« Christmas Present from SECXBRL.info | Main | Public Company Digital Financial Reporting All Stars Triple »

Disclosure Error Rate Consistent with Primary Financial Statements Error Rate

I have spent a good amount of time studying the primary financial statement information from XBRL-based digital financial reports submitted by public companies to the SEC. I have examined the relations between the fundamental accounting concepts on the primary financial statements. I have examined the fundamental ability to read any reported information, what I call the minimum criteria.

But what about the disclosures?  Well, I have been looking at those also. Not in as much detail as the primary financial statements at this point, but now that I have a really good handle on the primary financial statements, I will dig into the disclosures more.

This is a summary of what I see right now. Below are summaries of the analysis of 9 fairly basic disclosures.  I provide the name, a link to the analysis summary, and a percentage of SEC XBRL financial filings which conform to what I would expect the disclosure to look like: 

Here is a table of this information:

(Click image for larger view)

Clearly this is not conforming to formal scientific protocol, but I do think that it provides a reasonably good assessment of how well disclosures are being created.  What I see is that the quality of at least these basic disclosures is fairly consistent with the quality of the primary financial statements. While the above 9 are samples of the total population, the primary financial statements analysis was of the entire population.

Conformance to the fundamental accounting concepts is about 60% for the entire population of SEC filers (excluding funds, trusts, and inactive filers).  Conformance to the minimum criteria is about 57% for that same entire population.  From what I can see in the conformance percentages above, it looks like disclosures are in the ball park of the fundamental accounting concepts and minimum criteria, let us just say 50 to 60% or so.

The most interesting thing though is that the testing "rig" that I used to test the fundamental accounting concepts works on the disclosures also.

If you look through the links in the list above you see a lot of PDFs which were manually created piece-by-piece by looking at individual SEC XBRL financial filings.  But then you see this.  Basically, I learned from creating and perfecting the PDFs. I applied what I learned and created far, far more automated process for analyzing the disclosures.

If you follow my blog you will likely recall my mantra:

The only way a meaningful exchange of information can occur is the prior existence of agreed upon technical syntax rules, domain semantics rules, and workflow/process rules.

What I am realizing from doing all this work analyzing public company XBRL-based filings to the SEC is the low probability that the FASB or SEC or anyone else would be able to come up with all those rules proactively, in advance of having thousands of filings to look at using machine based processes.  Who would have known all of the rules which would have been needed?  While I thought I did, I realize now that I only had a partial set of understanding.

What will reveal the complete set is automated testing of digital financial reports which need to be created are the inconsistencies observed in SEC filings.  This is actually consistent with what happened back in 2004. What happened then was the creation of the XBRL 2.1 conformance suite.  Before the conformance suite was created, software had an interoperability problem.  During and after the creation of the conformance suite most of the interoperability issues went away.  For example, if you go look at #1 Technical syntax readable in the minimum criteria, you see that there is only 1 error in about 7000 filings. That is the "technical syntax rules" in my mantra above being satisfied.

All these tests like the fundamental accounting concepts and relations between concepts and the disclosure rules which are basically more detailed fundamental concepts and relations-type information.  Rules.  Here is the summary of the results.  What drives that?  Well, here are the mapping rulesHere are the impute rules.

Basically, imagine a battery of domain semantic tests (second part of the mantra):

This is some of the basic knowledge of financial reporting.  This is all mechanical type stuff.  No judgment involved here.  All this information will eventually be in machine readable for so software can use it to help get these mechanical pieces of digital financial reports correct. 

This set of slides, Machine Readable Knowledge Representation Using XBRL for Digital Financial Reporting, summarizes all this as best as I can right now.

Digital financial reporting is just around the corner.

Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2014 at 09:12AM by Registered CommenterCharlie in | CommentsPost a Comment

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.