Understanding Logical, Mechanical, and Mathematical Accounting Relations in XBRL-based Digital Financial Reports
“Learn from the mistakes of others. You can never live long enough to make them all yourself.”
Groucho Marx
There are two approaches to learning:
- Learning by making mistakes.
- Learning from the mistakes of others.
Approach #1 is the noble way to learn, make mistakes yourself. But it can be time consuming. Approach #2 is the wise way. It is very efficient to learn from the mistakes of others.
I have accumulated documentation of about 200 errors in XBRL-based digital financial reports. To professional accountants and others who want to learn about XBRL-based digital financial reports, particularly those who want to create ZERO DEFECT reports, this information is extremely valuable. It is this sort of information that helped the 9 quality leaders, the software vendors/filing agents that got to the point where most of the reports they create are error-free per my mesaurement of the fundamental accounting concept relations.
Here are those summaries:
- Issues in XBRL-based Digital Financial Reports (September 28, 2016)
- More Issues in XBRL-based Digital Financial Reports (December 15, 2016)
- Summary of Issues of Quality Leaders
- Issues in XBRL-based Digital Financial Reports for 480 Public Companies that use the INTBX-BSU-CF1-ISS-IEMIX-OILN Reporting Style
- Preliminary Analysis of 20 disclosures (February 14, 2017)
- BEST: Analysis by audit firm (April 2017)
- BDO, BDO2, BDO3
- EY, EY2, EY3, EY4, EY5
- KPMG, KPMG2, KPMG3, KPMG4
- PWC, PWC2, PWC3, PWC4, PWC5
- Deloitte, Deloitte2, Deloitte3, Deloitte4
- Grant Thornton
- Moss Adams
- DeCoria, Maichel & Teague
- BEST: Disclosure Analysis (November 2017)
Happy learning!
Article originally appeared on XBRL-based structured digital financial reporting (http://xbrl.squarespace.com/).
See website for complete article licensing information.