Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Description of Business

F5 Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) is the leading developer and provider of software-defined application services. The Company’s core technology is a full-proxy, programmable, highly-scalable software platform called TMOS, which supports a broad array of features and functions designed to ensure that applications delivered over Internet Protocol (IP) networks are secure, fast and available. The Company’s TMOS-based offerings include software products for local and global traffic management, network and application security, access management, web acceleration and a number of other network and application services. These products are available as modules that can run individually or as part of an integrated solution on the Company’s high-performance, scalable, purpose-built BIG-IP appliances and VIPRION chassis-based hardware, or as software-only Virtual Editions. The Company also offers DDoS protection, application security and other application services by subscription on its cloud-based Silverline platform. In connection with its products, the Company offers a broad range of support services including consulting, training, installation and maintenance.

Basis of Presentation

The year-end consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In the opinion of management, the unaudited consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for their fair statement in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual financial statements have been condensed or omitted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The information included in this Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014.

Revenue Recognition

The Company sells products through distributors, resellers, and directly to end users. Revenue is recognized provided that all of the following criteria have been met:


•	Persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists. Evidence of an arrangement generally consists of a purchase order issued pursuant to the terms and conditions of a distributor, reseller or end user agreement.


•	Delivery has occurred. The Company uses shipping or related documents, or written evidence of customer acceptance, when applicable, to verify delivery or completion of any performance terms.


•	The sales price is fixed or determinable. The Company assesses whether the sales price is fixed or determinable based on payment terms associated with the transaction and whether the sales price is subject to refund or adjustment.


•	Collectability is reasonably assured. The Company assesses collectability primarily based on the creditworthiness of the customer as determined by credit checks and related analysis, as well as the Customer’s payment history.

Revenue from the sale of products is generally recognized when the product has been shipped and the customer is obligated to pay for the product. When rights of return are present and the Company cannot estimate returns, revenue is recognized when such rights of return lapse. Payment terms to domestic customers are generally net 30 days to net 45 days. Payment terms to international customers range from net 30 days to net 120 days based on normal and customary trade practices in the individual markets. The Company offers extended payment terms to certain customers, in which case, revenue is recognized when payments are due.

Revenues for post-contract customer support (PCS) are recognized on a straight-line basis over the service contract term. PCS includes a limited period of telephone support, updates, repair or replacement of any failed product or component that fails during the term of the agreement, bug fixes and rights to upgrades, when and if available. Consulting services are customarily billed at fixed hourly rates, plus out-of-pocket expenses, and revenues are recognized when the consulting has been completed. Training revenue is recognized when the training has been completed.

Arrangement consideration is first allocated between software (consisting of nonessential and stand-alone software) and non-software deliverables. The majority of the Company’s products are hardware appliances which contain software essential to the overall functionality of the products. Hardware appliances are generally sold with PCS and on occasion, with consulting and/or training services. Arrangement consideration in such multiple element transactions is allocated to each element based on a fair value hierarchy, where the selling price for an element is based on vendor specific objective evidence (VSOE), if available, third-party evidence (TPE), if available and VSOE is not available; or the best estimate of selling price (BESP), if neither VSOE or TPE is available.

For software deliverables, the Company allocates revenue between multiple elements based on software revenue recognition guidance. Software revenue recognition guidance requires revenue earned on software arrangements involving multiple elements to be allocated to each element based on the relative fair values of those elements. The fair value of an element must be based on VSOE. Where fair value of delivered elements is not available, revenue is recognized on the “residual method” based on the fair value of undelivered elements. If evidence of fair value of one or more undelivered elements does not exist, all revenue is deferred and recognized at the earlier of the delivery of those elements or the establishment of fair value of the remaining undelivered elements.

The Company establishes VSOE for its products, PCS, consulting and training services based on the sales price charged for each element when sold separately. The sales price is discounted from the applicable list price based on various factors including the type of customer, volume of sales, geographic region and program level. The Company’s list prices are generally not fair value as discounts may be given based on the factors enumerated above. The Company uses historical sales transactions to determine whether VSOE can be established for each of the elements. In most instances, VSOE of fair value is the sales price of actual standalone (unbundled) transactions within the past 12 month period, when a substantial majority of transactions (more than 80%) are priced within a narrow range, which the Company has determined to be plus or minus 15% of the median sales price.

The Company believes that the VSOE of fair value of training and consulting services is represented by the billable rate per hour, based on the rates charged to customers when they purchase standalone training or consulting services. The price of consulting services is not based on the type of customer, volume of sales, geographic region or program level.

The Company is typically not able to determine VSOE or TPE for non-software products. TPE is determined based on competitor prices for similar elements when sold separately. Generally, the Company’s go-to-market strategy differs from that of other competitive products or services in its markets and the Company’s offerings contain a significant level of differentiation such that the comparable pricing of products with similar functionality cannot be obtained. Furthermore, the Company is unable to reliably determine the selling prices on a stand-alone basis of similar products offered by its competitors.

When the Company is unable to establish selling price using VSOE or TPE, the Company uses BESP in its allocation of arrangement consideration. The objective of BESP is to determine the price at which the Company would transact a sale if the product or service were sold on a stand-alone basis. The Company has been able to establish BESP through the list price, less a discount deemed appropriate to maintain a reasonable gross margin. Management regularly reviews the gross margin information. Non-software product BESP is determined through the Company’s review of historical sales transactions within the past 12 month period. Additional factors considered in determining an appropriate BESP include, but are not limited to, cost of products, pricing practices, geographies, customer classes, and distribution channels.

The Company regularly validates the VSOE of fair value and BESP for elements in its multiple element arrangements. The Company accounts for taxes collected from customers and remitted to governmental authorities on a net basis and excluded these amounts from revenues.

Goodwill and Acquired Intangible Assets

Goodwill represents the excess purchase price over the estimated fair value of net assets acquired as of the acquisition date. The Company tests goodwill for impairment on an annual basis and between annual tests when impairment indicators are identified, and goodwill is written down when impaired. Goodwill was recorded in connection with the acquisition of Defense.Net, Inc. in fiscal year 2014, Versafe Ltd. and LineRate Systems, Inc. in fiscal year 2013, Traffix Systems in fiscal year 2012, Acopia Networks, Inc. in fiscal year 2007, Swan Labs, Inc. in fiscal year 2006, MagniFire Websystems, Inc. in fiscal year 2004 and uRoam, Inc. in fiscal year 2003. For its annual goodwill impairment test in all periods to date, the Company has operated under one reporting unit and the fair value of its reporting unit has been determined by the Company’s enterprise value. The Company performs its annual goodwill impairment test during the second fiscal quarter.

As part of the annual goodwill impairment test, the Company first performs a qualitative assessment to determine whether further impairment testing is necessary. If, as a result of its qualitative assessment, it is more-likely-than-not (i.e. greater than 50% chance) that the fair value of the Company’s reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, the quantitative impairment test will be required. Otherwise, no further testing will be required.

Examples of events and circumstances that might indicate that a reporting unit’s fair value is less than its carrying amount include macro-economic conditions such as deterioration in the entity’s operating environment or industry or market considerations; entity-specific events such as increasing costs, declining financial performance, or loss of key personnel; or other events such as an expectation that a reporting unit will be sold or a sustained decrease in the stock price on either an absolute basis or relative to peers.

If it is determined, as a result of the qualitative assessment, that it is more-likely-than-not that the fair value of the Company’s reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, the provisions of authoritative guidance require that the Company perform a two-step impairment test on goodwill. The first step of the test identifies whether potential impairment may have occurred, while the second step of the test measures the amount of the impairment, if any. Impairment is recognized when the carrying amount of goodwill exceeds its fair value. In March 2015, the Company completed a qualitative assessment of potential impairment indicators and concluded that it was more-likely-than-not that the fair value of its reporting unit exceeded its carrying amount. The Company considered potential impairment indicators of goodwill and acquired intangible assets at June 30, 2015 and noted no indicators of impairment.

Stock-Based Compensation

The Company accounts for stock-based compensation using the straight-line attribution method for recognizing compensation expense. The Company recognized $36.5 million and $31.8 million of stock-based compensation expense for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and $103.9 million and $102.0 million for the nine months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As of June 30, 2015, there was $156.6 million of total unrecognized stock-based compensation cost, the majority of which will be recognized over the next two years. Going forward, stock-based compensation expenses may increase as the Company issues additional equity-based awards to continue to attract and retain key employees.

The Company issues incentive awards to its employees through stock-based compensation consisting of restricted stock units (RSUs). On October 31, 2014, the Company’s Compensation Committee approved 1,064,464 RSUs to employees and executive officers pursuant to the Company’s annual equity awards program. The value of RSUs is determined using the fair value method, which in this case, is based on the number of shares granted and the quoted price of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant.

The Company recognizes compensation expense for only the portion of restricted stock units that are expected to vest. Therefore, the Company applies estimated forfeiture rates that are derived from historical employee termination behavior. Based on historical differences with forfeitures of stock-based awards granted to the Company’s executive officers and Board of Directors versus grants awarded to all other employees, the Company has developed separate forfeiture expectations for these two groups.

The Company issues incentive awards to certain current executive officers as part of its annual equity awards program. Fifty percent of the aggregate number of RSUs issued to executive officers vest in equal quarterly increments, and 50% are subject to the Company achieving specified quarterly revenue and EBITDA goals. In each case, 70% of the quarterly performance stock grant is based on achieving at least 80% of the quarterly revenue goal set by the Company's Board of Directors, and the other 30% is based on achieving at least 80% of the quarterly EBITDA goal set by the Company's Board of Directors. The quarterly performance stock grant is paid linearly over 80% of the targeted goals. At least 100% of both goals must be attained in order for the quarterly performance stock grant to be awarded over 100%. Each goal is evaluated individually and subject to the 80% achievement threshold and the 100% over-achievement threshold. Each goal is also capped at achievement of 200% above target.

As of June 30, 2015, the following equity grants for executive officers or a portion thereof are outstanding:



Grant Date	RSUs Granted	Vesting Schedule	Vesting Period	Date Fully Vested
May 1, 2015	54,143	Quarterly	4 years	May 1, 2019
November 1, 2014	171,575	Quarterly	4 years	November 1, 2018
November 1, 2013	231,320	Quarterly	4 years	November 1, 2017
November 1, 2012	290,415	Quarterly	4 years	November 1, 2016

The Company recognizes compensation costs for awards with performance conditions when it concludes it is probable that the performance condition will be achieved. The Company reassesses the probability of vesting at each balance sheet date and adjusts compensation costs based on the probability assessment.

Common Stock Repurchase

On January 21, 2015, the Company announced that its Board of Directors authorized an additional $750 million for its common stock share repurchase program. This new authorization is incremental to the existing $1.6 billion program, initially approved in October 2010 and expanded in August 2011, October 2011, April 2013, November 2013 and January 2014. Acquisitions for the share repurchase programs will be made from time to time in private transactions or open market purchases as permitted by securities laws and other legal requirements. The programs can be terminated at any time. As of July 24, 2015, the Company had repurchased and retired 16,948,931 shares at an average price of $101.83 per share as part of its current repurchase program and the Company had $623.9 million remaining authorized to purchase shares.

Earnings Per Share

Basic net income per share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net income per share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted average number of common and dilutive common stock equivalent shares outstanding during the period. The Company’s nonvested restricted stock awards and restricted stock units do not have nonforfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents and are not considered participating securities that should be included in the computation of earnings per share under the two-class method.

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net income per share (in thousands, except per share data):



	Three months ended June 30,				Nine months ended June 30,
	2015		2014		2015		2014
Numerator
Net income	$	93,172	$	79,473	$	267,977	$	217,162
Denominator
Weighted average shares outstanding — basic	71,509		74,812		72,370		75,926
Dilutive effect of common shares from stock options and restricted stock units	448		557		567		655
Weighted average shares outstanding — diluted	71,957		75,369		72,937		76,581
Basic net income per share	$	1.30	$	1.06	$	3.70	$	2.86
Diluted net income per share	$	1.29	$	1.05	$	3.67	$	2.84

An immaterial amount of common shares potentially issuable from stock options for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, are excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per share because the exercise price was greater than the average market price of common stock for the respective period.

Comprehensive Income

Comprehensive income includes certain changes in equity that are excluded from net income. Specifically, unrealized gains or losses on securities and foreign currency translation adjustments are included in accumulated other comprehensive income or loss.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (ASU 2014-09). ASU 2014-09 outlines a new, single comprehensive model for entities to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and supersedes most current revenue recognition guidance, including industry-specific guidance. The new model will require revenue recognition to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration a company expects to receive in exchange for those goods or services. The standard can be applied either retrospectively to each period presented or as a cumulative-effect adjustment as of the date of adoption. In July 2015, the FASB agreed to delay the effective date of ASU 2014-09 by one year. In accordance with the agreed upon delay, the new standard is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted but not before annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The Company is currently assessing the impact that this updated standard will have on its consolidated financial statements and footnote disclosures.

In June 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-12, Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Accounting for Share-Based Payments When the Terms of an Award Provide that a Performance Target Could be Achieved after the Requisite Service Period (ASU 2014-12), which requires that a performance target that affects vesting, and that could be achieved after the requisite service period, be treated as a performance condition. As such, the performance target should not be reflected in estimating the grant date fair value of the award. This update further clarifies that compensation cost should be recognized in the period in which it becomes probable that the performance target will be achieved and should represent the compensation cost attributable to the period(s) for which the requisite service has already been rendered. The new standard is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted. The Company does not anticipate that the adoption of this standard will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-05, Intangibles-Goodwill and Other-Internal-Use Software: Customer’s Accounting for Fees Paid in a Cloud Computing Arrangement (ASU 2015-05), which provides guidance on determining whether a cloud computing arrangement contains a software license. If a cloud computing arrangement includes a software license, then the customer should account for the software license element of the arrangement consistent with the acquisition of other software licenses. If a cloud computing arrangement does not include a software license, the customer should account for the arrangement as a service contract. The new standard is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently assessing the impact that this updated standard will have on its consolidated financial statements.