Digital Financial Reporting

Long standing errors in the XBRL-based financial reports of public companies are being corrected.  Here is a sample of companies where a long standing error has existed but is ultimately corrected: 

• Chubb, inappropriate use of concept to represent income from continuing operations on income statement
• Publix, inappropriate extension concept related to their ESOP
• Tesla, concept used in a disclosure which conflicted with what they were saying on the balance sheet
• Violin Memory, Inc, inappropriate use of the concept us-gaap:LiabilitiesNoncurrent
• VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC, inappropriate use of the concept us-gaap:NetCashProvidedByUsedInContinuingOperations in representing cash flow
• Tesla, inappropriate use of concept in cash flow statement
• Wayfair Inc, inappropriate use of concept in cash flow statement
• Wonhe High-Tech International, Inc, inappropriate concept for line item Income (loss) from operations
• Youngevity International, Inc, temporary equity concept used to represent equity on balance sheet
• First Guaranty Bancshares, Inc, error related to provision for loan losses
• First National Corp, error related to provision for loan losses
• First South Bancorp Inc, error related to provision for loan losses
• Form Factor Inc, inappropriate use of concept on cash flow statement
• HIGHLANDS BANKSHARES INC, error related to provision for loan losses
• JAKKS PACIFIC INC, conflicting revenue concepts

Also, many filers have corrected their 10-Q filings but issues persist within the 10-K.  Typically these errors relate to conflicting information within a disclosure and within the primary financial statements.  Here are samples of filers that have issues in their 10-K, but their 10-Q is correct:

• Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc, conflicting healthcare revenue concepts
• West Marine Inc, conflicting use of concept us-gaap:IncomeLossFromContinuingOperations
• Westlake Chemical Corp, conflicting revenues concepts on income statement and in disclosure
• Windstream Holdings, conflicting revenues concept on income statement and in disclosure
• CITIZENS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC, error related to provision for loan losses
• Civeo Corp, improper use of concept us-gaap:AssetsNoncurrent in a disclosure
• CUMBERLAND PHARMACEUTICALS INC, conflicting revenues concepts related to disclosure
• Delek US Holdings, Inc, inappropriate use of equity concept
• Enable Midstream Partners, LP, contradictory revenue facts
• FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANCORP, error in provision for loan losses

And just to round this out and to show that it is very possible to get 100% of the information within 100% of all filings correct, here are some examples of public companies that achieve this result.  I am showing income statement examples because the income statement is where most errors tend to exist.  Here are public companies that have no inconsistencies in their income statements (i.e. this is what all filings SHOULD look like):

• Volt Information Sciences (income statement)
• Tesla (income statement)
• Wayfair Inc (income statement)
• Apple (income statement)
• Cisco Systems (income statement)
• Microsoft (income statement, they do have ONE error)
• Wells Fargo (income statement, interest-based revenues)
• Anchor Bancorp (income statement, interest-based revenues)
• National Security Group (income statement, insurance-based revenues)
• PRUDENTIAL ANNUITIES LIFE ASSURANCE CORP, (income statement, insurance-based revenues)
• Elite Books (income statement)
• Stellar Biotechnologies, Inc, (income statement)

So, it is possible to get 100% of all filings 100% correct.  There is plenty of evidence of that.

XBRL US: SEC Filers Decreased Errors by 64 Percent by Using Data Quality Committee Validation Rules

The rules are freely available and can be accessed on the XBRL US web site or through certain XBRL service providers. When the rules identify a potential error, they provide detailed information on the potential error with guidance on how to correct it.  In addition, an explanation of each rule’s function is available on the XBRL US website in a downloadable PDF file. Software providers can have their implementation of the rules approved by the XBRL US Center for Data Quality.

If you hare having trouble understanding what can be achieved using expert systems, go test drive a Tesla Model X. Try the feature where the car parallel parks itself.  Try the feature where the car backs into a parking spot.  Try the feature where the car "drives itself", literally; you take your hands off the wheel and the vehicle stays in its lane, does not get too close to cars in front, etc.

Some people make the mistake of under estimating what a technology can offer.  Others make the mistake of setting expectations incorrectly, thinking such things as "if you cannot have a fully automated car for 100% of circumstances then the technology is a failure".  Both under-estimating and over-estimating the capabilities of a technology is a mistake.  The media publishing misleading headlines like "Tesla's Cars Drive Themselves, Kinda" which completely miss, push some sort of agenda that they have and mislead consumers in the process are not really that helpful.  But this type of misinformation is unfortunately not uncommon which puts people trying to understand where the technology really is can be challenging.

In prior blog posts I described the components of an expert system, a bit about how to make such systems work, and how such systems can be used to automate accounting and disclosure checklists.

In this blog post I want to spell out the general benefits of an expert system without over-stating or under-stating those benefits.  The benefits from the use of expert systems include:

• Automation: elimination of routine, boring, repetitive, mundane, mechanical tasks that can be automate
• Consistency: computers are good at performing repetitive, mechanical tasks whereas humans are not;  computers do not make mistakes and are good at repeating exactly the same thing each time
• Diligence and tenacity:  computers excel at paying attention to detail; they never get bored or overwhelmed and they are always available and will keep doing their job until the task is complete with the same attention to detail
• Reduced down-time: computer based expert systems are tireless and do not get distracted
• Availability: such computer based expert systems are always available simultaneously in multiple places at one time; you get quick response times and can replace absent or scarce experts
• Training: the best practices of the best practitioners  can be available to those that are new to and learning about a domain of knowledge
• Longevity and persistence: computer based expert systems do not change jobs or retire so knowledge gathered by an organization can remain within that organization
• Productivity: computer based expert systems are cheaper that hiring experts and costs can be reduced a the same time that quality increases resulting in increased productivity
• Multiple opinions:  Systems can integrate the view of multiple experts within a system and choose between the preferred view of multiple expert opinions in the same system
• Objectivity: computers apply the same inductive and deductive logic consistently; emotion and personal preferences can be eliminated where they should be eliminated

Nothing earth-shattering there, or at least so it might seem.  But really think about it.  What would the benefit be to professional accountants if productivity could be improved and the time it took for the month-end closing process could be reduced?  What would it mean if you had an expert available to you to answer, say 50% of your questions related to the best approach to reporting some specific disclosure?  How would training be different if expert systems existed?

There could be at least two different views as to whether expert systems are "good" or "bad".  If all you know how to do is routine, mechanical, boring, repetitive tasks; expert systems might be considered a threat to your job.

But, if you are a knowledgeable expert which finds that they have to waste their time doing less productive routine, boring, repetitive tasks and expert systems would free you to perform work that has more value-add; then you might welcome expert systems.

How exactly will all this turn out?  Hard to say.  Wired speculates in their article, Will Machines Replace Us or Work With Us?  Personally, I think machines will be useful teammates.  As this article points out, computers cannot replicate: intuition, creativity, innovation, compassion, imagination, and so on.

One thing is for certain.  If you don't understand what the true capabilities of computer are, you can mis-judge what aspects of your job computers might replace.  That could put you at risk.  Do what is necessary to remain relevant. Stay tuned and stay ahead of the game.