Summary of significant accounting policies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2018

Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]

Summary of significant accounting policies

Summary of significant accounting policies

Consolidation

On an ongoing basis, as circumstances indicate the need for reconsideration, we evaluate each legal entity that is not wholly owned by us in accordance with the consolidation guidance. Our evaluation considers all of our variable interests, including equity ownership, as well as fees paid to us for our involvement in the management of each partially owned entity. To fall within the scope of the consolidation guidance, an entity must meet both of the following criteria:

• The entity has a legal structure that has been established to conduct business activities and to hold assets; such entity can be in the form of a partnership, limited liability company, or corporation, among others; and

• We have a variable interest in the legal entity – i.e., variable interests that are contractual, such as equity ownership, or other financial interests that change with changes in the fair value of the entity’s net assets.

If an entity does not meet both criteria above, we apply other accounting literature, such as the cost or equity method of accounting. If an entity does meet both criteria above, we evaluate such entity for consolidation under either the variable interest model if the legal entity meets any of the following characteristics to qualify as a VIE, or under the voting model for all other legal entities that are not VIEs.

A legal entity is determined to be a VIE if it has any of the following three characteristics:

1) The entity does not have sufficient equity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support;

2) The entity is established with non-substantive voting rights (i.e., where the entity deprives the majority economic interest holder(s) of voting rights); or

3) The equity holders, as a group, lack the characteristics of a controlling financial interest. Equity holders meet this criterion if they lack any of the following:

• The power, through voting rights or similar rights, to direct the activities of the entity that most significantly influence the entity’s economic performance, as evidenced by:

• Substantive participating rights in day-to-day management of the entity’s activities; or

• Substantive kick-out rights over the party responsible for significant decisions;

• The obligation to absorb the entity’s expected losses; or

• The right to receive the entity’s expected residual returns.

Once we consider the sufficiency of equity and voting rights of each legal entity, we then evaluate the characteristics of the equity holders’ interests, as a group, to see if they qualify as controlling financial interests. Our real estate joint ventures consist of limited partnerships or limited liability companies. For an entity structured as a limited partnership or a limited liability company, our evaluation of whether the equity holders (equity partners other than us in each of our joint ventures) lack the characteristics of a controlling financial interest includes the evaluation of whether the limited partners or non-managing members (the noncontrolling equity holders) lack both substantive participating rights and substantive kick-out rights, defined as follows:

• Participating rights provide the noncontrolling equity holders the ability to direct significant financial and operating decisions made in the ordinary course of business that most significantly influence the entity’s economic performance.

• Kick-out rights allow the noncontrolling equity holders to remove the general partner or managing member without cause.

If we conclude that any of the three characteristics of a VIE are met, including that the equity holders lack the characteristics of a controlling financial interest because they lack both substantive participating rights and substantive kick-out rights, we conclude that the entity is a VIE and evaluate it for consolidation under the variable interest model.

Variable interest model

If an entity is determined to be a VIE, we evaluate whether we are the primary beneficiary. The primary beneficiary analysis is a qualitative analysis based on power and benefits. We consolidate a VIE if we have both power and benefits – that is, (i) we have the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly influence the VIE’s economic performance (power), and (ii) we have the obligation to absorb losses of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE, or the right to receive benefits from the VIE that potentially could be significant to the VIE (benefits). We consolidate VIEs whenever we determine that we are the primary beneficiary. Refer to Note 4 – “Consolidated and Unconsolidated Real Estate Joint Ventures” to these unaudited consolidated financial statements for information on specific joint ventures that qualify as VIEs. If we have a variable interest in a VIE but we are not the primary beneficiary, we account for our investment using the equity method of accounting.

Voting model

If a legal entity fails to meet any of the three characteristics of a VIE (due to insufficiency of equity, existence of non-substantive voting rights, or lack of a controlling financial interest), we then evaluate such entity under the voting model. Under the voting model, we consolidate the entity if we determine that we, directly or indirectly, have greater than 50% of the voting shares and that other equity holders do not have substantive participating rights. Refer to Note 4 – “Consolidated and Unconsolidated Real Estate Joint Ventures” to these unaudited consolidated financial statements for further information on our unconsolidated real estate joint ventures that qualify for evaluation under the voting model.

Use of estimates

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, and equity; the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the consolidated financial statements; and the amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could materially differ from those estimates.

Investments in real estate

Evaluation of business combination or asset acquisition

We evaluate each acquisition of real estate or in-substance real estate (including equity interests in entities that predominantly hold real estate assets) to determine whether the integrated set of assets and activities acquired meets the definition of a business and need to be accounted as a business combination. An acquisition of an integrated set of assets and activities that does not meet the definition of a business is accounted for as an asset acquisition. If either of the following criteria is met, the integrated set of assets and activities acquired would not qualify as a business:

• Substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired is concentrated in either a single identifiable asset or a group of similar identifiable assets; or

• The integrated set of assets and activities is lacking, at a minimum, an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create outputs (i.e., revenue generated before and after the transaction).

An acquired process is considered substantive if:

• The process includes an organized workforce (or includes an acquired contract that provides access to an organized workforce) that is skilled, knowledgeable, and experienced in performing the process;

• The process cannot be replaced without significant cost, effort, or delay; or

• The process is considered unique or scarce.

Generally, we expect that acquisitions of real estate or in-substance real estate will not meet the revised definition of a business because substantially all of the fair value is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or group of similar identifiable assets (i.e., land, buildings, and related intangible assets) or because the acquisition does not include a substantive process in the form of an acquired workforce or an acquired contract that cannot be replaced without significant cost, effort, or delay. When evaluating acquired service or management contracts, we consider the nature of the services performed, the terms of the contract relative to similar arm’s-length contracts, and the availability of comparable vendors in evaluating whether the acquired contract constitutes a substantive process.

Recognition of real estate acquired

For acquisitions of real estate or in-substance real estate that are accounted for as business combinations, we recognize the assets acquired (including the intangible value of acquired above- or below-market leases, acquired in-place leases, tenant relationships, and other intangible assets or liabilities), liabilities assumed, noncontrolling interests, and previously existing ownership interests at fair value as of the acquisition date. Any excess (deficit) of the consideration transferred relative to the fair value of the net assets acquired is accounted for as goodwill (bargain purchase gain). Acquisition costs related to business combinations are expensed as incurred.

Acquisitions of real estate and in-substance real estate that do not meet the definition of a business are accounted for as asset acquisitions. The accounting model for asset acquisitions is similar to the accounting model for business combinations except that the acquisition consideration (including acquisition costs) is allocated to the individual assets acquired and liabilities assumed on a relative fair value basis. As a result, asset acquisitions do not result in the recognition of goodwill or a bargain purchase gain. Additionally, because the accounting model for asset acquisitions is a cost accumulation model, preexisting interests in the acquired assets, if any, are not remeasured to fair value but continue to be accounted for at their historical cost. Direct acquisition costs are capitalized if an asset acquisition is probable. If we determine that an asset acquisition is no longer probable, no new costs are capitalized and all capitalized costs that are not recoverable are expensed.

The relative fair values used to allocate the cost of an asset acquisition are determined by the same methodologies and assumptions we utilize to determine fair value in a business combination.

If a real estate property is acquired with an in-place lease that contains a bargain fixed-rate renewal option for the period beyond the non-cancelable lease term, we evaluate factors, such as the business conditions in the industry in which the lessee operates, the economic conditions in the area in which the property is located, and the ability of the lessee to sublease its space during the renewal term, in order to determine the likelihood that the lessee will renew. When we determine there is reasonable assurance that such bargain renewal option will be exercised, we consider the option in determining the intangible value of such lease and its related amortization period. The value of tangible assets acquired is based upon our estimation of value on an “as if vacant” basis. The value of acquired in-place leases includes the estimated costs during the hypothetical lease-up period and other costs that would have been incurred in the execution of similar leases under the market conditions at the acquisition date of the acquired in-place lease. We assess the fair value of tangible and intangible assets based on numerous factors, including estimated cash flow projections that utilize appropriate discount and capitalization rates and available market information. Estimates of future cash flows are based on a number of factors, including the historical operating results, known trends, and market/economic conditions, that may affect the property.

The values allocated to buildings and building improvements, land improvements, tenant improvements, and equipment are depreciated on a straight-line basis using the shorter of the term of the respective ground lease and up to 40 years for buildings and building improvements, an estimated life of up to 20 years for land improvements, the respective lease term for tenant improvements, and the estimated useful life for equipment. The values of acquired above- and below-market leases are amortized over the terms of the related leases and recognized as either increases (for below-market leases) or decreases (for above-market leases) to rental revenue. The values of acquired above- and below-market ground leases are amortized over the terms of the related ground leases and recognized as either increases (for below-market ground leases) or decreases (for above-market ground leases) to rental operating expense. The values of acquired in-place leases are classified in other assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and amortized over the remaining terms of the related leases.

Capitalized project costs

We capitalize project costs, including pre-construction costs, interest, property taxes, insurance, and other costs directly related and essential to the development, redevelopment, pre-construction, or construction of a project. Capitalization of development, redevelopment, pre-construction, and construction costs is required while activities are ongoing to prepare an asset for its intended use. Fluctuations in our development, redevelopment, pre-construction, and construction activities could result in significant changes to total expenses and net income. Costs incurred after a project is substantially complete and ready for its intended use are expensed as incurred. Should development, redevelopment, pre-construction, or construction activity cease, interest, property taxes, insurance, and certain other costs would no longer be eligible for capitalization and would be expensed as incurred. Expenditures for repairs and maintenance are expensed as incurred.

Real estate sales

A property is classified as held for sale when all of the following criteria for a plan of sale have been met: (i) management, having the authority to approve the action, commits to a plan to sell the property; (ii) the property is available for immediate sale in its present condition, subject only to terms that are usual and customary; (iii) an active program to locate a buyer and other actions required to complete the plan to sell have been initiated; (iv) the sale of the property is probable and is expected to be completed within one year; (v) the property is being actively marketed for sale at a price that is reasonable in relation to its current fair value; and (vi) actions necessary to complete the plan of sale indicate that it is unlikely that significant changes to the plan will be made or that the plan will be withdrawn. Depreciation of assets ceases upon designation of a property as held for sale.

If the disposal of a property represents a strategic shift that has (or will have) a major effect on our operations or financial results, such as (i) a major line of business, (ii) a major geographic area, (iii) a major equity method investment, or (iv) other major parts of an entity, then the operations of the property, including any interest expense directly attributable to it, are classified as discontinued operations in our consolidated statements of income, and amounts for all prior periods presented are reclassified from continuing operations to discontinued operations. The disposal of an individual property generally will not represent a strategic shift and, therefore, will typically not meet the criteria for classification as a discontinued operation.

Impairment of long-lived assets

On a quarterly basis, we review current activities and changes in the business conditions of all of our properties prior to and subsequent to the end of each quarter to determine the existence of any triggering events requiring an impairment analysis. If triggering events are identified, we review an estimate of the future undiscounted cash flows for the properties, including, if necessary, a probability-weighted approach if multiple outcomes are under consideration.

Long-lived assets to be held and used, including our rental properties, CIP, land held for development, and intangibles, are individually evaluated for impairment when conditions exist that may indicate that the carrying amount of a long-lived asset may not be recoverable. The carrying amount of a long-lived asset to be held and used is not recoverable if it exceeds the sum of the undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the asset. Impairment indicators or triggering events for long-lived assets to be held and used, including our rental properties, CIP, land held for development, and intangibles, are assessed by project and include significant fluctuations in estimated net operating income, occupancy changes, significant near-term lease expirations, current and historical operating and/or cash flow losses, construction costs, estimated completion dates, rental rates, and other market factors. We assess the expected undiscounted cash flows based upon numerous factors, including, but not limited to, construction costs, available market information, current and historical operating results, known trends, current market/economic conditions that may affect the property, and our assumptions about the use of the asset, including, if necessary, a probability-weighted approach if multiple outcomes are under consideration. Upon determination that an impairment has occurred, a write-down is recognized to reduce the carrying amount to its estimated fair value. If an impairment loss is not required to be recognized, the recognition of depreciation is adjusted prospectively, as necessary, to reduce the carrying amount of the real estate to its estimated disposition value over the remaining period that the real estate is expected to be held and used. We may adjust depreciation of properties that are expected to be disposed of or redeveloped prior to the end of their useful lives.

We use the held for sale impairment model for our properties classified as held for sale. The held for sale impairment model is different from the held and used impairment model. Under the held for sale impairment model, an impairment loss is recognized if the carrying amount of the long-lived asset classified as held for sale exceeds its fair value less cost to sell. Because of these two different models, it is possible for a long-lived asset previously classified as held and used to require the recognition of an impairment charge upon classification as held for sale.

International operations

In addition to operating properties in the U.S., we have three operating properties in Canada and one operating property in China. The functional currency for our subsidiaries operating in the U.S. is the U.S. dollar. The functional currencies for our foreign subsidiaries are the local currencies in each respective country. The assets and liabilities of our foreign subsidiaries are translated into U.S. dollars at the exchange rate in effect as of the financial statement date. Income statement accounts of our foreign subsidiaries are translated using the weighted-average exchange rate for the periods presented. Gains or losses resulting from the translation are classified in accumulated other comprehensive income as a separate component of total equity.

Whenever a foreign investment meets the criteria for classification as held for sale, we evaluate the recoverability of the investment under the held for sale impairment model. We may recognize an impairment charge if the carrying amount of the investment exceeds its fair value less cost to sell. In determining an investment’s carrying amount, we consider its net book value and any cumulative unrealized foreign currency translation adjustment related to the investment.

The appropriate amounts of foreign exchange rate gains or losses classified in accumulated other comprehensive income are reclassified to net income when realized upon the sale of our investment or upon the complete or substantially complete liquidation of our investment.

Investments

We hold investments in publicly traded companies and privately held entities primarily involved in the life science and technology industries. As a REIT, we generally limit our ownership percentage in the voting stock of each individual entity to less than 10%.

Prior to January 1, 2018

Prior to the adoption of a new ASU on financial instruments effective January 1, 2018, all of our equity investments in actively traded public companies were considered available-for-sale and were reflected in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets at fair value. Fair value was determined based upon the closing price as of each balance sheet date, with unrealized gains and losses shown as a separate component of other comprehensive income within equity (excluded from net income). The classification of each investment was determined at the time each investment was made, and such determination was reevaluated at each balance sheet date. The cost of each investment sold was determined by the specific identification method, with realized gains or losses classified in other income in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Investments in privately held entities were generally accounted for under the cost method when our interest in the entity was so minor that we had virtually no influence over the entity’s operating and financial policies. Investments in privately held entities were accounted for under the equity method unless our interest in the entity was deemed to be so minor that we had virtually no influence over the entity’s operating and financial policies. Under the equity method of accounting, we recognized our investment initially at cost and adjusted the carrying amount of the investment to recognize our share of the earnings or losses of the investee subsequent to the date of our investment.

We periodically assessed our investments in available-for-sale equity securities and privately held companies accounted for under the cost method for other-than-temporary impairment. We monitored each of our investments throughout the year for new developments, including operating results, results of clinical trials, capital-raising events, and merger and acquisition activities. Individual investments were evaluated for impairment when changes in conditions indicated an impairment may exist. The factors that we considered in making these assessments included, but were not limited to, market prices, market conditions, available financing, prospects for favorable or unfavorable clinical trial results, new product initiatives, and new collaborative agreements. If an unrealized loss related to an available-for-sale equity security was determined to be other-than-temporary, such unrealized loss was reclassified from other comprehensive income within equity into earnings. For a cost method investment, if a decline in the fair value of an investment below its carrying value was determined to be other-than-temporary, such investment was written down to its estimated fair value with a charge to earnings. If there were no identified events or changes in circumstances that might have had an adverse effect on our cost method investments, we did not estimate the investment’s fair value.

Effective January 1, 2018

Beginning on January 1, 2018, under the new ASU, equity investments (except those accounted for under the equity method and those that result in consolidation of the investee) are measured at fair value, with changes in fair value recognized in net income, as follows:

• Investments in publicly traded companies are classified as investments with readily determinable fair values. These investments are carried at fair value, with changes in fair value recognized through earnings, rather than other comprehensive income within equity. The fair values for our investments in publicly traded companies continue to be determined based on sales prices/quotes available on securities exchanges, or published prices that serve as the basis for current transactions.

• Investments in privately held entities without readily determinable fair values fall into two categories:

• Investments in privately held entities that report net asset value per share (“NAV”), such as our privately held investments in limited partnerships, are carried at fair value using NAV as a practical expedient with changes in fair value recognized in net income.

• Investments in privately held entities that do not report NAV are accounted for using a measurement alternative which allows these investments to be measured at cost, adjusted for observable price changes and impairments, with changes recognized in net income.

For investments in privately held entities that do not report NAV, an observable price is a price observed in an orderly transaction for an identical or similar investment of the same issuer. Observable price changes result from, among other things, equity transactions for the same issuer executed during the reporting period including subsequent equity offerings or other reported equity transactions. For these transactions to be considered observable price changes, we evaluate whether the investments have similar rights and obligations including voting rights, distribution preferences, conversion rights, and other factors to the investments we hold.

Investments in privately held entities that do not report NAV will continue to be evaluated on the basis of a qualitative assessment for indicators of impairment, utilizing the same monitoring criteria described above. If such indicators are present, we are required to estimate the investment’s fair value and immediately recognize an impairment loss, without consideration as to whether the impairment is other-than-temporary, in an amount equal to the investment’s carrying value in excess of its estimated fair value.

Investments in privately held entities will continue to be accounted for under the equity method unless our interest in the entity is deemed to be so minor that we have virtually no influence over the entity’s operating and financial policies. Under the equity method of accounting, we continue to recognize our investment initially at cost and adjust the carrying amount of the investment to recognize our share of the earnings or losses of the investee subsequent to the date of our investment.

Initial adoption of new ASU

On January 1, 2018, we recognized the following adjustments upon adoption of the new ASU:

• For investments in publicly traded companies, reclassification of unrealized gains as of December 31, 2017, aggregating $49.8 million, from accumulated other comprehensive income to retained earnings.

• For investments in privately held entities without readily determinable fair values that were previously accounted for under the cost method:

• Adjustment to investments for unrealized gains aggregating $90.8 million related to investments in privately held entities that report NAV, representing the difference between fair value as of December 31, 2017, using NAV as a practical expedient, and the carrying value of the investments as of December 31, 2017, with a corresponding adjustment to retained earnings.

• No adjustment was required for investments in privately held entities that do not report NAV. The ASU requires a prospective transition approach for investments in privately held entities that do not report NAV. The FASB clarified that it would be difficult for entities to determine the last observable transaction price existing prior to the adoption of this ASU. Therefore, unlike our investments in privately held entities that report NAV that were adjusted to reflect fair values upon adoption of the new ASU, our investments in privately held entities that do not report NAV were not retrospectively adjusted to fair values upon adoption. As such, any initial valuation adjustments made for investments in privately held entities that do not report NAV subsequent to January 1, 2018 as a result of future observable price changes will include recognition of cumulative unrealized gains or losses equal to the difference between the carrying basis of the investment and the observable price at the date of measurement.

Recognition of rental income and tenant recoveries

Rental revenue from operating leases is recognized on a straight-line basis over the respective lease terms. We classify amounts currently recognized as rental revenue in our consolidated statements of income, and amounts expected to be received in later years as deferred rent in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Amounts received currently but recognized as revenue in future years are classified in accounts payable, accrued expenses, and tenant security deposits in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. We commence recognition of rental revenue at the date the property is ready for its intended use and the tenant takes possession of or controls the physical use of the property.

Rental revenue from direct financing leases is recognized over the respective lease terms using the effective interest rate method. At lease inception, we record an asset within other assets in our consolidated balance sheets, which represents our net investment in the direct financing lease. This initial net investment is determined by aggregating the total future minimum lease payments attributable to the direct financing lease and the estimated residual value of the property less unearned income. Over the lease term, the investment in the direct financing lease is reduced and rental income is recognized as rental revenue in our consolidated statements of income and produces a constant periodic rate of return on the net investment in the direct financing lease.

Tenant recoveries related to reimbursement of real estate taxes, insurance, utilities, repairs and maintenance, common area expenses, and other operating expenses are recognized as revenue in the period during which the applicable expenses are incurred and the tenant’s obligation to reimburse us arises.

Tenant receivables consist primarily of amounts due for contractual lease payments and tenant recoveries. These tenant receivables are expected to be collected within one year. We may maintain an allowance for estimated losses that may result from the inability of our tenants to make payments required under the terms of the lease and for tenant recoveries due. If a tenant fails to make contractual payments beyond any allowance, we may recognize additional bad debt expense in future periods equal to the amount of uncollectible tenant receivables and deferred rent arising from the straight-lining of rent. As of March 31, 2018, and December 31, 2017, no allowance for uncollectible tenant receivables and deferred rent was deemed necessary.

Monitoring tenant credit quality

During the term of each lease, we monitor the credit quality of our tenants by (i) monitoring the credit rating of tenants that are rated by a nationally recognized credit rating agency, (ii) reviewing financial statements of the tenants that are publicly available or that are required to be delivered to us pursuant to the applicable lease, (iii) monitoring news reports regarding our tenants and their respective businesses, and (iv) monitoring the timeliness of lease payments. Our research team is responsible for assessing and monitoring the credit quality of our tenants and any material changes in their credit quality.

Income taxes

We are organized and operate as a REIT pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). Under the Code, a REIT that distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its stockholders annually (excluding net capital gains) and meets certain other conditions is not subject to federal income tax on its distributed taxable income, but could be subject to certain federal, foreign, state, and local taxes. We distribute 100% of our taxable income annually; therefore, a provision for federal income taxes is not required. In addition to our REIT returns, we file federal, foreign, state, and local tax returns for our subsidiaries. We file with jurisdictions located in the U.S., Canada, India, China, and other international locations. Our tax returns are subject to routine examination in various jurisdictions for the 2012 through 2016 calendar years.

On December 22, 2017, the U.S. President signed a tax reform bill commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law. The tax reform legislation is a far-reaching and complex revision to the U.S. federal income tax laws with disparate and, in some cases, countervailing effect on different categories of taxpayers and industries. The legislation is unclear in many respects and will require clarification and interpretation by the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in the form of amendments, technical corrections, regulations, or other forms of guidance, any of which could lessen or increase the effect of the legislation on us or our stockholders. The outcome of this legislation on state and local tax authorities, and the response by such authorities, is also unclear. We will continue to monitor changes made to, or as a result of, the federal tax law and its potential effect on us.

Employee share-based payments

We account for forfeitures of share-based awards granted to employees when they occur. This entity-wide accounting policy election only applies to service conditions; for performance conditions, we continue to assess the probability that such conditions will be achieved. As a result of this election, we recognize expense on share-based awards with the time-based vesting condition without reduction for an estimate of forfeitures. Expenses related to forfeited awards are reversed as forfeitures occur. In addition, all nonforfeitable dividends paid on share-based payment awards are initially recognized in retained earnings and reclassified to compensation cost only if forfeitures of the underlying awards occur.

Recent accounting pronouncements

Lease accounting

Overview related to both lessee and lessor accounting

In February 2016, the FASB issued an ASU that sets out the principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of leases for both parties to a lease agreement (i.e., lessees and lessors). The ASU is effective for us no later than January 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted. We expect to adopt the new lease accounting standard on January 1, 2019. The ASU requires us to identify lease and nonlease components of a lease agreement. This ASU will govern the recognition of revenue for lease components. Revenue related to nonlease components under our lease agreements will be subject to the new revenue recognition standard, effective upon adoption of the new lease accounting standard. However, in March 2018, the FASB tentatively approved significant changes to the application of this ASU by lessors to lease and nonlease components within lease agreements. See further discussion related to this update and other proposed changes in the “Lessor Accounting” section below.

The lease ASU sets new criteria for determining the classification of finance leases for lessees and sales-type leases for lessors. The criteria to determine if a lease should be accounted for as a finance (sales-type) lease include the following: (i) ownership is transferred from lessor to lessee by the end of the lease term, (ii) an option to purchase is reasonably certain to be exercised, (iii) the lease term is for the major part of the underlying asset’s remaining economic life, (iv) the present value of lease payments exceeds substantially all of the fair value of the underlying asset, and (v) the underlying asset is specialized and is expected to have no alternative use at the end of the lease term. If any of these criteria is met, a lease will be classified as a finance lease by the lessee and as a sales-type lease by the lessor. If none of the criteria are met, a lease will be classified as an operating lease by the lessee, but may still qualify as a direct financing lease or an operating lease for the lessor. The existence of a residual value guarantee by either the lessee or any other third party unrelated to the lessor may qualify the lease as a direct financing lease by the lessor. Otherwise, the lease will be classified as an operating lease by both the lessee and lessor.

The lease ASU requires the use of the modified retrospective transition method and does not allow for a full retrospective approach. However, it provides two options for the application of the modified retrospective transition method:

• Under the first option, this ASU requires application of the standard to all leases that exist at, or commence after, January 1, 2017 (the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the 2019 financial statements), with a cumulative adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings on January 1, 2017, for the effect of applying the standard at the date of initial application, and restatement of the amounts presented prior to January 1, 2019.

• Under the second option, an entity may elect a practical expedient package, which allows for the following:

• An entity need not reassess whether any expired or existing contracts are or contain leases;

• An entity need not reassess the lease classification for any expired or existing leases; and

• An entity need not reassess initial direct costs for any existing leases.

This practical expedient package is available as a single election that must be consistently applied to all existing leases at the date of adoption. Lessors that adopt this package are not expected to reassess expired or existing leases at the date of initial application, which is January 1, 2017, under the ASU. This option enables entities to “run off” their existing leases for the remainder of the respective lease terms, which eliminates the need to calculate a cumulative adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings.

Furthermore, in March 2018, the FASB directed its staff to issue an ASU that provides an optional transition method to make January 1, 2019, the initial application date of the ASU, rather than January 1, 2017. Consequently, entities that elect both the practical expedient package and the optional transitional method will apply the new lease ASU prospectively to leases commencing or modified after January 1, 2019, and will not be required to apply the disclosures under the new lease ASU to comparative periods.

Under either option above, lessees will be required to recognize a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for all operating leases on the date of the initial application based on the present value of the remaining minimum rental payments that were tracked and disclosed under current accounting standards.

The FASB has also clarified that the lease ASU will require an assessment of whether a land easement meets the definition of a lease under the new lease ASU. An entity with existing land easements that are not accounted for as leases under the current lease accounting standards, however, may elect a practical expedient to exclude those land easements from assessment under the new lease accounting standards. The new lease ASU will be applied to all land easement arrangements entered into or modified on and after the ASU effective date; however, it is expected to have little or no effect on land easements that contain minimal or no consideration.

Lessor accounting

We recognized revenue from our lease agreements aggregating $307.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2018. This revenue consisted primarily of rental revenue and tenant recoveries aggregating $234.1 million and $73.2 million, respectively.

Under current accounting standards, we recognize rental revenue from our operating leases on a straight-line basis over the respective lease terms. We commence recognition of rental revenue at the date the property is ready for its intended use and the tenant takes possession of or controls the physical use of the property. We recognize rental revenue from direct financing leases over the lease term using the effective interest rate method.

Under current accounting standards, tenant recoveries related to payments of real estate taxes, insurance, utilities, repairs and maintenance, common area expenses, and other operating expenses are considered lease components. We recognize these tenant recoveries as revenue when services are rendered in an amount equal to the related operating expenses incurred that are recoverable under the terms of the applicable lease. Under the new lease ASU, tenant recoveries for utilities, repairs and maintenance, and common area expenses are expected to primarily be categorized as nonlease components. Tenant recoveries for taxes and insurance are expected to be neither lease nor nonlease components under the lease ASU but instead will be considered additional lease revenue to be recognized by the lessor and classified within rental income in our consolidated statements of income.

Under the lease ASU, each lease agreement will be evaluated to identify the lease components and nonlease components at lease inception. The total consideration in the lease agreement will be allocated to the lease and nonlease components based on their relative standalone selling prices. Lessors will continue to recognize the lease revenue component using an approach that is substantially equivalent to existing guidance for operating leases (straight-line basis). Sale-type and direct financing leases will be accounted for as financing transactions with the lease payments being allocated to principal and interest utilizing the effective interest rate method.

In March 2018, the FASB directed its staff to issue an ASU to allow lessors to elect, as a practical expedient, not to allocate the total consideration to lease and nonlease components based on their relative standalone selling prices. If adopted, this single-lease component practical expedient will allow lessors to elect a combined single-lease component presentation if (i) the timing and pattern of transfer of the lease component and the nonlease component(s) associated with it are the same, and (ii) the lease component would be classified as an operating lease if it were accounted for separately. Nonlease components that do not meet the criteria of this practical expedient will be accounted for under the new revenue recognition ASU. The Board also decided to require lessors to account for a combined component that meets these two criteria under the new revenue recognition ASU if the nonlease component is the predominant component. If the nonlease component is not the predominant component, entities will be able to account for the combined component as an operating lease in accordance with the new lease ASU.

If we elect the single-lease component practical expedient mentioned above, tenant recoveries that qualify for this expedient will be presented in rental revenue as a single-lease component and accounted for under the new lease ASU, primarily as variable consideration. Tenant recoveries that do not qualify for the single-lease component practical expedient and are considered nonlease components will be accounted for under the new revenue recognition ASU upon adoption of the new lease ASU.

Costs to execute leases

The new ASU will require that lessors and lessees capitalize, as initial direct costs, only those costs that are incurred due to the execution of a lease (e.g. commissions paid to leasing brokers). Under this ASU, allocated payroll costs and legal costs incurred as part of the leasing process prior to the execution of a lease will no longer qualify for classification as initial direct costs but will instead be expensed as incurred. During the three months ended March 31, 2018, we capitalized $4.2 million of such costs. Under the new lease ASU, these costs will be expensed as incurred. We will have the option, under the practical expedient package provided by the lease ASU, to continue to amortize previously capitalized initial direct costs incurred prior to the adoption of the ASU.

Lessee accounting

Under the new lease ASU, lessees are required to apply a dual approach by classifying leases as either finance or operating leases based on the principle of whether the lease is effectively a financed purchase of the leased asset by the lessee. This classification will determine whether the lease expense is recognized based on an effective interest method or on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease, which corresponds to a similar evaluation performed by lessors. In addition to this classification, a lessee is also required to recognize a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for all leases with a term of greater than 12 months regardless of their classification, whereas a lessor is not required to recognize a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for any operating leases. Leases with a lease term of 12 months or less will be accounted for in a manner similar to existing guidance for operating leases (straight-line basis).

The ASU requires the recognition of a right-of-use asset and a related liability to account for our future obligations under our ground and office lease arrangements for which we are the lessee. At the date of initial application, depending on the practical expedients we elect as discussed above, we will be required to recognize a lease liability measured based on the present value of the remaining lease payments. The right-of-use asset will be equal to the corresponding lease liability, adjusted for initial direct leasing cost and any other consideration exchanged with the landlord prior to the commencement of the lease.

    As of March 31, 2018, the remaining contractual payments under our ground and office lease agreements for which we are the lessee aggregated $590.7 million, and the estimated present value of these payments is in the range from $170.0 million to $230.0 million. This estimated present value range is based on a weighted average remaining lease term of 48 years and within a one-percent range of the current weighted average incremental borrowing rate of 5.96%. The actual lease liability and right-of-use asset to be recognized upon adoption of the new lease ASU will vary depending on changes to our incremental borrowing rate and the practical expedients we elect as discussed above.

All of our existing ground and office leases for which we are the lessee are currently classified as operating leases. Under the practical expedient package provided by the lease ASU, we will have the option to continue to classify these leases as operating leases upon adoption of the lease ASU. We are still evaluating the effect to our consolidated financial statements from the initial recognition of each lease asset and liability upon adoption, and the pattern of recognition of ground lease expense subsequent to adoption.

Allowance for credit losses

In June 2016, the FASB issued an ASU that changes the impairment model for most financial instruments by requiring companies to recognize an allowance for expected losses, rather than incurred losses as required currently by the other-than-temporary impairment model. The ASU will apply to most financial assets measured at amortized cost and certain other instruments, including trade and other receivables, loans, held-to-maturity debt securities, net investments in leases, and off-balance-sheet credit exposures (e.g., loan commitments). The ASU is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019, with early adoption permitted, and will be applied as a cumulative adjustment to retained earnings as of the effective date. We are currently assessing the potential effect the adoption of this ASU will have on our consolidated financial statements.

Recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers

On January 1, 2018, we adopted an ASU on revenue recognition that requires a new model for recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers, as well as recognition of gains and losses from the transfer of nonfinancial assets arising from contracts with noncustomers. A customer is distinguished from a noncustomer by the nature of the goods or services that are transferred. Customers are provided with goods or services that are generated by a company’s ordinary output activities, whereas noncustomers are provided with nonfinancial assets that are outside of a company’s ordinary output activities.

The core principle underlying the ASU on recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers is that an entity must recognize revenue to represent the transfer of goods and services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in such exchange. This requires entities to identify contractual performance obligations and determine whether revenue should be recognized at a point in time or over time, based on when control of goods and services transfers to a customer. The ASU requires the use of a new five-step model to recognize revenue from customer contracts. The five-step model requires that we (i) identify the contract with the customer, (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract, (iii) determine the transaction price, including variable consideration to the extent that it is probable that a significant future reversal will not occur, (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract, and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) we satisfy the performance obligation.

An entity is also required to determine if it controls the goods or services prior to the transfer to the customer in order to determine if it should account for the arrangement as a principal or agent. Principal arrangements, where the entity controls the goods or services provided, results in the recognition of the gross amount of consideration expected in the exchange. Agent arrangements, where the entity simply arranges but does not control the goods or services being transferred to the customer, results in the recognition of the net amount the entity is entitled to retain in the exchange. Upon adoption of the new lease ASU in 2019, we will be required to classify our tenant recoveries into lease and nonlease components, whereby the nonlease components would be subject to the ASU on recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers. However, if we elect a practical expedient as discussed in “Lessor Accounting” within the “Lease Accounting” section above, tenant recoveries for goods and services that are categorized as nonlease components but which have the same timing and pattern of transfer as the related lease component may (subject to the predominance test) be accounted for under the new lease ASU. Tenant recoveries that do not qualify for the practical expedient will be accounted for under the ASU on recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers upon adoption of the new lease ASU. Property services categorized as nonlease components that are reimbursed by our tenants may need to be presented on a net basis if it is determined that we hold an agent arrangement.

Entities had options to transition to the ASU on recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers using either the full retrospective or the modified retrospective method. We adopted this ASU using the modified retrospective method, which requires a cumulative adjustment for effects of applying the new standard to periods prior to 2018 to be recorded to retained earnings as of January 1, 2018. We also elected to apply this ASU only to contracts not completed as of January 1, 2018. For all contracts within the scope of this ASU that were not completed as of January 1, 2018, we evaluated the revenue recognition under accounting standards in effect prior to January 1, 2018, and under the new ASU, and determined that amounts recognized and the pattern of revenue recognition were consistent. Therefore, the adoption of the ASU on recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers did not result in an adjustment to our retained earnings on January 1, 2018.

Recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers (continued)

The table below provides the detail of our consolidated revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2018, by (i) revenues that are subject to the ASU on recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers, and (ii) revenues subject to other accounting standards (in thousands):

	Three Months Ended March 31, 2018
	Subject to the ASU on Recognition of Revenue Arising from Contracts with Customers		Subject to Other Accounting Guidance		Consolidated
Rental revenues	$	10,433	$	234,052	$	244,485
Tenant recoveries	—		73,170		73,170
Other income	2,020		464		2,484
Total revenue	$	12,453	$	307,686	$	320,139

Rental revenues, subject to the new revenue recognition ASU, aggregating $10.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2018, consist primarily of parking revenues. Parking revenues consist primarily of short term rental revenues that are not considered lease revenue. Under the previous accounting standards, we recognized parking and other revenue when the amounts were fixed or determinable, collectibility was reasonably assured, and services were rendered. Under the new ASU, the recognition of such revenue occurs when the services are provided and the performance obligations are satisfied. Parking services are normally provided at a point in time; therefore, revenue recognition under the new ASU is substantially similar to the recognition pattern under accounting standards that were in effect prior to January 1, 2018.

Other income, subject to the new revenue recognition ASU, aggregating $2.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2018, consists primarily of construction management fees. We earn construction management fees for the day-to-day management of third-party construction projects. Construction management services represent a series of services that are substantially the same and that can be combined into a single performance obligation. Under the previous accounting guidance, we recognized construction management fees using the percentage of completion method. Under the new ASU, we recognize construction management fees using the output method, which is substantially similar to the percentage of completion method used under the guidance in effect prior to January 1, 2018.

In addition to the analysis above, we evaluated the following qualitative and quantitative disclosure requirements outlined in this ASU during the three months ended March 31, 2018, as follows:

• Prior to the adoption of this ASU, we did not have material contract assets and contract liabilities related to contracts with customers subject to the ASU on recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers and no additional contract assets or contract liabilities were necessary subsequent to adoption on January 1, 2018.

• Parking and construction management services subjected to the ASU on recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers do not normally create obligations for returns, refunds, warranties, and other similar obligations. Therefore, no corresponding disclosures were necessary.

Recognition of revenue arising from contracts with noncustomers

On January 1, 2018, we also adopted a new ASU on the derecognition of nonfinancial assets in transactions, including real estate sales, with noncustomers. Our ordinary output activities consist of the leasing of space to our tenants in our operating properties, not the sales of real estate. Therefore, sales of real estate qualify as contracts with noncustomers and are subject to this new ASU.

The new ASU on the derecognition of nonfinancial assets requires entities to apply certain recognition and measurement principles consistent with the new ASU on recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers. The derecognition model is based on the transfer of control. If a real estate sale contract includes ongoing involvement by the seller with the property, the seller must evaluate each promised good or service under the contract to determine whether it represents a separate performance obligation, constitutes a guarantee, or prevents the transfer of control. If a good or service is considered a separate performance obligation, an allocated portion of the transaction price should be recognized as revenue as the entity transfers the related good or service to the buyer.

The recognition of gain or loss on the sale of a partial interest also depends on whether the seller retains a controlling or noncontrolling interest. Under the new standards, a partial sale of real estate in which the seller retains a controlling interest will result in the seller’s continuing to reflect the asset at its current book value, recording a noncontrolling interest for the book value of the partial interest sold, and recognizing additional paid-in capital for the difference between the consideration received and the partial interest at book value, consistent with the current accounting standards. Conversely, a partial sale of real estate in which a seller retains a noncontrolling interest will result in the recognition by the seller of a gain or loss as if 100% of the real estate was sold.

We adopted the new ASU on the derecognition of nonfinancial assets using the modified retrospective method, the same transition method used to adopt the ASU on recognition of revenue arising from contracts with customers. We also elected to apply this ASU on the derecognition of nonfinancial assets only to contracts not completed as of January 1, 2018. We had no contracts with noncustomers that were not completed as of January 1, 2018; therefore, the adoption of the ASU on the derecognition of nonfinancial assets had no effect on our consolidated financial statements.

During the three months ended March 31, 2018, we did complete any partial or full sale of real estate assets.

Joint venture distributions

On January 1, 2018, we adopted an ASU that provides guidance on the classification in the statement of cash flows of cash distributions received from equity method investments, including unconsolidated joint ventures. The ASU provides two approaches to determine the classification of cash distributions received from equity method investees: (i) the “cumulative earnings” approach, under which distributions up to the amount of cumulative equity in earnings recognized are classified as cash inflows from operating activities, and those in excess of that amount are classified as cash inflows from investing activities, and (ii) the “nature of the distribution” approach, under which distributions are classified based on the nature of the underlying activity that generated cash distributions. An entity could elect either the “cumulative earnings” or the “nature of the distribution” approach. If the “nature of the distribution” approach is elected and the entity lacks the information necessary to apply it in the future, that entity will have to apply the “cumulative earnings” approach as an accounting change on a retrospective basis. We adopted this ASU using the “nature of the distribution” approach and applied it retrospectively, as required by the ASU. We previously presented distributions from our equity method investees utilizing the “nature of the distribution” approach; therefore, the adoption of this ASU had no effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Restricted cash

On January 1, 2018, we adopted an ASU that requires entities to include restricted cash with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning of period and end of period total amounts shown in the statement of cash flows. The ASU requires disclosure of a reconciliation between the balance sheet and the statement of cash flows when the balance sheet includes more than one line item for cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and restricted cash equivalents. An entity with material restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents balances is required to disclose the nature of the restrictions. The ASU required a retrospective application to all periods presented. Subsequent to the adoption of this ASU, restricted cash balances are included with cash and cash equivalents balances as of the beginning and ending of each period presented in our consolidated statements of cash flows; separate line items reconciling changes in restricted cash balances to the changes in cash and cash equivalents are no longer presented within the operating, investing, and financing sections of our consolidated statements of cash flows.

Hedge accounting

On January 1, 2018, we adopted an ASU that simplifies hedge accounting. The ASU is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018, with early adoption permitted. The purpose of this updated ASU is to better align a company’s financial reporting for hedging activities with the economic objectives of those activities. For cash flow hedges that are highly effective, the new standard requires all changes (effective and ineffective components) in the fair value of the hedging instrument to be recorded in other comprehensive income within equity and to be reclassified into earnings only when the hedged item affects earnings.

Prior to the adoption of this ASU, a quantitative assessment was made on an ongoing basis to determine whether a hedge is highly effective in offsetting changes in cash flows associated with the hedged item. Previously applied hedge accounting guidance required hedge ineffectiveness to be recognized in earnings. Under the new ASU, an entity is still required to perform an initial quantitative test. However, the new standard allows an entity to elect to subsequently perform only a qualitative assessment, unless facts and circumstances change. We made this election upon adoption of the new ASU on January 1, 2018.

For cash flow hedges in existence at the date of adoption, an entity is required to apply a cumulative-effect adjustment for previously recognized ineffectiveness from retained earnings to accumulated other comprehensive income as of the beginning of the fiscal year when an entity adopts the amendments in this ASU.

We utilize interest rate hedge agreements to hedge a portion of our exposure to variable interest rates primarily associated with borrowings based on LIBOR. As a result, all of our interest rate hedge agreements are designated as cash flow hedges. We performed an analysis of all our cash flow hedges existing on January 1, 2018, and determined that all hedges had been highly effective since their inception; therefore, no cumulative-effect adjustment of previously recognized ineffectiveness from retained earnings to accumulated other comprehensive income was needed. During the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, we did not have any hedge ineffectiveness related to our interest rate hedge agreements. The adoption of this ASU had no effect on our financial statements on January 1, 2018, or the three months ended March 31, 2018.