2014 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total Assets Cash and cash equivalents: Cash and money market funds $ $ — $ — $ $ $ — $ — $ Commercial paper — — — — Total cash and cash equivalents — — Investments: Commercial paper — — — — Corporate debt securities — — — — Asset backed securities — — — — Total investments — — — — Total assets measured at fair value $ $ $ — $ $ $ $ — $ Liabilities Financing derivative $ — $ — $ $ $ — $ — $ $ We classify our cash deposits and money market funds within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy because they are valued using bank balances or quoted market prices. We classify our investments as Level 2 instruments based on market pricing and other observable inputs. We did not classify any of our investments within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. During the six- month period s ended June 30 , 2015 and 2014 , there were no impairments of our investments. The estimated fair value of the Financing Derivative l iability (as defined in Note 6 Notes Payable) was determined using Level 3 inputs, or significant unobservable inputs. Changes to the estimated fair value of the Financing Derivative are recorded in “Other income (expense), net” in the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. The following table provides the changes in the estimated fair value of the Financial Derivative during the six -month period ended June 30 , 2015 (in thousands): Financial Derivative Amount Balance as of December 31, 2014 $ Gain on change in estimated fair value Balance as of June 30, 2015 $ During the six -month period ended June 30 , 2015 there were no transfers between Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 assets or liabilities reported at fair value on a recurring basis and the valuation techniques used did not change compared to our established practice. Financial assets and liabilities not measured at fair value on a recurring basis The carrying amount of our accounts receivable, prepaid expenses, other current assets, accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities, current, approximate fair value due to their short maturities. The carrying value of our other liabilities, non-current , approximates fair value due to the time to maturity and prevailing market rates. We determined the estimated fair value of the Notes (as defined in Note 6 Notes Payable) from the debt facility using Level 3 inputs, or significant unobservable inputs. The estimated fair value of the Notes was determined by comparing the difference between the estimated fair value of the Notes with and without the Financing Derivative by calculating the respective present values from future cash flows using a weighted average market yield of 18.4% and 19.5% at June 30 , 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. The estimated fair value and carrying value of the Notes are as follows (in thousands): June 30, 2015 December 31, 2014 Fair Value Carrying Value Fair Value Carrying Value Notes payable $ $ $ $ Net Loss per Share The following table presents the computation of our basic and diluted net loss per share (in thousands, except per share amounts): Three-Month Periods Ended June 30, Six-Month Periods Ended June 30, 2015 2014 2015 2014 Net loss per share Numerator: Net loss $ $ $ $ Denominator: Weighted average shares used in computation of basic and diluted net loss per share Basic and diluted net loss per share $ $ $ $ The following were excluded from the computation of our diluted net loss per share for the periods presented because including them would have had an anti-dilutive effect: As of June 30, (in thousands) 2015 2014 Options outstanding Warrants to purchase common stock Recent Accounting Pronouncements On May 28, 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“ FASB ”) issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers , requiring an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. The updated standard will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in U.S. GAAP when it becomes effective and permits the use of either the retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. Early adoption is not permitted. The updated standard would have been effective for us in the first quarter of fiscal 2017. However, in July 2015 the FASB decided to de lay the effective date of the new revenue standard by one year. Reporting entities may choose to adopt the standard as of the original effective date. W e are currently evaluating the effect that the updated standard will have on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern . This ASU introduces an explicit requirement for management to assess if there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, and to provide related footnote disclosures in certain circumstances. Disclosures are required if conditions give rise to substantial doubt. This ASU is effective for us in the first quarter of fiscal 2017. We are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of adopting this ASU on our financial statements and related disclosures. In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs , which changes the presentation of debt issuance costs in financial statements. This ASU requires an entity to present such costs in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the related debt liability rather than as an asset. Amortization of the costs will continue to be reported as interest expense. This ASU is effective for the Company’s annual report periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and is effective for us in the first quarter of fiscal 201 7 . Early adoption is permitted. The new guidance will be applied retrospectively to each prior period presented. We are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of adopting this ASU on our financial statements and related disclosures. |