Description of Business and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2017

Accounting Policies [Abstract]

Basis of Presentation

Basis of Presentation—The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and these notes have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") with the effect of inter-company balances and transactions eliminated. Certain information and note disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules have been condensed or omitted as permitted by and pursuant to those rules and regulations, although the Company believes that the disclosures made are adequate to make the information not misleading. These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contain adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring items) necessary to fairly present the consolidated financial position of the Company and its consolidated results of operations and cash flows. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for future quarters or the full year of 2017. The condensed consolidated December 31, 2016 balance sheet included in this interim period filing has been derived from the audited financial statements at that date but does not necessarily include all of the information and related notes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. These condensed interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Fair Value of Financial Instrument—The Company follows the relevant GAAP guidance concerning fair value measurements which provides a consistent framework to define, measure, and disclose the fair value of assets and liabilities in financial statements. Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction. This guidance establishes a three-level hierarchy priority for disclosure of assets and liabilities recorded at fair value. The ordering of priority reflects the degree to which objective data from external active markets are available to measure fair value. The classification of assets and liabilities within the hierarchy is based on whether the inputs to the valuation methodology used for measurement are observable or unobservable. The classifications are as follows:

• Level 1 Inputs - Unadjusted quoted prices available in active markets for identical investments to the reporting entity at the measurement date.

• Level 2 Inputs - Other than quoted prices included in Level 1 inputs, that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.

• Level 3 Inputs - Unobservable inputs, which are used to the extent that observable inputs are not available, and used in situations where there is little or no market activity for the asset or liability and wherein the reporting entity makes estimates and assumptions related to the pricing of the asset or liability including assumptions regarding risk.

     A financial instrument's level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

As of March 31, 2017 the Company had the following financial instruments to which it had to consider fair values and had to make fair value assessments:

• Short-term investments for which the fair values are measured as a Level 1 instrument.

• Contingent accrued earn-out business acquisition consideration liabilities for which fair values are measured as Level 3 instruments. These contingent consideration liabilities were recorded at fair value on the acquisition date and are remeasured quarterly based on the then assessed fair value and adjusted if necessary. The increases or decreases in the fair value of contingent consideration payable can result from changes in anticipated revenue levels and changes in assumed discount periods and rates. As the fair value measure is based on significant inputs that are not observable in the market, they are categorized as Level 3.

Revenue Recognition

Revenue Recognition—The Company derives its revenues primarily from subscription and transaction fees pertaining to services delivered over our exchanges or from our application service provider ("ASP") platforms, fees for risk compliance solution services, and fees for software development projects including associated fees for consulting, implementation, training, and project management provided to customers with installed systems and applications. Sales and value-added taxes are not included in revenues, but rather are recorded as a liability until the taxes assessed are remitted to the respective taxing authorities.

In accordance with Financial Accounting Standard Board (“FASB”) and SEC accounting guidance on revenue recognition, the Company considers revenue earned and realizable when: (a) persuasive evidence of the sales arrangement exists, provided that the arrangement fee is fixed or determinable, (b) delivery or performance has occurred, (c) customer acceptance has been received or is assured, if contractually required, and (d) collectability of the arrangement fee is probable. The Company uses signed contractual agreements as persuasive evidence of a sales arrangement. We apply the provisions of the relevant generally accepted accounting principles related to all transactions involving the license of software where the software deliverables are considered more than inconsequential to the other elements in the arrangement.

For contracts that contain multiple deliverables, we analyze the revenue arrangements in accordance with the relevant technical accounting guidance, which provides criteria governing how to determine whether goods or services that are delivered separately in a bundled sales arrangement should be considered as separate units of accounting for the purpose of revenue recognition. These types of arrangements include deliverables pertaining to software licenses, system set-up, and professional services associated with product customization or modification. Delivery of the various contractual elements typically occurs over periods of less than eighteen months. These arrangements generally do not have refund provisions or have very limited refund terms.

Software development arrangements involving significant customization, modification or production are accounted for in accordance with the appropriate technical accounting guidance issued by FASB using the percentage-of-completion method. The Company recognizes revenue using periodic reported actual hours worked as a percentage of total expected hours required to complete the project arrangement and applies the percentage to the total arrangement fee.

Goodwill and Other Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets

Goodwill and Other Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets—Goodwill represents the cost in excess of the fair value of the net assets of acquired businesses. Indefinite-lived intangible assets represent the fair value of certain acquired contractual customer relationships for which future cash flows are expected to continue indefinitely. In accordance with the relevant FASB accounting guidance, goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets are not amortized but are tested for impairment at the reporting unit level on an annual basis or on an interim basis if an event occurs or circumstances change that would likely have reduced the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value. Potential impairment indicators include a significant change in the business climate, legal factors, operating performance indicators, competition, and the sale or disposition of a significant portion of the business. The impairment evaluation process involves an assessment of certain qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances would indicate that it is more likely than not that the fair value of any of our reporting units was less than its carrying amount. If after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, we were to determine that it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then the Company would not perform the two-step quantitative impairment testing described further below.

The aforementioned two-step quantitative testing process involves comparing the reporting unit carrying values to their respective fair values; we determine fair value of our reporting units by applying the discounted cash flow method using the present value of future estimated net cash flows. If the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying value, then no further testing is required. However, if a reporting unit's fair value were to be less than its carrying value, we would then determine the amount of the impairment charge, if any, which would be the amount that the carrying value of the reporting unit's goodwill exceeded its implied value. Projections of cash flows are based on our views of growth rates, operating costs, anticipated future economic conditions and the appropriate discount rates relative to risk and estimates of residual values. We believe that our estimates are consistent with assumptions that marketplace participants would use in their estimates of fair value. The use of different estimates or assumptions for our projected discounted cash flows (e.g., growth rates, future economic conditions, discount rates and estimates of terminal values) when determining the fair value of our reporting units could result in different values and may result in a goodwill impairment charge. In 2016 the goodwill residing in the Broker Systems reporting unit and the Carrier Systems reporting unit, were evaluated for impairment based on an assessment of certain qualitative factors, and were determined not to have been impaired. In 2016 the goodwill residing in the Exchange reporting unit and the Risk Compliance Solutions ("RCS") reporting unit were evaluated for impairment using step-one of the quantitative testing process described above. The fair value of both of these reporting units were found to be greater than their carrying value, and thusly there was no need to proceed to step-two, as there was no impairment indicated. In specific regards to the RCS reporting unit, its assessed fair value was $130.0 million which was $36.8 million or 39% in excess of its $93.2 million carrying value. Key assumptions used in the fair value determination were annual revenue growth of 5% to 15% and discount rate of 15%. As of September 30, 2016 there was $68.3 million of goodwill assigned to the RCS reporting unit. A significant reduction in future revenues for the RCS reporting unit would negatively affect the fair value determination for this unit and may result in an impairment to goodwill and a corresponding charge against earnings. We perform our annual goodwill impairment evaluation and testing as of September 30th of each year. This evaluation is done during the fourth quarter each year. During the year ended December 31, 2016 we had no impairment of our reporting unit goodwill balances.

Finite-lived Intangible Assets

Finite-lived Intangible Assets—Purchased intangible assets represent the estimated acquisition date fair value of customer relationships, developed technology, trademarks and non-compete agreements obtained in connection with the businesses we acquire. We amortize these intangible assets on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, as follows:

Category	Life (yrs)
Customer relationships	7–20
Developed technology	3–12
Trademarks	3–15
Non-compete agreements	5
Backlog	1.2
Database	10

Foreign Currency Translation

Foreign Currency Translation—The functional currency for the Company's foreign subsidiaries in India, Dubai, and Singapore is the U.S. dollar because the intellectual property research and development activities provided by its Dubai and Singapore subsidiaries, and the product development and information technology enabled services activities for the insurance industry provided by its India subsidiary, both in support of Ebix's operating divisions across the world, are transacted in U.S. dollars.

The functional currency of the Company's other foreign subsidiaries is the local currency of the country in which the subsidiary operates. The assets and liabilities of these foreign subsidiaries are translated into U.S. dollars at the rates of exchange at the balance sheet dates. Income and expense accounts are translated at the average exchange rates in effect during the period. Gains and losses resulting from translation adjustments are included as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, and are included in the condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income. Foreign exchange transaction gains and losses that are derived from transactions denominated in a currency other than the subsidiary's functional currency are included in the determination of net income.

Income Taxes

Income Taxes—Deferred income taxes are recorded to reflect the estimated future tax effects of differences between the financial statement and tax basis of assets, liabilities, operating losses, and tax credit carry forwards using the tax rates expected to be in effect when the temporary differences reverse. Valuation allowances, if any, are recorded to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount management considers more likely than not to be realized. Such valuation allowances are recorded for the portion of the deferred tax assets that are not expected to be realized based on the levels of historical taxable income and projections for future taxable income over the periods in which the temporary differences will be deductible.

The Company also applies the relevant FASB accounting guidance on accounting for uncertainty in income taxes positions. This guidance clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes by prescribing the minimum recognition threshold a tax position is required to meet before being recognized in the financial statements. In this regard we recognize the tax benefit from uncertain tax positions only if it is more likely than not that the tax position will be sustained on examination by the taxing authorities, based on the technical merits of the position.

Recent Relevant Accounting Pronouncements

Recent Relevant Accounting Pronouncements—The following is a brief discussion of recently released accounting pronouncements that are pertinent to the Company's business:

In October 2016 the FASB issued Accounting standards Update ("ASU") 2016-16, Taxes (Topic 740): Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other Than Inventory. Current GAAP prohibits the recognition of current and deferred income taxes for an intra-entity asset transfer until the asset has been sold to an outside party. This prohibition on recognition is an exception to the principle of comprehensive recognition of current and deferred income taxes in GAAP. The amendments specified by ASU 2016-16 require an entity to recognize the income tax consequences of an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory when the transfer occurs. The amendments eliminate the exception for an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory. Two common examples of assets included in the scope of the amendments are intellectual property, and property, plant and equipment. The amendments do not include new disclosure requirements; however, existing disclosure requirements might be applicable when accounting for the current and deferred income taxes for an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory. The amendments align the recognition of income tax consequences for intra-entity transfers of assets other than inventory with International Financial Reporting Standards. IAS 12, Income Taxes, requires recognition of current and deferred income taxes resulting from an intra-entity transfer of any asset (including inventory) when the transfer occurs. The amendments are effective for public business entities for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods within those annual reporting periods. Early adoption is permitted for all entities in the first interim period if an entity issues interim financial statements. The amendments should be applied on a modified retrospective basis through a cumulative-effect adjustment directly to retained earnings as of the beginning of the period of adoption. The Company has yet to assess the impact that the adoption of this ASU will have on Ebix's consolidated income statement and balance sheet.

In August 2016 the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15 “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments”. This ASU addresses the following eight specific cash flow issues: Contingent consideration payments made after a business combination; distributions received from equity method investees; debt prepayment or debt extinguishment costs; settlement of zero-coupon debt instruments or other debt instruments with coupon interest rates that are insignificant in relation to the effective interest rate of the borrowing; proceeds from the settlement of insurance claims; proceeds from the settlement of corporate-owned life insurance policies and bank-owned life insurance policies; and beneficial interests in securitization transactions; and also addresses separately identifiable cash flows and application of the predominance principle. The amendments in this Update apply to all entities, including both business entities and not-for-profit entities that are required to present a statement of cash flows under Topic 230. The amendments are effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. The amendments should be applied using a retrospective transition method to each period presented. If it is impracticable to apply the amendments retrospectively for some of the issues, the ASU for those issuers would be applied prospectively as of the earliest date practicable. The Company has yet to assess the impact that the adoption of this ASU will have on Ebix's consolidated income statement and balance sheet.

In March 2016 the FASB issued ASU 2016-07 "Investments - Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323): Simplifying the Transition to the Equity Method of Accounting". The amendments affect all entities that have an investment that becomes qualified for the equity method of accounting as a result of an increase in the level of ownership interest or degree of influence. The amendments eliminate the requirement that when an investment qualifies for use of the equity method as a result of an increase in the level of ownership interest or degree of influence, an investor must adjust the investment, results of operations, and retained earnings retroactively on a step-by-step basis as if the equity method had been in effect during all previous periods that the investment had been held. The amendments require that the equity method investor add the cost of acquiring the additional interest in the investee to the current basis of the investor’s previously held interest and adopt the equity method of accounting as of the date the investment becomes qualified for equity method accounting. Therefore, upon qualifying for the equity method of accounting, no retroactive adjustment of the investment is required. The amendments are effective for all entities for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2016. The amendments should be applied prospectively upon their effective date to increases in the level of ownership interest or degree of influence that result in the adoption of the equity method. Earlier application is permitted. The adoption of this ASU in the first quarter of 2017 did not impact our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In March 2016 the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718)”. This amendment simplifies the requirements 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. Several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment award transactions are simplified, including: (a) income tax consequences; (b) classification of awards as either equity or liabilities; and (c) classification on the statement of cash flows. The adoption of this ASU in the first quarter of 2017 did not impact our consolidated financial position, cash flows or resulting tax expense.

In February 2016 the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, "Leases (Topic 842)". This new accounting guidance is intended to improve financial reporting about leasing transactions. The ASU affects all companies and other organizations that lease assets such as real estate, airplanes, and manufacturing equipment. The ASU will require organizations that lease assets referred to as “Lessees” to recognize on the balance sheet the assets and liabilities for the rights and obligations created by those leases. An organization is to provide disclosures designed to enable users of financial statements to understand the amount, timing, and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. These disclosures include qualitative and quantitative requirements concerning additional information about the amounts recorded in the financial statements. Under the new guidance, a lessee will be required to recognize assets and liabilities for leases with lease terms of more than twelve months. Consistent with current GAAP, the recognition, measurement, and presentation of expenses and cash flows arising from a lease by a lessee primarily will depend on its classification as a finance or operating lease. However, unlike current GAAP which requires only capital leases to be recognized on the balance sheet the new ASU will require both types of leases (i.e., operating and capital) to be recognized on the balance sheet. The FASB lessee accounting model will continue to account for both types of leases. The capital lease will be accounted for in substantially the same manner as capital leases are accounted for under existing GAAP. For operating leases there will have to be the recognition of a lease liability and a lease asset for all such leases greater than one year in term. The leasing standard will be effective for calendar year-end public companies beginning after December 15, 2018. Public companies will be required to adopt the new leasing standard for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018. Early adoption is permitted for all companies and organizations. For calendar year-end public companies, this means an adoption date of January 1, 2019 and retrospective application to previously issued annual and interim financial statements for 2018 and 2017. Lessees with a large portfolio of leases are likely to see a significant increase in balance sheet assets and liabilities. See Note 5 for the Company’s current lease commitments. The Company is evaluating the impact that this new leasing ASU will have on its financial statements.

In May 2014 the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers". ASU 2014-09 affects any entity using U.S. GAAP that either enters into contracts with customers to transfer goods or services or enters into contracts for the transfer of nonfinancial assets unless those contracts are within the scope of other standards (e.g., insurance contracts or lease contracts). This ASU will supersede the revenue recognition requirements in Topic 605, Revenue Recognition, and most industry-specific guidance. This ASU also supersedes some cost guidance included in Subtopic 605-35, Revenue Recognition—Construction-Type and Production-Type Contracts. In addition, the existing requirements for the recognition of a gain or loss on the transfer of nonfinancial assets that are not in a contract with a customer (e.g., assets within the scope of Topic 360, Property, Plant, and Equipment, and intangible assets within the scope of Topic 350, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other) are amended to be consistent with the guidance on recognition and measurement (including the constraint on revenue) in this ASU.

The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised 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. To achieve that core principle, an entity should apply the following steps:

Step 1: Identify the contract(s) with a customer.

Step 2: Identify the performance obligations in the contract.

Step 3: Determine the transaction price.

Step 4: Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract.

Step 5: Recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation.

For a public entity, the amendments in this ASU are effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period. Early application is not permitted.

An entity should apply the amendments in this ASU using one of the following two methods:

1. Retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented and the entity may elect any of the following practical expedients:

• For completed contracts, an entity need not restate contracts that begin and end within the same annual reporting period.

• For completed contracts that have variable consideration, an entity may use the transaction price at the date the contract was completed rather than estimating variable consideration amounts in the comparative reporting periods.

• For all reporting periods presented before the date of initial application, an entity need not disclose the amount of the transaction price allocated to remaining performance obligations and an explanation of when the entity expects to recognize that amount as revenue.

2. Retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying this ASU recognized at the date of initial application. If an entity elects this transition method it also should provide the additional disclosures in reporting periods that include the date of initial application of:

• The amount by which each financial statement line item is affected in the current reporting period by the application of this ASU as compared to the guidance that was in effect before the change.

• An explanation of the reasons for significant changes.

Subsequently, in August 2015 the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-14 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Deferral of Effective Date", to defer the effective date of ASU No. 2014-09 for all entities by one year. Accordingly public business entities should apply the guidance of ASU 2014-09 to annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods within that annual reporting period.

Although early adoption is allowed, the Company plans to adopt this new accounting standard on its newly revised effective date of January 1, 2018, but it has not presently determined the impact that the adoption of ASU No. 2014-09 will have on its income statement, balance sheet, or statement of cash flows. Furthermore, the Company has not yet determined the method of retrospective adoption it will use as described in first and second paragraphs immediately above.

In March 2016 the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") No. 2016-08, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net)". The amendments relate to when another party, along with the Company, is involved in providing a good or service to a customer. Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers requires an entity to determine whether the nature of its promise is to provide that good or service to the customer (i.e., the entity is a principal) or to arrange for the good or service to be provided to the customer by the other party (i.e., the entity is an agent). The amendments are intended to improve the operability and understandability of the implementation guidance on principal versus agent considerations by clarifying the following:

>An entity determines whether it is a principal or an agent for each specified good or service promised to a customer.

> An entity determines the nature of each specified good or service (e.g., whether it is a good, service, or a right to a good or service).

> When another entity is involved in providing goods or services to a customer, an entity that is a principal obtains control of: (a) a good or another asset from the other party that it then transfers to the customer; (b) a right to a service that will be performed by another party, which gives the entity the ability to direct that party to provide the service to the customer on the entity’s behalf; or (c) a good or service from the other party that it combines with other goods or services to provide the specified good or service to the customer.

> The purpose of the indicators in paragraph 606-10-55-39 is to support or assist in the assessment of control. The amendments in paragraph 606-10-55-39A clarify that the indicators may be more or less relevant to the control assessment and that one or more indicators may be more or less persuasive to the control assessment, depending on the facts and circumstances.

The effective date and transition of these amendments is the same as the effective date and transition of ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). Public entities should apply the amendments in ASU 2014-09 for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods therein (i.e., January 1, 2018, for a calendar year entity). The Company will adopt this new technical accounting guidance at that time and does not expect its adoption to have a material effect on its result of operations or financial position.

In a related technical accounting pronouncement in April 2016 the FASB issued ASU 2016-10, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing”, which is an amendment to ASU 2014-09. This amendment provides clarification on two aspects of Topic 606: identifying performance obligations and the licensing implementation guidance. The effective date and transition requirements for the amendments are the same as the effective date and transition requirements in Topic 606. Public entities should apply the amendments for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods therein (i.e., January 1, 2018, for a calendar year entity). Early application for public entities is permitted only as of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim reporting periods within that reporting period. The effective date for nonpublic entities is deferred by one year. A summary of this ASU is as follows:

Identifying Performance Obligations

Before an entity can identify its performance obligations in a contract with a customer, the entity first identifies the promised goods or services in the contract. The amendments add the following guidance:

1. An entity is not required to assess whether promised goods or services are performance obligations if they are immaterial in the context of the contract with the customer.

2. An entity is permitted, as an accounting policy election, to account for shipping and handling activities that occur after the customer has obtained control of a good as an activity to fulfill the promise to transfer the good rather than as an additional promised service.

To identify performance obligations in a contract, an entity evaluates whether promised goods and services are distinct. The amendments improve the guidance on assessing the promises are separately identifiable criterion by:

1. Better articulating the principle for determining whether promises to transfer goods or services to a customer are separately identifiable by emphasizing that an entity determines whether the nature of its promise in the contract is to transfer each of the goods or services or whether the promise is to transfer a combined item (or items) to which the promised goods and/or services are inputs.

2. Revising the related factors and examples to align with the improved articulation of the separately identifiable principle.

Licensing Implementation Guidance

Topic 606 includes implementation guidance on determining whether an entity’s promise to grant a license provides a customer with either a right to use the entity’s intellectual property (which is satisfied at a point in time) or a right to access the entity’s intellectual property (which is satisfied over time). The amendments are intended to improve the operability and understandability of the licensing implementation guidance by clarifying the following:

1. An entity’s promise to grant a customer a license to intellectual property that has significant standalone functionality (e.g., the ability to process a transaction, perform a function or task, or be played or aired) does not include supporting or maintaining that intellectual property during the license period.

2. An entity’s promise to grant a customer a license to symbolic intellectual property (that is, intellectual property that does not have significant standalone functionality) includes supporting or maintaining that intellectual property during the license period.

3. An entity considers the nature of its promise in granting a license, regardless of whether the license is distinct, in order to apply the other guidance in Topic 606 to a single performance obligation that includes a license and other goods or services (in particular, the guidance on determining whether a performance obligation is satisfied over time or at a point in time and the guidance on how best to measure progress toward the complete satisfaction of a performance obligation satisfied over time).