BLOG:  Digital Financial Reporting

This is a blog for information relating to digital financial reporting.  This is my brain storming platform.  This is where I think out loud (i.e. publicly) about digital financial reporting. It is for innovators and early adopters who are ushering in a new era of digital financial reporting.

Much of the information contained in this blog is synthasized, summarized, condensed, better organized and articulated in my book XBRL for Dummies and in the chapters of Intelligent XBRL-based Digital Financial Reporting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Future ESMA Filers Currently Filing with SEC

So this is a work in progress, but I am posting where I am thus far.

As it has been explained to me, there are 86 companies that submit form 20-F filings to the SEC using the XBRL format that will ultimately be submitting the same information or very similar information to the ESMA.

Of that 86, there are 56 that I have reliable rules for and the companies pass 100% of my fundamental accounting concept relations continuity cross checks.

To verify those 86 filings, and the full set of about 253 IFRS filings, I have created as set of reporting styles and the related machine-readable rules to automatically verify that the reports are following those reporting styles.  NOTE!!! The IMPUTE and CONSISTENCY rules are in an OLDER FORMAT that is not XBRL currently. I am doing this becuase XBRL Cloud uses the OLDER FORMAT and I am using XBRL Cloud to help me create these rules.  But, I do have the NEW 100% pure XBRL Format.  I will convert all the IFRS fundamental accounting concept relations continuity cross checks to the pure XBRL format.

Ultimatly, I will have all the same sorts of rules for US GAAP and IFRS that are covered in this document.  If you don't understand why I am going through all this trouble, then read the Computer Empathy document.

This blog post will help you understand where I am going. Particularly this for IFRS and this for US GAAP. This video walks you through what you can do with that information.  But don't think just human-readable.  Think human-readable AND machine-readable.  And XBRL will be used to link everything together.

This extraction tool grabs information from the 88 companies financial reports.  The tool is not working 100% correctly yet.  I still need to figure out the business rules to extract information from the filings. 

But ask yourself a question; or ask the ESMA: How do you know the whole extracting information from XBRL-based reports actually works?  What proof do you have?  That seems like a reasonable question given that companies spend a lot of time representing information in the XBRL format.  If this is not achievable for these 88 XBRL-based financial reports, then why would you think it would be achievable from the full set of companies that will be required to report to the ESMA using XBRL?

Posted on Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:02AM by Registered CommenterCharlie | CommentsPost a Comment | EmailEmail | PrintPrint

Financial Reporting Metadata

I am taking another stab at reorganizing some things to make them more logical and simpler.  This is a work in progress, but I am using this page, Financial Reporting Metadata, to get organized.  I am concerning myself with both US GAAP financial reporting, IFRS financial reporting, and general business reporting as a way to get things properly organized.

People have a tendency to make this stuff harder than it really needs to be.  Here are some things that drive me crazy:

  1. Nonstandard document formats: Some regulators only publish taxonomies and reports in ZIP files.  That is fine for providing supplemental copies of things, but use standard XBRL which can be directly read into any XBRL processor without having to jump through extra hoops such as unzipping the ZIP file.  The US SEC does an excellent job of making things directly readable.  There are some issues with automatic redirection of "http" to "https". Some software does not read taxonomy files correctly as a result.
  2. Nonstandard documentation: Provide as much documentation as possible in standard XBRL.  The use of XBRL label linkbases for providing commentary and XBRL reference linkbases for referencing to external resources and even examples is good.  Publishing things in PDF, Excel, Word, and other formats that are (a) nonstandard and (b) not linked to other related and relevant information is not good.
  3. Unnecessary variability: Engineer and statistician W. Edwards Deming defined quality as "predictability," and called variance "the enemy of quality." Different regulators doing things differently for no logical reason makes little sense, causes confusion, makes things more complicated unnecessarily, and really is sloppy and shows someone is not doing their homework.
  4. Insuffecient metadata: It blows my mind that public companies cannot even create XBRL-based financial reports and they still cannot get the high-level accounting concepts correct.  I have been measuring these reports for going on seven years.  Business rules prevent anarchy.

 

Posted on Friday, June 8, 2018 at 01:51PM by Registered CommenterCharlie | CommentsPost a Comment | EmailEmail | PrintPrint

Commentary and References Demonstration

XBRL has some interesting and very useful features...which few people seem to know about or use.  One of those features is the ability to add commentary and examples using the XBRL label linkbase or the XBRL references linkbase.

I created some demo commentary linkbases for US GAAP and IFRS a while back.

The following commentary linkbases and references linkbases build on those examples:

So what exactly is going on?  Essentially, what I am showing is that if software vendors create their software correctly, you can pull resources directly into their software and expose those resources to users without the software vendors having to write a single line of code.

I will provide more information and maybe a video later on this topic.

Getting Closer and Closer

I am getting closer and closer to what I have been trying to achive for quite some time.  I still have some significant tuning to do, but the general form is revealing itself. Have a look at the human-readable IFRS information below, but keep in mind that this information is also machine-readable:

IFRS:

US GAAP:

 

Again, not exactly where I want all this but if you use your imagination you might be able to figure out where I am going.  If you don't quite understand, reading Computer Empathy could be very helpful.

Posted on Monday, June 4, 2018 at 09:42PM by Registered CommenterCharlie in | CommentsPost a Comment | EmailEmail | PrintPrint

Machine Readable Reporting Styles for IFRS

Here is the beginning of a set of machine-readable reporting styles for IFRS.  I will be creating reporting styles for the 250 companies that report to the SEC, form 20-F, using the IFRS taxonomy.  Here is a list of those 250 companies. Here is a list of the disclosures of those companies.  You can compare disclosures using that set of information.  For example, here is a comparison of the auditor renumeration disclosure.

Here is some additional information for those IFRS financial reports.

And here is the same reporting styles information for US GAAP.  Here is a comparison of some of the US GAAP disclosures similar to what I did for IFRS.  Here are the 5,734 companies in an Excel spreadsheet.

What I want to do is standardize all this, make it the same for IFRS and US GAAP.  This is excellent information for creating financial reports.  I just have to organize the many, many prototypes that I have created.

Stay tuned!

Posted on Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 06:52AM by Registered CommenterCharlie | CommentsPost a Comment | EmailEmail | PrintPrint