Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation and Principles of Consolidation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of MacroGenics, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, MacroGenics UK Limited. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. The Company currently operates in one operating segment. Operating segments are defined as components of an enterprise about which separate discrete information is available for the chief operating decision maker, or decision making group, in deciding how to allocate resources and assessing performance. The Company views its operations and manages its business in one segment, which is developing monoclonal antibody-based therapeutics for cancer, autoimmune and infectious diseases.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires the Company to make estimates and judgments in certain circumstances that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. In preparing these consolidated financial statements, management has made its best estimates and judgments of certain amounts included in the financial statements, giving due consideration to materiality. On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, fair values of assets, stock-based compensation, income taxes, preclinical study and clinical trial accruals and other contingencies. Management bases its estimates on historical experience or on various other assumptions that it believes to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

Cash, Cash Equivalents and Marketable Securities

The Company considers all investments in highly liquid financial instruments with a maturity of 90 days or less at the date of purchase to be cash equivalents. Cash and cash equivalents includes investments in money market funds with commercial banks and financial institutions, securities issued by the U.S. government and its agencies, Government Sponsored Enterprise agency debt obligations and corporate debt obligations. Cash equivalents are stated at amortized cost, plus accrued interest, which approximates fair value.

The Company carries marketable securities classified as available-for-sale at fair value as determined by prices for identical or similar securities at the balance sheet date. Marketable securities consist of Level 2 financial instruments in the fair-value hierarchy. The Company records unrealized gains and losses as a component of other comprehensive loss within the statements of operations and comprehensive loss and as a separate component of stockholders' equity. Realized gains or losses on available-for-sale securities are determined using the specific identification method and the Company includes net realized gains and losses in other income (expense).

At each balance sheet date, the Company assesses available-for-sale securities in an unrealized loss position to determine whether the unrealized loss is other-than-temporary. The Company considers factors including: the significance of the decline in value compared to the cost basis, underlying factors contributing to a decline in the prices of securities in a single asset class, the length of time the market value of the security has been less than its cost basis, the security's relative performance versus its peers, sector or asset class, expected market volatility and the market and economy in general. The Company also evaluates whether it is more likely than not that it will be required to sell a security prior to recovery of its fair value. An impairment loss is recognized at the time the Company determines that a decline in the fair value below its cost basis is other-than-temporary. There were no unrealized losses at December 31, 2016 or 2015 that the Company determined to be other-than-temporary.

Accounts Receivable

Accounts receivable that management has the intent and ability to collect are reported in the consolidated balance sheets at outstanding amounts, less an allowance for doubtful accounts. The Company writes off uncollectible receivables when the likelihood of collection is remote.

The Company evaluates the collectability of accounts receivable on a regular basis. The allowance, if any, is based upon various factors including the financial condition and payment history of customers, an overall review of collections experience on other accounts and economic factors or events expected to affect future collections experience. No allowance was recorded as of December 31, 2016 or 2015, as the Company has a history of collecting on all outstanding accounts.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The Company's financial instruments consist of cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses. The carrying amount of accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses are generally considered to be representative of their respective fair values because of their short-term nature. The Company accounts for recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820). ASC 820 defines fair value, establishes a fair value hierarchy for assets and liabilities measured at fair value, and requires expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. The ASC 820 hierarchy ranks the quality of reliability of inputs, or assumptions, used in the determination of fair value and requires assets and liabilities carried at fair value to be classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:


•	Level 1 – Fair value is determined by using unadjusted quoted prices that are available in active markets for identical assets and liabilities.

•

Level 2 – Fair value is determined by using inputs other than Level 1 quoted prices that are directly or indirectly observable. Inputs can include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets or quoted prices for identical assets and liabilities in inactive markets. Related inputs can also include those used in valuation or other pricing models, such as interest rates and yield curves that can be corroborated by observable market data.


•	Level 3 – Fair value is determined by inputs that are unobservable and not corroborated by market data. Use of these inputs involves significant and subjective judgments to be made by a reporting entity – e.g., determining an appropriate adjustment to a discount factor for illiquidity associated with a given security.

The Company evaluates financial assets and liabilities subject to fair value measurements on a recurring basis to determine the appropriate level at which to classify them each reporting period. This determination requires the Company to make subjective judgments as to the significance of inputs used in determining fair value and where such inputs lie within the ASC 820 hierarchy.

Financial assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis were as follows (in thousands):



	Fair Value Measurement at December 31, 2016
			Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets		Significant Other Observable Inputs		Significant Unobservable Inputs
	Total		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Assets:
Money market funds	$	46,781	$	46,781	$	—	$	—
U.S Treasury securities	8,826		—		8,826		—
Government-sponsored enterprises	29,759		—		29,759		—
Corporate debt securities	166,300		—		166,300		—
Total assets measured at fair value ^(a)	$	251,666	$	46,781	$	204,885	$	—

(a) Total assets measured at fair value at December 31, 2016 includes approximately $50.8 million reported in cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet.



	Fair Value Measurement at December 31, 2015
			Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets		Significant Other Observable Inputs		Significant Unobservable Inputs
	Total		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Assets:
Money market funds	$	62,353	$	62,353	$	—	$	—
U.S Treasury securities	9,348		—		9,348		—
Government-sponsored enterprises	41,202		—		41,202		—
Corporate debt securities	137,928		—		137,928		—
Total assets measured at fair value ^(a)	$	250,831	$	62,353	$	188,478	$	—

(a) Total assets measured at fair value at December 31, 2015 includes approximately $108.0 million reported in cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet.

The fair value of Level 2 securities is determined from market pricing and other observable market inputs for similar securities obtained from various third-party data providers. These inputs either represent quoted prices for similar assets in active markets or have been derived from observable market data. There were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 investments during the periods presented.

Concentration of Credit Risk

Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist principally of cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities and accounts receivable. We maintain our cash and money market funds with financial institutions that are federally insured. While balances deposited in these institutions often exceed Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation limits, we have not experienced any losses on related accounts to date. Our investment policy limits investments to certain types of debt securities issued by the U.S. government, its agencies and institutions with investment-grade credit ratings and places restrictions on maturities and concentration by type and issuer. The counterparties are various corporations, financial institutions and government agencies of high credit standing.

The Company's revenue relates to agreements with various collaborators and contracts and research grants received from U.S. government agencies. The following table includes those collaborators that represent more than 10% of total revenue earned in the periods indicated:



	Year Ended December 31,
	2016		2015		2014
Janssen Biotech, Inc. (Janssen)	85	%	72	%	*
Les Laboratoires Servier and Institut de Reserches Servier (collectively, Servier)	*		*		36	%
Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH (Boehringer)	*		12	%	29	%
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (Takeda)	*		*		17	%
Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead)	*		*		11	%

The following table includes those collaborators that represent more than 10% of accounts receivable at the date indicated:



	December 31,
	2016		2015
Janssen	40	%	39	%
U.S. government	19	%	20	%
Servier	31	%	14	%
Takeda	*		14	%
Eli Lilly	*		13	%

* Balance is less than 10%

Property and Equipment

Property and equipment are stated at cost. Upon retirement or sale, the cost of assets disposed of and the related accumulated depreciation are removed from the accounts and any resulting gain or loss is credited or charged to operations. Repairs and maintenance costs are expensed as incurred. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives:



Computer equipment	3 years
Software	3 years
Furniture	10 years
Laboratory and office equipment	5 years
Leasehold improvements	Shorter of lease term or useful life

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

The Company assesses the recoverability of its long-lived assets in accordance with the provisions of ASC 360, Property, Plant and Equipment. ASC 360 requires that long-lived assets be reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability of the long-lived asset is measured by a comparison of the carrying amount of the asset to future undiscounted net cash flows expected to be generated by the asset or asset group. If carrying value exceeds the sum of undiscounted cash flows, the Company then determines the fair value of the underlying asset group. Any impairment to be recognized is measured by the amount by which the carrying amount of the asset group exceeds the estimated fair value of the asset group. Assets to be disposed of are reported at the lower of the carrying amount or fair value, less costs to sell. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company determined that there were no impaired assets and had no assets held-for-sale.

Income Taxes

Deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on differences between the financial reporting and tax basis of assets and liabilities and are measured using the enacted tax rates and laws that are expected to be in effect when the differences are expected to reverse. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized as income in the period that such tax rate changes are enacted. The measurement of a deferred tax asset is reduced, if necessary, by a valuation allowance if it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax asset will not be realized. Financial statement recognition of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return is determined based on a more-likely-than-not threshold of that position being sustained. If the tax position meets this threshold, the benefit to be recognized is measured as the largest amount that is more likely than not to be realized upon ultimate settlement. The Company's policy is to record interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions as a component of income tax expense.

Revenues

Revenue Recognition

The Company enters into collaboration and license agreements with collaborators for the development of monoclonal antibody-based therapeutics to treat cancer and other complex diseases. The terms of these agreements contain multiple deliverables which may include (i) licenses, or options to obtain licenses, to the Company's technological platforms, such as its Fc Optimization and Dual-Affinity Re-Targeting (DART) technologies, (ii) rights to future technological improvements, (iii) research and development activities to be performed on behalf of the collaborator or as part of the collaboration, and (iv) the manufacture of preclinical or clinical materials for the collaborator. Payments to the Company under these agreements may include nonrefundable license fees, option fees, exercise fees, payments for research and development activities, payments for the manufacture of preclinical or clinical materials, license maintenance payments, payments based upon the achievement of certain milestones and royalties on product sales. Other benefits to the Company of these agreements include the right to sell products resulting from the collaborative efforts of the parties in specific geographic territories. The Company follows the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 605-25, Revenue Recognition – Multiple-Element Arrangements, and FASB ASC Topic 605-28, Revenue Recognition–Milestone Method, in accounting for these agreements. In order to account for these agreements, the Company must identify the deliverables included within the agreement and evaluate which deliverables represent separate units of accounting based on the achievement of certain criteria, including whether the delivered element has stand-alone value to the collaborator. The consideration received is allocated among the separate units of accounting, and the applicable revenue recognition criteria are applied to each of the separate units.

For the periods presented, the Company had the following two types of agreements: 1) exclusive development and commercialization licenses to use the Company's technology and/or certain other intellectual property to develop compounds against specified targets (referred to herein as exclusive licenses); and 2) option/research agreements to secure on established terms, development and commercialization licenses to therapeutic product candidates to collaborator-selected targets developed by the Company during an option period (referred to herein as right-to-develop agreements).

There are no performance, cancellation, termination or refund provisions in any of the arrangements that contain material financial consequences to the Company.

Exclusive Licenses

The deliverables under an exclusive license agreement generally include the exclusive license to the Company's DART technology with respect to a specified antigen target, and may also include deliverables related to rights to future technological improvements, research and preclinical development activities to be performed on behalf of the collaborator. In some cases the Company may have an option to participate in the co-development of product candidates that result from such agreements.

Generally, exclusive license agreements contain nonrefundable terms for payments and, depending on the terms of the agreement, provide that the Company will (i) at the collaborator's request, provide research and preclinical development services at negotiated prices which are generally consistent with what other third parties would charge, (ii) earn payments upon the achievement of certain milestones, (iii) earn royalty payments, and (iv) in some cases grant the Company an option to participate in the development and commercialization of products that result from such agreements. Royalty rates may vary over the royalty term depending on the Company's intellectual property rights and whether the Company exercises any co-development and co-commercialization rights.The Company does not directly control when any collaborator will achieve milestones or become liable for royalty payments.

When entering into a new collaboration arrangement or materially modifying an existing arrangement, the Company must identify the deliverables included within the agreement and evaluate which deliverables represent separate units of accounting based on the achievement of certain criteria, including whether the delivered element has stand-alone value to the collaborator. The selling prices of deliverables under an arrangement may be derived using third-party evidence (TPE), or a best estimate of selling price (BESP), if vendor specific objective evidence (VSOE) is not available. The objective of BESP is to determine the price at which the Company would transact a sale if the element within the license agreement was sold on a standalone basis. Establishing BESP involves management's judgment and considers multiple factors, including market conditions, company-specific factors, and factors contemplated in negotiating the agreements, as well as internally developed models that include assumptions related to market opportunity, discounted cash flows, estimated development costs, probability of success and the time needed to commercialize a product candidate pursuant to the license. In validating the BESP, management considers whether changes in key assumptions used to determine the BESP will have a significant effect on the allocation of the arrangement consideration between the multiple deliverables. Deliverables under the arrangement are separate units of accounting if (i) the delivered item has value to the customer on a standalone basis and (ii) if the arrangement includes a general right of return relative to the delivered item, delivery or performance of the undelivered item is considered probable and substantially within the Company's control. The arrangement consideration that is fixed or determinable at the inception of the arrangement is allocated to the separate units of accounting based on their relative selling prices. The appropriate revenue recognition model is applied to each element and revenue is accordingly recognized as each element is delivered. Management exercises significant judgment in determining whether a deliverable is a separate unit of accounting.

In determining the separate units of accounting, the Company evaluates whether the exclusive license has standalone value to the collaborator based on consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances for each arrangement. Factors considered in this determination include the research and development capabilities of the collaborator and the availability of relevant research expertise in the marketplace. In addition, the Company considers whether or not (i) the collaborator could use the license for its intended purpose without the receipt of the remaining deliverables, (ii) the value of the license was dependent on the undelivered items and (iii) the collaborator or other vendors could provide the undelivered items. If the Company concludes that the license has stand-alone value and therefore will be accounted for as a separate unit of accounting, the Company then determines the estimated selling prices of the license and all other units of accounting based on market conditions, similar arrangements entered into by third parties, and entity-specific factors such as the terms of the Company's previous collaboration agreements, recent preclinical and clinical testing results of therapeutic product candidates that use the Company's technology platforms, the Company's pricing practices and pricing objectives, the likelihood that technological improvements will be made, the likelihood that technological improvements made will be used by the Company's collaborators and the nature of the research services to be performed on behalf of its collaborators and market rates for similar services. Total arrangement consideration is then allocated to each of the units of accounting using the relative-selling-price method. If facts and circumstances dictate that the exclusive license does not have stand-alone value, then the related payments are deferred and revenue is recognized throughout the period of performance.

Management reassesses the period of performance over which the Company recognizes deferred upfront license fees and makes adjustments as appropriate in the period in which a change in the estimated period of performance is identified. In the event a collaborator elects to discontinue development of a specific product candidate under a single target license, but retains its right to use the Company's technology to develop an alternative product candidate to the same target or a target substitute, the Company would cease amortization of any remaining portion of the upfront fee until there is substantial preclinical activity on another product candidate and its remaining period of substantial involvement can be estimated. In the event that a single target license were to be terminated, the Company would recognize as revenue any portion of the upfront fee that had not previously been recorded as revenue, but was classified as deferred revenue, at the date of such termination or through the remaining substantial involvement in the wind down of the agreement.

Upfront payments on exclusive licenses may be recognized upon delivery of the license if facts and circumstances dictate that the license has stand-alone value from the undelivered elements, which generally include rights to future technological improvements, research services and the manufacture of preclinical and clinical materials.

The Company recognizes revenue related to research and preclinical development services that represent separate units of accounting as they are performed, as long as there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, the fee is fixed or determinable, and collection is reasonably assured. The Company recognizes revenue related to the rights to future technological improvements over the estimated term of the applicable license.

The Company typically performs research activities and preclinical development services, including generating and engineering product candidates, on behalf of its licensees during the early evaluation and preclinical testing stages of drug development under its exclusive licenses. The Company records amounts received for research materials produced or services performed as revenue from collaborative agreements.

The Company's license agreements have milestone payments which for reporting purposes are aggregated into three categories: (i) development milestones, (ii) regulatory milestones, and (iii) sales milestones. Development milestones are typically payable when a product candidate initiates or advances into different clinical trial phases. Regulatory milestones are typically payable upon submission for marketing approval with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or other countries' regulatory authorities or on receipt of actual marketing approvals for the compound or for additional indications. Sales milestones are typically payable when annual sales reach certain levels.

At the inception of each agreement that includes milestone payments, the Company evaluates whether each milestone is substantive and at risk to both parties on the basis of the contingent nature of the milestone. This evaluation includes an assessment of whether (i) the consideration is commensurate with either (a) the entity's performance to achieve the milestone, or (b) the enhancement of the value of the delivered item(s) as a result of a specific outcome resulting from the entity's performance to achieve the milestone, (ii) the consideration relates solely to past performance and (iii) the consideration is reasonable relative to all of the deliverables and payment terms within the arrangement. The Company evaluates factors such as the scientific, regulatory, commercial and other risks that must be overcome to achieve the respective milestone, the level of effort and investment required to achieve the respective milestone and whether the milestone consideration is reasonable relative to all deliverables and payment terms in the arrangement in making this assessment.

Non-refundable development and regulatory milestones that are expected to be achieved as a result of the Company's efforts during the period of substantial involvement are considered substantive and are recognized as revenue upon the achievement of the milestone, assuming all other revenue recognition criteria are met. Milestones that are not considered substantive because the Company does not contribute effort to their achievement are generally recognized as revenue upon achievement of the milestone, as there are no undelivered elements remaining and no continuing performance obligations, assuming all other revenue recognition criteria are met.

Right-to-Develop Agreements

The Company's right-to-develop agreements provide collaborators with an exclusive option to obtain licenses to develop and commercialize in specified geographic territories product candidates developed by the Company under agreed upon research and preclinical development product programs. The product candidates resulting from each program are all directed to a specific target selected by the collaborator. Under these agreements, fees may be due to the Company (i) at the inception of the arrangement (referred to as "upfront" fees or payments), (ii) the selection of a target for a program, (iii) upon the exercise of an option to acquire a development and commercialization license (referred to as exercise fees or payments earned) for a program, or (iv) some combination of all of these fees.

The accounting for right-to-develop agreements is dependent on the nature of the options granted to the collaborator. Options are considered substantive if, at the inception of a right-to-develop agreement, the Company is at risk as to whether the collaborator will choose to exercise the options to secure development and commercialization licenses. Factors that are considered in evaluating whether options are substantive include the overall objective of the arrangement, the benefit the collaborator might obtain from the agreement without exercising the options, the cost to exercise the options relative to the total upfront consideration, and the additional financial commitments imposed on the collaborator as a result of exercising the options.

For right-to-develop agreements where the options to secure development and commercialization licenses to a product program are considered substantive, the Company does not consider the development and commercialization licenses to be a deliverable at the inception of the agreement, and therefore defers any upfront payments received and recognizes this revenue over the period during which the collaborator could elect to exercise options for development and commercialization licenses. These periods are specific to each collaboration agreement. If a collaborator selects a target for a product program, any substantive option fee is deferred and recognized over the life of the option. For right-to-develop agreements that include multiple deliverables, the Company determines the selling prices of deliverables under the arrangement using TPE or a BESP, if VSOE is not available. The objective of BESP is to determine the price at which the Company would transact a sale if the element within the right-to-develop agreement was sold on a standalone basis. Establishing BESP involves management's judgment and considers multiple factors, including market conditions and company-specific factors, including those factors contemplated in negotiating the agreements, as well as internally developed models that include assumptions related to market opportunity, discounted cash flows, estimated development costs, probability of success and the time needed to commercialize a product candidate pursuant to the right-to-develop agreement. In validating the BESP, management considers whether changes in key assumptions used to determine the BESP will have a significant effect on the allocation of the arrangement consideration between the multiple deliverables. Deliverables under the arrangement are separate units of accounting if (i) the delivered item has value to the customer on a standalone basis and (ii) if the arrangement includes a general right of return relative to the delivered item, delivery or performance of the undelivered item is considered probable and substantially within the Company's control. The arrangement consideration that is fixed or determinable at the inception of the arrangement is allocated to the separate units of accounting based on their relative selling prices. The appropriate revenue recognition model is applied to each element and revenue is accordingly recognized as each element is delivered. Management exercises significant judgment in determining whether a deliverable is a separate unit of accounting.

If a collaborator exercises an option and acquires a development and commercialization license to a product program, the Company attributes the exercise fee to the development and commercialization license. The Company determines the selling price of the option license, upon exercise, through management's best estimate using the process for an exclusive license as described above.

Upon exercise of an option to acquire a development and commercialization license, the Company would also attribute any remaining deferred option fee, in addition to the consideration received for the license upon exercise of the option, to the development and commercialization license. The Company then applies the multiple-element revenue recognition criteria to the development and commercialization license and other deliverables, if any, to determine the appropriate revenue recognition method. This model is consistent with the Company's accounting policy for upfront payments on exclusive licenses (discussed above). In the event a right-to-develop agreement were to be terminated, the Company would recognize as revenue any portion of the upfront fee that had not previously been recorded as revenue, but was classified as deferred revenue, at the date of such termination. The Company's right-to-develop agreements have been determined to contain substantive options.

For right-to-develop agreements where the options to secure development and commercialization licenses to product programs are not considered substantive, the Company considers the development and commercialization licenses to be a deliverable at the inception of the agreement and applies the multiple-element revenue recognition criteria to determine the appropriate revenue recognition. The Company does not directly control when any collaborator will exercise its options for development and commercialization licenses.

Research and Development Costs

Research and development expenditures are expensed as incurred. Research and development costs primarily consist of employee related expenses, including salaries and benefits, expenses incurred under agreements with contract research organizations, investigative sites and consultants that conduct the Company's clinical trials, the cost of acquiring and manufacturing clinical trial materials and other allocated expenses, license fees for and milestone payments related to in-licensed products and technologies, stock-based compensation expense, and costs associated with non-clinical activities and regulatory approvals.

Right-to-develop agreements may contain cost-sharing provisions whereby the Company and the collaborator share the cost of research and development activities. Reimbursement of research and development expenses received in connection with these agreements is recorded as a reduction of such expenses.

Comprehensive Loss

Comprehensive loss represents net loss adjusted for the change during the periods attributed to unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities. Comprehensive loss equals net loss for the year ended December 31, 2014 as there were no unrealized gains or losses in that period.

Stock-based Compensation

Stock-based payments are accounted for in accordance with the provisions of ASC 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation. The fair value of stock-based payments is estimated, on the date of grant, using the Black-Scholes model. The resulting fair value is recognized ratably over the requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period of the option.

For all time-vesting awards granted, expense is amortized using the straight-line attribution method. For awards that contain a performance condition, expense is amortized using the accelerated attribution method. Recognition of stock-based compensation expense is based on the value of the portion of stock-based awards that is ultimately expected to vest during the period.

The Company utilizes the Black-Scholes model for estimating fair value of its stock options granted. Option valuation models, including the Black-Scholes model, require the input of highly subjective assumptions, and changes in the assumptions used can materially affect the grant-date fair value of an award. These assumptions include the risk-free rate of interest, expected dividend yield, expected volatility and the expected life of the award.

Net Loss Per Share

Basic loss per common share is determined by dividing loss attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period, without consideration of common stock equivalents. Diluted loss per share is computed by dividing the loss attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common share equivalents outstanding for the period. The treasury stock method is used to determine the dilutive effect of the Company's stock option grants.

Basic and diluted loss per common share is computed as follows (in thousands except share and per share data):



	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014
Numerator:
Net loss used for calculation of basic and diluted EPS	$	(58,528	)	$	(20,140	)	$	(38,313	)

Denominator:
Weighted average shares outstanding, basic	34,685,274			31,801,645			27,384,990
Effect of dilutive securities:
Stock options and restricted stock units	—			—			—

Weighted average shares outstanding, diluted	34,685,274			31,801,645			27,384,990
Net loss per share, basic and diluted	$	(1.69	)	$	(0.63	)	$	(1.40	)

The following common stock equivalents were excluded from the calculation of diluted net loss per share because their effect would have been anti-dilutive:



	Year Ended December 31,
	2016	2015	2014
Stock options	1,394,608	1,955,398	2,094,904

Recently Issued Accounting Standards

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (ASU 2014-09). ASU 2014-09 will eliminate transaction- and industry-specific revenue recognition guidance under current GAAP and replace it with a principle-based approach for determining revenue recognition. ASU 2014-09 will require that companies recognize revenue based on the value of transferred goods or services as they occur in the contract. The ASU also will require additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts, including significant judgments and changes in judgments and assets recognized from costs incurred to obtain or fulfill a contract. ASU 2014-09 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods therein, with early adoption permitted for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. ASU 2014-09 may be adopted either retrospectively or on a modified retrospective basis whereby ASU 2014-09 would be applied to new contracts and existing contracts with remaining performance obligations as of the effective date, with a cumulative catch-up adjustment recorded to beginning retained earnings at the effective date for existing contracts with remaining performance obligations. In 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, and 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. The effective date for these new standards is the same as the effective date and transition requirements for ASU 2014-09. Management has begun an initial review of each of the Company's collaboration and license agreements and is performing an assessment of the potential effects of the standard on the Company's consolidated financial statements, accounting policies, and internal controls over financial reporting. The Company anticipates that the adoption of the new revenue recognition standard will have primarily two impacts on its contract revenues generated by its collaborative research and license agreements:

(i) Changes in the model for distinct licenses of functional intellectual property which may result in a timing difference of revenue recognition. Whereas revenue from these arrangements was previously recognized over a period of time pursuant to revenue recognition guidance that was in place for the arrangements at the time such arrangements commenced, revenue from these arrangements may now be recognized at point in time under the new guidance.

(ii) Assessments of milestone payments, which are linked to events that are in the Company’s control, will result in variable consideration that may be recognized at an earlier point in time under the new guidance, when it is probable that the milestone will be achieved without a significant future reversal of cumulative revenue expected.

The Company has not yet completed its final review of the impact of this guidance. The Company has also not concluded on the implementation approach to be used. Management plans to adopt the new standard effective January 1, 2018. The Company continues to monitor additional changes, modifications, clarifications or interpretations being undertaken by the FASB, which may impact the implementation approach management decides to use.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern, which requires management of an entity to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued or available to be issued. ASU 2014-15 is effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The Company’s adoption of this new standard for the year ended December 31, 2016 had no impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-17, Income Taxes, Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes (ASU 2015-17). ASU 2015-17 requires entities to present deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities as noncurrent on a classified balance sheet. ASU 2015-17 is effective for annual and interim reporting periods after December 15, 2016 and companies are permitted to apply ASU 2015-17 either prospectively or retrospectively. Early adoption of ASU 2015-17 is permitted. The Company adopted ASU 2015-17 on a prospective basis in the first quarter of 2016. The prior reporting period was not retrospectively adjusted. The adoption of this guidance had no impact on the Company's results of operations or cash flows.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (ASU 2016-02) that provides principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of leases for both lessees and lessors. ASU 2016-02 requires a lessee to recognize assets and liabilities on the balance sheet for operating leases and changes many key definitions, including the definition of a lease. ASU 2016-02 includes a short-term lease exception for leases with a term of 12 months or less, in which a lessee can make an accounting policy election not to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities. Lessees will continue to differentiate between finance leases (previously referred to as capital leases) and operating leases, using classification criteria that are substantially similar to the previous guidance. ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within those fiscal years, with earlier application permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting (ASU 2016-09). This amendment addresses several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities and classification on the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-09 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that year. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is evaluating the impact of the standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

The Company has evaluated all other ASUs issued through the date the consolidated financials were issued and believes that the adoption of these will not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.