1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The accompanying unaudited financial statements, consisting of the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2014, the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, the condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. In addition, the condensed consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2013 has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements as of that date. Accordingly, these condensed consolidated financial statements do not include all of the information and footnotes typically found in the audited consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polycom, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”). In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited financial statements have been prepared on a basis consistent with the Company’s December 31, 2013 audited financial statements and all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary for a fair statement have been included. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reported period. Actual results could differ from those estimates and operating results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2014.

Revision of Prior Period Financial Statements

During the three months ended December 31, 2013, the Company discovered an error that impacted the Company’s previously issued interim and annual consolidated statements of cash flows. The error was related to the net amortization of discounts and premiums on investments not being properly reported, which resulted in understated cash flows provided by operating activities and understated or overstated cash provided by or used in investing activities in the first three quarters of 2013 and full fiscal years 2012 and 2011.

In evaluating whether the Company’s previously issued condensed consolidated statements of cash flows were materially misstated, the Company considered the guidance in ASC Topic 250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections, ASC Topic 250-10-S99-1, Assessing Materiality and ASC Topic 250-10-S99-2, Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements. The Company concluded that this error was not material to any of the prior reporting periods, and therefore, amendments of previously filed reports were not required. However, the consolidated statements of cash flow correction would impact comparisons to prior periods. As such, the revision for the correction is reflected in the financial information of the applicable prior periods and will be reflected in future filings containing such financial information.

The following table sets forth a summary of the revision to the condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the following period (in thousands):

2. RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In August 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued an accounting standard update related to the disclosures around going concern. The new standard provides guidance around management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there are conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. The new standard is effective for the annual periods and interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016. Early application is permitted. The Company does not expect any impact on the adoption of this standard on its consolidated financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued an accounting standard update which provides companies with a single model for use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and supersedes current revenue recognition guidance, including industry-specific revenue guidance. The core principle of the model is to recognize revenue when promised goods or services are transferred to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration that is expected to be received for those goods or services. The guidance is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. Early adoption is not permitted. The guidance permits companies to either apply the requirements retrospectively to all prior periods presented, or apply the requirements in the year of adoption, through a cumulative adjustment. The Company has not yet selected a transition method nor has it determined the impact of adoption on its consolidated financial statements.

In July 2013, the FASB issued an accounting standard update which clarifies that an unrecognized tax benefit should be presented in the financial statements as a reduction to a deferred tax asset for a net operating loss carryforward, a similar tax loss, or a tax credit carryforward if such settlement is required or expected in the event the uncertain tax position is disallowed. In situations where a net operating loss carryforward, a similar tax loss, or a tax credit carryforward is not available at the reporting date under the tax law of the applicable jurisdiction or the tax law of the jurisdiction does not require, and the entity does not intend to use the deferred tax asset for such purpose, the unrecognized tax benefit should be presented in the financial statements as a liability and should not be combined with deferred tax assets. The guidance is effective prospectively for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2013. The Company adopted the guidance in the three months ended March 31, 2014, and such adoption did not have a material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

3. DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

On December 4, 2012, the Company completed the disposition of the net assets of its enterprise wireless voice solutions (“EWS”) business to Mobile Devices Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation. The Company received cash consideration of approximately $50.7 million, resulting in a gain on sale of the discontinued operations, net of taxes, of $35.4 million, as reflected in its consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012. In the nine months ended September 30, 2013, the Company recorded an additional gain on sale of discontinued operations, net of taxes, of approximately $0.5 million as a result of the final net working capital adjustment in accordance with the purchase agreement. Additional cash consideration of up to $37.5 million is payable to Polycom over the next three years subject to certain conditions, including meeting certain agreed-upon EBITDA-based milestones for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2014, 2015 and 2016. These conditions were not met for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. Such additional cash consideration will be accounted for as a gain on sale of discontinued operations, net of taxes, when it is realized or realizable. For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, there was no realized gain on sale of discontinued operations.

4. BUSINESS COMBINATIONS

On March 1, 2013 the Company completed its acquisition of certain assets of Sentri, Inc. (“Sentri”), a privately-held services company with expertise in Microsoft technologies, for approximately $8.0 million in cash, net of approximately $0.4 million cash released from an escrow account in September 2013, as a result of a net working capital adjustment. The total purchase price was allocated to the net tangible and intangible assets based upon their fair values at March 1, 2013, with the excess amount recorded as goodwill. The goodwill is primarily attributable to the expertise of former Sentri employees in Microsoft technologies and expected synergies from the combined company. The Company has included the financial results of Sentri in its condensed consolidated financial statements from the date of acquisition. Pro forma and actual results of operations of the acquisition were not material to the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

5. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE FINANCING

In 2012, the Company launched a customer financing program and entered into a financing agreement (the “Financing Agreement”) with an unrelated third party financing company. The program offers with distributors and resellers direct or indirect financing on their purchases of the Company’s products and services. In return, the Company agrees to pay the financing company a fee based on a pre-defined percentage of the transaction amount financed. In certain instances, these financing arrangements result in a transfer of our receivables, without recourse, to the financing company. If the transaction meets the applicable criteria under Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 860 and is accounted for as a sale of financial assets, the accounts receivable are excluded from the balance sheet upon the third party financing company’s payment remittance to the Company. In certain legal jurisdictions, the arrangement fees that involve maintenance services or products bundled with maintenance at one price do not qualify as a sale of financial assets in accordance with the authoritative guidance. Accordingly, accounts receivable related to these arrangements are accounted for as a secured borrowing in accordance with ASC 860, and the Company records a liability for any cash received, while maintaining the associated accounts receivable balance until the distributor or reseller remits payment to the third-party financing company.

In the three months ended September 30, 2014, total transactions entered pursuant to the terms of the Financing Agreement were approximately $48.8 million, of which $29.4 million was related to the transfer of the financial assets arrangement. In the three months ended September 30, 2013, total transactions entered were approximately $32.6 million, of which $27.9 million was related to the transfer of the financial assets arrangement. In the nine months ended September 30, 2014, total transactions entered pursuant to the terms of the Financing Agreement were approximately $132.6 million, of which $98.1 million was related to the transfer of the financial assets arrangement. In the nine months ended September 30, 2013, total transactions entered were approximately $83.3 million, of which $73.1 million was related to the transfer of the financial assets arrangement. The financing of these receivables accelerated the collection of the Company’s cash and reduced its credit exposure. The amount due from the financing company as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 was approximately $23.7 million and $22.9 million, respectively, of which $16.5 million and $21.6 million, respectively, was related to the accounts receivable transferred, and is included in “Trade receivables” in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets. Fees incurred pursuant to the Financing Agreement were approximately $0.7 million and $0.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and were approximately $1.8 million and $1.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Those fees were recorded as reductions to revenues.

6. GOODWILL, PURCHASED INTANGIBLES, AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT COSTS

Goodwill

The following table presents the changes to the Company’s goodwill by segment during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 (in thousands):

Purchased Intangible Assets and Software Development Costs

The following table presents details of the Company’s total purchased intangible assets and capitalized software development costs for products to be sold as of the following periods (in thousands):

Purchased intangibles include a purchased trade name of $0.9 million with an indefinite life as the Company expects to generate cash flows related to this asset indefinitely. Consequently, this trade name is not amortized but is reviewed for impairment annually or sooner when indicators of potential impairment exist.

The following table summarizes the amortization expenses recorded in the following periods (in thousands):

Amortization of purchased intangibles is not allocated to the Company’s segments.

The estimated future amortization expense as of September 30, 2014 is as follows (in thousands):

In the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, the Company capitalized approximately $3.2 million and $1.2 million of software development costs, respectively, for internally developed software products to be marketed and sold to customers after the point that technological feasibility has been reached and before the products are available for general release. The capitalized costs are being amortized over the estimated product useful life, generally three years, beginning when the products are available for general release. Management expects that the capitalized software development costs are recoverable from future gross profits generated by these products and services.

7. RESTRUCTURING COSTS

The Company recorded a $2.6 million credit in restructuring costs, primarily due to changes in assumptions used in our facilities-related restructuring reserve estimate, and $24.9 million of charges during the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and $36.9 million and $34.6 million in restructuring charges during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Pursuant to the announcement in January 2014, management completed certain actions designed to better align expenses to the Company’s revenue and gross margin profile and position the Company for improved operating performance. These actions included the elimination of approximately six percent of the global workforce and reduction or elimination of certain leased facilities. The Company has recorded approximately $33.1 million in restructuring costs (net of adjustments related to the assumptions used in the estimate of the related liabilities reserves) as of September 30, 2014 in connection with these actions announced in January 2014 and does not expect any remaining charges to be material.

The following table summarizes the changes in the Company’s restructuring reserves during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 (in thousands):

As of September 30, 2014, the restructuring reserve was primarily comprised of facilities-related liabilities. The Company calculated the fair value of its facilities-related liabilities based on the discounted future lease payments less sublease assumptions. This fair value measurement is classified as a Level 3 measurement under ASC 820. The key assumptions used in the valuation model include discount rates, cash flow projections, and estimated sublease income. These assumptions involve significant judgment, are based on management’s estimate of current and forecasted market conditions and are sensitive and susceptible to change.

8. BALANCE SHEET DETAILS

Trade receivables, net consist of the following (in thousands):

Inventories consist of the following (in thousands):

Prepaid expenses and other current assets consist of the following (in thousands):

Deferred revenue consists of the following (in thousands):

Changes in the deferred service revenue are as follows (in thousands):

Other accrued liabilities consist of the following (in thousands):

Changes in the warranty obligation are as follows (in thousands):

9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and SEC Investigation

From time to time, the Company is involved in claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company expects that the number and significance of these matters will increase as business expands. In particular, the Company faces an increasing number of patent and other intellectual property claims as the number of products and competitors in Polycom’s industry grows and the functionality of video, voice, data and web conferencing products overlap. Any claims or proceedings against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources, or require the Company to enter into royalty or licensing agreements which, if required, may not be available on terms favorable to the Company or at all. If management believes that a loss arising from these matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company will record a reserve for the loss. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters is assessed and the estimates revised. Based on currently available information, management does not believe that the ultimate outcomes of these unresolved matters, individually and in the aggregate, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity or results of operations. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations or liquidity for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs or becomes probable, and potentially in future periods.

During the three months ended September 30, 2014, the Company recorded $3.1 million in litigation reserves and payments related to on-going litigation matters, which have not yet been settled.

On July 23, 2013, the Company announced that Andrew M. Miller had resigned from the positions of Chief Executive Officer and President of Polycom and from Polycom’s Board of Directors. The Company disclosed that Mr. Miller’s resignation came after a review by the Audit Committee of certain expense submissions by Mr. Miller, where the Audit Committee found certain irregularities in the submissions, for which Mr. Miller had accepted responsibility. Specifically, the Audit Committee determined that Mr. Miller improperly submitted personal expenses to Polycom for payment as business expenses and, in doing so, submitted to Polycom false information about the nature and purpose of expenses.

SEC Investigation. As previously disclosed, the Company has been cooperating with the Enforcement Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with its investigation focused on Mr. Miller's expenses and his resignation. After discussions with the Enforcement Staff, the Company recently made an offer of settlement to resolve the matter, which is subject to the SEC’s approval.  The proposed settlement would be entered into by Polycom without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings and will resolve alleged violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related rules.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company would pay $750,000 in a civil penalty, which has been fully reserved for in our financial statements, and agree not to commit or cause any violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related rules.  There is no assurance that the proposal will be approved by the SEC.

Class Action Lawsuit. On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, initially captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, and presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel. On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that, between January 20, 2011 and July 23, 2013, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies, including with respect to its former Chief Executive Officer’s expense submissions and the Company’s internal controls. The lawsuit further alleges that the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading. The amended complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. At this time, we are unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the securities class action.

Derivative Lawsuits. On August 21, 2013 and October 16, 2013, two purported shareholder derivative suits, captioned Saraceni v. Miller, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-03880, and Donnelly v. Miller, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-04810, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. On October 31, 2013, these two federal derivative actions were consolidated into In re Polycom, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:13-cv-03880. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2014. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On November 22, 2013 and December 13, 2013, two purported shareholder derivative suits, captioned Ware v. Miller, et al., Case No. 1-13-cv-256608, and Clem v. Miller, et al., Case No. 1-13-cv-257664, respectively, were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. On January 31, 2014, these two California state derivative actions were consolidated into In re Polycom, Inc. Derivative Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-13-cv-256608. The Court has stayed the California state derivative litigation pending resolution of both the federal derivative lawsuit and the federal securities class action.

The Federal and California state consolidated derivative lawsuits purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company, which is named as a nominal defendant in the actions. The complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste, and allege certain defendants failed to maintain adequate internal controls and issued, or authorized the issuance of, materially false and misleading statements, including with respect to the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer’s expense submissions and the Company’s internal controls. The complaints further allege that certain defendants approved an unjustified separation agreement and caused the Company to repurchase its own stock at artificially inflated prices. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, corporate governance reforms, and other relief. At this time, we are unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the derivative actions.

Officer and Director Indemnifications

As permitted or required under Delaware law and to the maximum extent allowable under that law, the Company has certain obligations to indemnify its current and former officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was serving, at the Company’s request in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that mitigates the Company’s exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of the Company’s insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations is not material.

Other Indemnifications

As is customary in the Company’s industry, as provided for in local law in the U.S. and other jurisdictions, the Company’s standard contracts provide remedies to its customers, such as defense, settlement, or payment of judgment for intellectual property claims related to the use of its products. From time to time, the Company indemnifies customers against combinations of loss, expense, or liability arising from various trigger events related to the sale and the use of its products and services. In addition, from time to time, the Company also provides protection to customers against claims related to undiscovered liabilities, additional product liability or environmental obligations.

10. DEBT

On September 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Credit Agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) among the Company, certain of its subsidiaries from time to time party thereto as guarantors, the lenders from time to time party thereto and Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as Administrative Agent and Collateral Agent. The Credit Agreement provides for a $250.0 million term loan (the “Term Loan”) maturing on September 13, 2018 (the “Maturity Date”) and bears interest at the Company’s option at either a base rate plus a spread of 0.50% to 1.00%, or a reserve adjusted LIBOR rate plus a spread of 1.50% to 2.00% based on the Company’s consolidated leverage ratio for the preceding four fiscal quarters.

The Company entered into the Credit Agreement in conjunction with and for purposes of funding purchases of the Company’s common stock pursuant to a $250.0 million modified “Dutch Auction” self-tender offer announced in September 2013. See Note 14 for further details. Interest is due and payable in arrears quarterly for loans bearing interest at the base rate and at the end of an interest period (or at each three month interval in the case of loans with interest periods greater than three months) in the case of loans bearing interest at the reserve adjusted LIBOR rate. The Term Loan is payable in quarterly installments of principal equal to $1.6 million which began on December 31, 2013, with the remaining outstanding principal amount of the Term Loan being due and payable on the Maturity Date. The Company may prepay the Term Loan, in whole or in part, at any time without premium or penalty. Amounts repaid or prepaid may not be reborrowed. The Term Loan is secured by substantially all the assets of certain domestic subsidiaries of the Company, subject to certain exceptions and limitations. The Company is also obligated to pay other customary closing fees, arrangement fees, and administration fees for a credit facility of this size and type. Total debt issuance costs incurred on the Term Loan were approximately $2.7 million and were recorded in “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” and “Other assets” in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet and are being amortized over the life of the Term Loan.

The Credit Agreement contains customary affirmative and negative covenants, including covenants that limit or restrict the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ ability to, among other things, grant liens, make investments, incur indebtedness, merge or consolidate, dispose of assets, make acquisitions, pay dividends or make distributions, repurchase stock, enter into transactions with affiliates and enter into restrictive agreements, in each case subject to customary exceptions for a credit facility of this size and type. The Company is also required to maintain compliance with a consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio and a consolidated secured leverage ratio. The Company was in compliance with these covenants as of September 30, 2014.

The Credit Agreement includes customary events of default that include, among other things, non-payment defaults, covenant defaults, inaccuracy of representations and warranties, cross default to material indebtedness, bankruptcy and insolvency defaults, material judgment defaults, ERISA defaults and a change of control default. The occurrence of an event of default could result in the acceleration of the obligations under the Credit Agreement. Under certain circumstances, a default interest rate will apply on all obligations during the existence of an event of default under the Credit Agreement at a per annum rate equal to 2.00% above the applicable interest rate for any overdue principal and 2.00% above the rate applicable for base rate loans for any other overdue amounts.

At September 30, 2014, the weighted average interest rate on the Term Loan was 1.99%, the accrued interest on the Term Loan was $0.1 million, and the current and noncurrent portion of the outstanding Term Loan was $6.3 million and $237.5 million, respectively.

The following table sets forth total interest expense recognized on the Term Loan (in thousands):

11. INVESTMENTS

The Company had cash and cash equivalents of $406.3 million and $392.6 million at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. Cash and cash equivalents consist of cash in banks, as well as highly liquid investments in money market funds, time deposits, savings accounts, commercial paper, U.S. government and agency securities, municipal securities and corporate debt securities. At September 30, 2014, the Company’s long-term investments had contractual maturities of one to two years.

In addition, the Company has short-term and long-term investments in debt securities which are summarized as follows (in thousands):

Unrealized Losses

The following table summarizes the fair value and gross unrealized losses of the Company’s investments, including those that are categorized as cash equivalents, with unrealized losses aggregated by type of investment instrument and length of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 (in thousands):

The Company reviews the individual securities in its portfolio to determine whether a decline in a security’s fair value below the amortized cost basis is other-than-temporary. If the decline in fair value is considered to be other-than-temporary, the cost basis of the individual security is written down to its fair value as a new cost basis and the amount of the write-down is accounted for as a realized loss and included in earnings. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, the Company determined that there were no investments in its portfolio that were other-than temporarily impaired.

Private Company Investments

The Company has made various strategic investments in private companies. The private company investments are carried at cost and written down to their estimated net realizable value when indications exist that these investments have been impaired. The Company did not record such impairment charges during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013. The cost of these investments at both September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 was $2.0 million, and has been recorded in “Other assets” in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets.

12. FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

Fair value is an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. As the basis for considering such assumptions, a three-tier value hierarchy prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value as follows: (Level 1) observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets; (Level 2) inputs other than the quoted prices in active markets that are observable either directly or indirectly; and (Level 3) unobservable inputs in which there is little or no market data, which require the Company to develop its own assumptions. This hierarchy requires the Company to use observable market data, when available, and to minimize the use of unobservable inputs when determining fair value. On a recurring basis, the Company measures certain financial assets and liabilities at fair value, including its marketable securities and foreign currency contracts.

The Company’s cash and investment instruments are classified within Level 1 or Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy because they are valued using inputs such as quoted market prices, broker or dealer quotations, or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. The types of instruments valued based on quoted market prices for identical assets in active markets include money market funds and are generally classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

The types of instruments valued based on other observable inputs include U.S. Treasury securities and other government agencies, corporate bonds and commercial paper. Such instruments are generally classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Level 2 instruments are priced using quoted market prices for similar instruments or nonbinding market prices that are corroborated by observable market data. There have been no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013. The Company does not hold any investments classified as Level 3 as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company’s fixed income available-for-sale securities include U.S. Treasury obligations and other government agency instruments (51%), corporate bonds (31%), commercial paper (13%), non-U.S. Government securities (3%), and money market funds (2%). Included in available-for-sale securities is approximately $15.3 million of cash equivalents, which consist of investments with original maturities of three months or less and include money market funds.

The principal market where the Company executes its foreign currency contracts is the retail market in an over-the-counter environment with a relatively high level of price transparency. The market participants and the Company’s counterparties are large money center banks and regional banks. The Company’s foreign currency contracts valuation inputs are based on quoted prices and quoted pricing intervals from public data sources such as spot rates, interest rate differentials and credit default rates, which do not involve management judgment. These contracts are typically classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

The Company’s Term Loan under its Credit Agreement is classified within Level 2 instruments as the borrowings are not actively traded and have a variable interest rate structure based upon market rates currently available to the Company for debt with similar terms and maturities. See Note 10. The Company has elected not to record its Term Loan at fair value, but has measured it at fair value for the disclosure purpose. At September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the estimated fair value of the Term Loan was approximately $235.5 million and $247.5 million, respectively, based on observable market inputs.

The fair value of the Company’s marketable securities and foreign currency contracts was determined using the following inputs (in thousands):

The Company’s current accounting policy and practice is not to offset derivative assets and liabilities in its condensed consolidated balance sheets. See Note 13.

13. FOREIGN CURRENCY DERIVATIVES

The Company maintains a foreign currency risk management program that is designed to reduce the volatility of the Company’s economic value from the effects of unanticipated currency fluctuations. International operations generate both revenues and costs denominated in foreign currencies. The Company’s policy is to hedge significant foreign currency revenues and costs to improve margin visibility and reduce earnings volatility associated with unexpected changes in currency.

Non-Designated Hedges

The Company hedges its net foreign currency monetary assets and liabilities primarily resulting from foreign currency denominated revenues and expenses with foreign exchange forward contracts to reduce the risk that the Company’s earnings and cash flows will be adversely affected by changes in foreign currency exchange rates. These derivative instruments are carried at fair value with changes in the fair value recorded as interest and other income (expense), net. These derivative instruments do not subject the Company to material balance sheet risk due to exchange rate movements because gains and losses on these derivatives are intended to offset remeasurement gains and losses on the hedged assets and liabilities. The Company executes non-designated foreign exchange forward contracts primarily denominated in Euros, British Pounds, Israeli Shekels, Brazilian Reals, Chinese Yuan, Japanese Yen and Mexican Pesos.

The following table summarizes the Company’s notional position by currency, and approximate U.S. dollar equivalent of the outstanding non-designated hedges at September 30, 2014 (in thousands):

The following table shows the effect of the Company’s non-designated hedges in the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the following periods (in thousands):

Cash Flow Hedges

The Company’s foreign exchange risk management program objective is to reduce volatility in the Company’s economic value from unanticipated foreign currency fluctuations. The Company designates forward contracts as cash flow hedges of foreign currency revenues and expenses, primarily the Chinese Yuan, Euros, British Pounds and Israeli Shekels. All foreign exchange contracts are carried at fair value on the condensed consolidated balance sheets and the maximum duration of foreign exchange forward contracts does not exceed thirteen months. Speculation is prohibited by policy.

To receive hedge accounting treatment under ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging, all cash flow hedging relationships are formally designated at hedge inception, and tested both prospectively and retrospectively to ensure the forward contracts are highly effective in offsetting changes to future cash flows on the hedged transactions. The Company records effective spot to spot changes in these cash flow hedges in cumulative other comprehensive income until they are reclassified to revenue, cost of revenue or operating expenses together with the hedged transaction. The time value on forward contracts is excluded from effectiveness testing and recorded to interest and other income (expense), net over the life of the contract together with any ineffective portion of the hedge.

The following table summarizes the Company’s notional position by currency, and approximate U.S. dollar equivalent of the outstanding cash flow hedges at September 30, 2014 (in thousands):