Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
|12 Months Ended|
Dec. 31, 2016
|Accounting Policies [Abstract]|
|Significant Accounting Policies [Text Block]||
Note 3 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Basis of Presentation
The accompanying financial statements are presented in U.S. dollars and have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”), and pursuant to the accounting and disclosure rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date of the financial statements as well as the reported expenses during the reporting periods.
The Company’s significant estimates and assumptions include the valuation of stock-based compensation instruments, recognition of revenue, the useful lives of long-lived assets, and income tax expense. Some of these judgments can be subjective and complex, and, consequently, actual results may differ from these estimates. Although the Company believes that its estimates and assumptions are reasonable, they are based upon information available at the time the estimates and assumptions were made. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
The Company considers all short-term, highly liquid investments with an original maturity at the date of purchase of three months or less to be cash equivalents. The Company maintains cash balances that may be uninsured or in deposit accounts that exceed Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation limits. The Company maintains its cash deposits with major financial institutions.
The Company recognizes revenue when all of the following criteria have been met: persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, services have been rendered, collection of the revenue is reasonably assured, and the fees are fixed or determinable.
The Company records revenue associated with product development projects that it enters into with certain customers. In general, these projects are associated with complex technology development, and as such the Company does not have certainty about its ability to achieve the program milestones. Achievement of the milestone is dependent on our performance and the milestone typically needs to be accepted by the customer. The payment associated with achieving the milestone is generally commensurate with the Company’s effort or the value of the deliverable and is nonrefundable. The Company records the expenses related to these projects, generally included in research and development expense, in the periods incurred.
The Company also receives nonrefundable payments, typically at the beginning of a customer relationship, for which there are no milestones. The Company recognizes this revenue ratably over the initial engineering product development period. The Company records the expenses related to these projects, generally included in research and development expense, in the periods incurred.
Research and Development
Research and development expenses are charged to operations as incurred. For internally developed patents, all patent application costs are expensed as incurred as research and development expense. Patent application costs, generally legal costs, are expensed as research and development costs until such time as the future economic benefits of such patents become more certain. The Company incurred research and development costs of $32,832,677, $18,825,041 and $12,511,647 for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The Company accounts for equity instruments issued to employees in accordance with accounting guidance that requires awards to be recorded at their fair value on the date of grant and are amortized over the vesting period of the award. The Company recognizes compensation costs on a straight line basis over the requisite service period of the award, which is typically the vesting term of the equity instrument issued.
On April 10, 2015, the Company’s board of directors approved the Energous Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “ESPP”), under which 600,000 shares of common stock were reserved for purchase by the Company’s employees, subject to approval by the stockholders. On May 21, 2015, the Company’s stockholders approved the ESPP. Under the plan, employees may purchase a limited number of shares of the Company’s common stock at a 15% discount from the lower of the closing market prices measured on the first and last days of each half-year period. The Company recognizes compensation expense for the fair value of the purchase options, as measured on the grant date.
Tax benefits are recognized only for tax positions that are more likely than not to be sustained upon examination by tax authorities. The amount recognized is measured as the largest amount of benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely to be realized upon settlement. A liability for “unrecognized tax benefits” is recorded for any tax benefits claimed in the Company’s tax returns that do not meet these recognition and measurement standards. As of December 31, 2016, no liability for unrecognized tax benefits was required to be reported. The guidance also discusses the classification of related interest and penalties on income taxes. The Company’s policy is to record interest and penalties on uncertain tax positions as a component of income tax expense. No interest or penalties were recorded during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014. The Company files income tax returns with the United States and California governments.
Net Loss Per Common Share
Basic net loss per share is computed by dividing net loss available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share is computed using the weighted average number of common shares and, if dilutive, potential common shares outstanding during the period. Potential common shares consist of the incremental common shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options and warrants (using the treasury stock method), the vesting of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and performance stock units (“PSUs”) and the enrollment of employees in the ESPP. The computation of diluted loss per share excludes potentially dilutive securities of 6,975,651, 4,994,425 and 3,261,360 for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, because their inclusion would be antidilutive.
Potentially dilutive securities outlined in the table below have been excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share because the effect of their inclusion would have been anti-dilutive.
Fair Value Measurements
The carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable and accrued expenses, approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments. Fair value is defined as an exit price, representing the amount that would be received upon the sale of an asset or payment to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. Fair value is a market-based measurement that is determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. A three-tier fair value hierarchy is used to prioritize the inputs in measuring fair value as follows:
The assets or liability’s fair value measurement within the fair value hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement.
As of December 31, 2014, the Company no longer had financial instruments which were derivative liabilities.
The following table sets forth a summary of the changes in the fair value of the Company’s Level 3 financial liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis:
The conversion feature of the Convertible Notes immediately prior to conversion was measured at fair value using a Monte Carlo simulation (which also represented the intrinsic value of the conversion feature) and was classified within Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy. The warrant liabilities for the Financing Warrant and the Consulting Warrant, immediately prior to modification were measured at fair value using a Monte Carlo simulation and were classified within Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy. The significant assumptions and valuation methods that the Company used to determine fair value and the change in fair value of the Company’s derivative financial instruments are discussed in Note 6 Private Placement.
Level 3 liabilities are valued using unobservable inputs to the valuation methodology that are significant to the measurement of the fair value of the derivative liabilities. For fair value measurements categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer determined its valuation policies and procedures. The development and determination of the unobservable inputs for Level 3 fair value measurements and fair value calculations are the responsibility of the Company’s Chief Financial Officer with support from the Company’s financial staff and consultants and which are approved by the Chief Financial Officer.
Level 3 financial liabilities consist of the derivative liabilities for which there is no current market for these securities such that the determination of fair value requires significant judgment or estimation. Changes in fair value measurements categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy are analyzed each period based on changes in estimates or assumptions and recorded as appropriate.
The Company used a Monte Carlo model to value Level 3 financial liabilities at inception and on subsequent valuation dates, except that the conversion feature of the convertible notes immediately prior to conversion was valued at intrinsic value. This simulation incorporates transaction details such as the Company’s stock price, contractual terms, maturity, risk free rates, as well as, volatility. The Company also used a binomial simulation and Black-Scholes economic model as supplemental valuation tools in order to validate the reasonableness of the results of the Monte Carlo simulation when measuring the Financing Warrant and the Consulting Warrant.
A significant increase in the volatility or a significant increase in the Company’s stock price, in isolation, would result in a significantly higher fair value measurement. Changes in the values of the derivative liabilities were recorded in Change in Fair Value of Derivative Liabilities within Other Expense (Income) on the Company’s Statements of Operations.
Management determined that the results of its valuations are reasonable.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers” (Topic 606), which supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in ASC Topic 605, "Revenue Recognition," and most industry-specific guidance. This ASU is based on the principle that revenue is recognized to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The ASU also requires 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. The amendments in the ASU must be applied using one of two retrospective methods and are effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2016. On July 9, 2015, the FASB modified ASU 2014-09 to be effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period. As modified, the FASB permits the adoption of the new revenue standard early, but not before the annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016. A public organization would apply the new revenue standard to all interim reporting periods within the year of adoption. The Company will evaluate the effects, if any, that adoption of this guidance will have on its financial statements.
In August 2014, FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial StatementsGoing Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. This standard is intended to define management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an organization’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. Under U.S. GAAP, financial statements are prepared under the presumption that the reporting organization will continue to operate as a going concern, except in limited circumstances. Financial reporting under this presumption is commonly referred to as the going concern basis of accounting.
The going concern basis of accounting is critical to financial reporting because it establishes the fundamental basis for measuring and classifying assets and liabilities. Currently, U.S. GAAP lacks guidance about management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about the organization’s ability to continue as a going concern or to provide related footnote disclosures. This ASU provides guidance to an organization’s management, with principles and definitions that are intended to reduce diversity in the timing and content of disclosures that are commonly provided by organizations today in the financial statement footnotes. The amendments are effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The Company adopted ASU 2014-15 and management has made the appropriate evaluations and disclosures in Note 2 Liquidity and Management Plans.
In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-03, “Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs.” This standard amends existing guidance to require the presentation of debt issuance costs in the balance sheet as a deduction from the carrying amount of the related debt liability instead of a deferred charge. It is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015. The Company has adopted ASU 2015-03 and the adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.
In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-15, “Presentation and Subsequent Measurement of Debt Issuance Costs Associated with Line-of-Credit Arrangements” Amendments to SEC Paragraphs Pursuant to Staff Announcement at June 18, 2015, which clarified the SEC staff’s position on presenting and measuring debt issuance costs incurred in connection with line-of-credit arrangements. ASU 2015-15 should be adopted concurrent with the adoption of ASU 2015-03. The Company has adopted ASU 2015-15 and the adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.
In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-17, “Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes” (“ASU 2015-17”). The standard requires that deferred tax assets and liabilities be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position. ASU 2015-17 is effective for fiscal years and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2016. Early adoption is permitted. ASU 2015-17 may be applied either prospectively, for all deferred tax assets and liabilities, or retrospectively. The Company has early adopted ASU 2015-17 effective December 31, 2015, retrospectively. Adoption had no impact on the results of operations.
In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, “Financial Instruments Overall (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities” (“ASU 2016-01”). The standard addresses certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of financial instruments. ASU 2016-01 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the impact the adoption of this new standard will have on its financial statements.
In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842).” (“ASU 2016-02”) This standard requires that a lessee recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from operating leases. A lessee should recognize in the statement of financial position a liability to make lease payments (the lease liability) and a right-of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term. For leases with a term of 12 months or less, a lessee is permitted to make an accounting policy election by class of underlying asset not to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities. In transition, lessees and lessors are required to recognize and measure leases at the beginning of the earliest period presented using a modified retrospective approach. ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2018. The Company is currently evaluating the impact the adoption of this new standard will have on its financial statements.
In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-08, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net)” (“ASU 2016-08”). ASU No. 2016-08 maintains the core principles of Topic 606 on revenue recognition, but clarifies whether an entity is a principal or an agent in a contract and the appropriate revenue recognition principles under each of these circumstances. The amendments in ASU 2016-08 affect the guidance of ASU 2014-09 which is not yet effective. The Company will evaluate the effects, if any, that adoption of this guidance will have on its financial statements.
In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, “Compensation Stock Compensation (Topic 718) Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting.” ASU No. 2016-09 includes provisions to simplify certain aspects related to the accounting for share-based awards and the related financial statement presentation. This ASU includes a requirement that the tax effect related to the settlement of share-based awards be recorded in income tax benefit or expense in the statements of earnings. This change is required to be adopted prospectively in the period of adoption. In addition, the ASU modifies the classification of certain share-based payment activities within the statements of cash flows and these changes are required to be applied retrospectively to all periods presented, or in certain cases prospectively, beginning in the period of adoption. ASU No. 2016-09 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact the adoption of this new standard will have on its financial statements.
In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-10, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) - Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing.” ASU No. 2016-10 maintains the core principles of Topic 606 on revenue recognition, but clarifies identification of performance obligations and licensing implementation guidance. The amendments in ASU 2016-10 affect the guidance of ASU 2014-09 which is not yet effective. The Company will evaluate the effects, if any, that adoption of this guidance will have on its financial statements.
In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-12, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) - Narrow- Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients.” ASU No. 2016-12 maintains the core principles of Topic 606 on revenue recognition, but addresses collectability, sales tax presentation, noncash consideration, contract modifications at transition and completed contracts at transition. The amendments in ASU 2016-12 affect the guidance of ASU 2014-09 which is not yet effective. The Company will evaluate the effects, if any, that adoption of this guidance will have on its financial statements.
In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Financial Instruments Credit Losses (Topic 326) Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.” ASU No. 2016-13 provides financial statement reader more decision-useful information about the expected credit losses on financial instruments and other commitments to extend credit held by a reporting entity at each reporting date. The Company will evaluate the effects, if any, that adoption of this guidance will have on its financial statements.
In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15, “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230) Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments.” ASU No. 2016-15 addresses eight specific cash flow issues with the objective of reducing the existing diversity in practice. It is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the impact this standard will have on its financial statements.
In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-18, “Statement of Cash Flows (230) Restricted Cash.” ASU No. 2016-18 requires an entity to include amounts described as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period total amounts shown on the statement of cash flows. It is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.
In December 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-20, “Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers.” ASU No. 2016-20 amends certain aspects of ASU No. 2014-09 and clarifies, rather than changes, the core revenue recognition principles in ASU No. 2014-09. It is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.
Management’s Evaluation of Subsequent Events
The Company evaluates events that have occurred after the balance sheet date of December 31, 2016, through the date which the financial statements are issued. Based upon the review, the Company did not identify any subsequent events that would have required adjustment or disclosure in the financial statements.
The entire disclosure for all significant accounting policies of the reporting entity.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef