www.pwc.com
ISACA
XBRL Considerations
Sept. 29, 2011
Discussion Items
- Key messages
- Basics of XBRL
- The SEC Mandate
- Common Errors and Issues
- Implementation Considerations
- Who is Using XBRL
- What is Going on Around the World
- What can you do
- Appendixes
◦ Data Aggregators vs. Company Reports
◦ Resources
PwC
2
Key Messages
PwC
Key Messages
In the short term, key messages include:
• Supply Chain Standardization rather than a compliance requirement
• Review company report via XBRL analytical tools rather than viewer
or rendering
• Build-in rather than bolt-on to enhance reporting processes and
controls
• Enhances reporting/review processes not just Ks & Qs
• Broadcast directly to stakeholders to enhance effectiveness of
communications
• Enables social processes (publishing, analytical, review)
• Currently in use by broad range of analysts (social analytics)
• Redefines ‘convergence’ and provides economic incentives for IFRS
adoption in countries around the world (SBR)
PwC
4
Basics on XBRL
PwC
What is XBRL
International supply chain standardization effort
• Designed specifically to address pervasive process problems
• Mandated by economics and regulators (including US SEC)
• Applicable to business information, related business rules, formulas,
controls, processes, resources, etc.
• “Bar Code” for Business Information
- Adds structure (meaning) to company disclosures
- Enhances processing and reuse
- Disclosure neutral
- Taxonomies available for: US/IFRS GAAP, other statutory GAAP, MD&A,
CSR, GRI, Proxy, Corp Actions, Legers/subledgers, other non-financial
• Process enhancements are available and being realized
• Examples: Traditional
Rendered XBRL
http: //www.xbrl.org and http: //xbrl.us
PwC
Raw XBRL
From proprietary to infrastructure
Match the proprietary ‘technology’ to the standard that transformed it to ‘infrastructure’.
1.
Rail Road
A. RJ 11
2. Telegraph
B. 40’ x 8.5’ x 8’
3. Electricity
C. UPC
4. Telephone
D. HTML / SOAP / Web Services
5. Shipping
E. 4’ 8.5”
6. Products
F. RJ 45
7.
G. Rosettanet, MDDL, XBRL
Networking
8. Internet
H. Morse Code
9. Information
I.
120V, 60Hz
What were once proprietary technologies were transformed into
‘infrastructure via standards. XBRL is the standard for Business Information.
PwC
What is XBRL?
Supply Chain Standard
• UPC/Bar Code for Business Information
• Specifically designed to:
• Enhance Information Transparency and Reuse
• Improve Data Quality through source validation and analysis
• Enable collaborative development and use of formulas/models/rules
• Standardize presentation concepts for collaborative use
• Provide standardization for broad range of business information
concepts
• Put Users (not IT/software) in control
• Streamline business processes while lowering costs
• Similar impacts to how the UPC/Bar Code has transformed the retail grocery
supply chain and processes
PwC
What is it
A structured document
PwC
XBRL is more than just tagging business
information
• Multi-dimensional
business and
financial data
representations
• Flexibility of
business reporting
vocabularies
(i.e. taxonomies)
• Mathematical
relationships
between concepts
• Flexibility about
how to present
information
to users
PwC
Definitions
Related to Liquid Assets
Presentation
Presentations
équivalents
Cash &
d'argent
Cash Equivalents
comptant et d'argent comptant
Label
Cash in Bank
References
• Stat Regulation 1.2.(a)
• IFRS Bound Volume
XBRL
<cash>“
200”
Calculations
Cash = Currency + Deposits
with others
Contexts
US $X
FYE 2009 Budgeted
Formulas
Cash ≥ 0
Where is it relevant
All along the supply chain
The business reporting supply chain
Transaction layer
Internal
business
reporting
Business
operations
Processes
•
•
•
•
•
Rosettanet
ACORD
MISMO
FPML
Others
XBRL Global ledger
•
•
•
•
•
SCOA
Payables Ledger
Receivables Ledger
Fixed Asset Ledger
Others
XBRL external reporting
External
business
reporting
Investment,
lending,
regulation
•
•
•
•
•
Economic
policymaking
Local GAAP
IFRS
GRI G3
WICI
KPI’s
Others include: Corporate Actions, Mortgage Backed Securities, Risk & Return, Governance/Risk &
Compliance, etc.
PwC
The SEC Mandate
PwC
The SEC Mandate – SEC Resources Page
PwC
Basics on XBRL and the SEC Mandate
US SEC Mandate summary
Improving transparency and reuse
• XBRL Mandate impacting all public registrants including US
GAAP/IFRS filers
- Companies = GAAP F/S
- Mutual Funds = Risk & Return Disclosures
• 3 year phase-in commencing for periods ending after June 15, 2009
- Year 1 = basic f/s and notes as ‘block text’
- Year 2 = basic f/s and note disclosures in detail
• 30 day grace period for initial submission in first two years
• Mandatory web site posting
• Limited Liability Provisions for first 2 years
• Mandate specifically excludes audit; voluntary AUPs are occurring
PwC
US SEC Mandate summary
June 30, 2009
Large
Accelerated
Filers (~500
Companies)
>$5B public
float
All Other Large
Accelerated
Filers (~1,200
Companies)
All Remaining
Filers (~7,200
Companies)
PwC
June 30, 2010
June 30, 2011
June 30, 2012
June 30, 2013
Detailed Tagging
of financials
Block tagging of
notes/schedules
Detail & block
tagging of
notes/schedules
Liability
“As Furnished”
Liability “As
Furnished”
Liability
“As Filed”
Detailed Tagging
of financials
Block tagging of
notes/schedules
Detail & block
tagging of
notes/schedules
Liability “As
Furnished”
Liability “As
Furnished”
Liability
“As Filed”
Detailed Tagging
of financials
Block tagging of
notes/schedules
Detail & block
tagging of
notes/schedules
Liability “As
Furnished”
Liability “As
Furnished”
Liability
“As Filed”
Basics on XBRL and the SEC Mandate
Key learning's & observations on initial XBRL submissions
Compliance with the Edgar Filer Manual
• 200+ fairly complex technical rules; some require financial reporting judgments
• Some validation rules are included within the SEC filing processes
Preparation and review processes and controls
• Start early and consider a ‘test’ run submission
• Knowledge of company financial statements more relevant than XBRL expertise
• Adjust reporting timeline to accommodate XBRL submission process
• Focus early on company specific taxonomy extension(s) to USGT
• Consider assessment of EDGAR Filer Manual rule compliance
• Internal reporting validation and analytical rules and controls
Consider SEC test filing to assess ‘some’ validation rules
Consider SEC Previewer to assess presentation views
PwC
Basics on XBRL and the SEC Mandate
Key learning's & observations on initial XBRL submissions (continued)
• Process implications of concurrent submission of the XBRL Exhibit
- Compression that exists in many companies reporting timetables
- Manual nature of such processes
- Is your current process sustainable, especially in the context of the
detailed tagging required in 'Year 2'?
- Validation rules can be applied by companies and their
constituents, including regulators and potentially used to:
◦ Enhance the quality of reported disclosures
◦ Enhance the quality of analysis of reported disclosures by third
parties
PwC
Insights on 2011 USGT
• 2011 USGT available from FASB on January 18, 2011
http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Page/SectionPage&cid=1176157088011
• SEC Approved 2011 USGT effective February 28, 2011
http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edgartaxonomies.shtml
“The SEC staff strongly encourages companies to use the most
recent version of the US GAAP taxonomy release for their
Interactive Data submissions to take advantage of the most up to
date tags related to new accounting standards and other
improvements. However, due to the timing of the release of the US
GAAP 2011 taxonomy in conjunction with the phase-in of the Rule,
companies will be permitted to continue to use the US GAAP 2009
taxonomy.”
• Fiscal year-end transition may facilitate comparative analysis
• Additional elements may reduce some company specific extensions
PwC
Scope of Disclosure Tagging
How granular is XBRL taxonomy mapping applied?
PwC
Scope of Disclosure Tagging
How granular is XBRL taxonomy mapping applied?
Examples of Amounts NOT
Required to be tagged:
- A footnote number itself
- 1% fat milk
- A meal of less than 500 calories
- At an altitude of 27,000 feet
- Depreciated using Section 179
- No help was available within 2
miles
- $1.99 pancake special
- Docket no. 34-4589
-
21nd district court
FASB ASC 605-40-15
Drilling 700 feet
Open new stores no less than 2
miles from existing stores
Founded a new subsidiary in
2009
At least 20 entries under 250
calories
Source: March 23 SEC
webcast
PwC
Common Errors and Issues
PwC
21
SEC Staff Observations on XBRL submissions
SEC Staff Observations (from June 15, 2011)
Observations for filers tagging the face of the financial statements
• Format of the statements
• Negative Values
• Extended elements
• Completeness of tagging
Additional Observations for Detail Tagged Filings:
• Modeling of Level 4 tagging
• Negative Values
• Units
• Other observations from certain filings include: monetary values,
Article 12 schedules, footnotes, and calculation links.
PwC
22
SEC Staff Observations on XBRL submissions
SEC Staff Observations (from November 1, 2010)
• Negative Values - Errors in positive and negative signs. (50% of
errors)
• Extending for an element where an existing US GAAP Taxonomy
element is appropriate
• Inappropriate Axis and Member use
• Lack of use of the US GAAP modeling for Axis and Members
• Tagging completeness — Parenthetical Amounts
PwC
23
Other Observations on XBRL Submissions
• Company and period specific information in elements
• Calculation errors and anomalies, particularly in tables in the notes to
the financial statements
• Supplemental Schedules omitted
• Company specific extensions created but unused
• Problems with dimensions and scenarios
• Errors in the use of decimals. (e.g., 0 rounded to the nearest 1,000,000)
• Tagging same number twice with multiple tags
• Failure to tag a number (as defined by the SEC)
• Failure to structure all footnotes included in the notes to the financial
statements
• Mistakes in the unit of measure (e.g., incorrect use of “pure”)
• Use of future date contexts (e.g., future debt payments)
PwC
24
Common Causes
• Company review based on Excel reports and not the underlying XBRL instance.
Lack of tools used by management to adequately review the taxonomy/instances
• Tagging performed by individuals without full understanding of Company's
financial reporting
• Tagging performed by individuals without a full understanding of XBRL and the
SEC EDGAR Filer Manual
• Common and pervasive misunderstandings by service providers
• Focus on speed and lower cost over accuracy and completeness in tagging
• Time crunch required by outsourcing solution and limited turn-around time
• Lack of a defined process and timeline
• Focus on rendering rather than the structure of the disclosures
• Expectation gap of financial printers (lack of GAAP reporting expertise)
• Not a management priority related to liability protection for a 2 year period
PwC
25
Modified Liability Provisions
Modified liability provisions – what does it mean?
• Submissions are subject to the federal securities laws in a modified
manner when filed within 24-months of the first required filing but no
later than October 31, 2014, provided:
• Good faith attempt
• Prompt correction
• Voluntary filings do not count towards the 24-month period
• The 24-month period is exclusive of a grace period
• Group 1 companies– be sensitive to the expiration of the modified
liability provisions
• No change to external auditor involvement
PwC
26
When does the Modified Liability Provisions end?
Question: When does the SEC's Interactive Data Modified Liability Period end for
companies currently submitting their XBRL Exhibits?
Answer: Guidance is provided within the SEC final rule here in section 232.406T which
states:
"(d) Temporary section. Section 232.406T is a temporary section that applies to an
Interactive Data File submitted to the Commission less than 24 months after the
electronic filer first was required to submit an Interactive Data File to the Commission
pursuant to § 232.405, not taking into account any grace period, but no later than
October 31, 2014.“
Further, footnote 231 of the final rule provides additional guidance:
"For example, a large accelerated filer first required to submit interactive data for
financial statements in a Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended June 30, 2009, would be
required to submit the interactive data by 30 days after the Form 10-Q's August 10,
2009 due date but its 24-month period would end August 10, 2011”.
PwC
27
Implementation Considerations
PwC
28
Implementation Options
Implementation options
Some potential vendors
“Bolt-On” – Outsourcing
Bowne, RR Donnelley, Merrill, EDGARizerX,
BusinessWire, etc.
“Bolt-On” – In-house
Rivet Software Crossfire, Fujitsu, Corefilings, etc.
“Built-in” – Report writer/consolidation
Clarity Systems FSR, Trintech Unity, SAP Disclosure
Management, Oracle Disclosure Management, Tagetik,
Rivet Software Crossfire, Webfilings, etc.
“Embedded” – Ledgers & Sub-ledgers
Altova (MapForce), Stylus (Studio), Fujitsu
(XWand), Hitachi, Rivet Software, all ERP
vendors, etc.
http://xbrl.us/Learn/Pages/catalog2.aspx
http://xbrl.us/Learn/Pages/ToolsAndServices.aspx
http://www.xbrl.org/tools/
PwC
29
Outsourcing
Expectations
- Capacity during peak filing periods given scale of market requirements
- Turnaround times (48 to 72+ hours)
- Service Level Agreements – turn-around time and ‘hand-offs’
- Confidentiality of data and transmissions, and ‘portability’ of work
product
Quality control
- Review of XBRL report (vs. Excel mapping table, viewer rendering)
- Validation (EFM objective and subjective rules)
- Review and validation tools
- Issuer review and approval process
- Knowledge of F/S and financial reporting – company-specific extensions
- XBRL expertise and instance document preparation experience
Other
- Ownership of mapping IP and company specific extensions
- Process implications, including detailed tagging in ‘Year 2’
PwC
30
Beyond compliance with the SEC’s XBRL Mandate
Adoption alternatives pros and cons
Standardize to Streamline Compliance Processes
Implementation
options
Year 1
Year 2
Mapping of 300 disclosure elements
Mapping of 3,000+ disclosure elements
“Bolt-On” - mapping
done subsequent to
report completion
and repeated for
each report.
Pros
Pros
• Convenient mapping
• Limited impact on existing process
• Low impact implementation
Cons
Cons
• Repetitive mapping
• Incremental Cost & Time
• Incremental Cost & Time
• Manual Controls
• Manual Controls
• Compresses reporting timeline
• Compresses reporting timeline
Pros
Pros
• Lower Cost & Time
• Lower Cost & Time
• Automates Controls
• Automates Controls
• Streamlines assembly & review processes
• Streamlines assembly & review processes
Cons
• Platform for enhanced BI
• One-time implementation effort
Cons
“Built-in” - mapping
done within reporting
application and
available for all
subsequent reports.
• n/a
PwC
Current Manual Assembly/Review Processes
Common Year 1 ‘Bolt-on’ approach adds cost/time
← Largely unaffected | Affected →
4
5
Supplemental Data
ERP
1
3
ERP
ERP
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Consolidation
2
10-Q in Word
Review and Check
Linear Document Review
Distributed Document Review
Manual Assembly via two processes
Manual Spreadsheet Aggregation
Manual Queries of sub-ledgers
10-Q in HTML
Review and
Check
10-Q in XBRL
Edgar
Outsourced and Bolt-on approaches
PwC
32
Built-in Enables Enhanced Processes
Applying standards earlier enables streamlined processes
25% to 50%+ cost/time enhancements
5
1
3
ERP
10-Q in XBRL,
Word, PDF
Report
Writer
ERP
2
Consolidation
ERP
1. Contextual Review
2. Collaborative Review
3. Automated Assembly via a
single process
4. Automated Aggregation
5. Automated Queries of sub-ledgers
PwC
Supplemental Data
4
Edgar
33
Benefits Beyond Compliance
Assembly process
manual  automated
centralized  decentralized
Review process
linear  contextual
distributed  collaborative
Controls
manual  streamlined/automated
Streamlined reports (not just 10K/10Q)
•
Board of Directors Package / Audit Committee Package
•
Press Releases, Quarterly Statistical Summary, Proxy
•
Significant Accounting Issues Memo, Emerging Accounting Issues, Rep Letters
•
Tax Returns, Statutory Financial Reports, Business Registration Documents
•
Others
PwC
34
US Registrants Using Built-In Solutions
Companies
PwC
35
Some Relevant Vendors and Tools
“Built-in”
• Altova MapForce
• Clarity FSR
• Corefilings Seahorse
• Oracle Disclosure Manager
• Rivet Crossfire Controller
• SAP Disclosure Management
• Tagetik
• Trintech XFR
• Webfilings
“Bolt-on”
• AltovXML Spy
• EdgarizerX
• Fujitsu XWand
• Rivet Crossfire Compliance
Analytical
• Altova StyleVision
• Arelle
• Corefiling Magnify
• Fujitsu Interstage XWand
• XBRLCloud
• XBRL US Consistency Suite
http://xbrl.us/Learn/Pages/catalog2.aspx and http://xbrl.us/Learn/Pages/ToolsAndServices.aspx
PwC
36
Software Considerations
•
Nature (client server vs. SAAS)
•
Pricing (size, volume, duration based)
•
User-friendly features (US GAAP Taxonomy views, mapping, validation)
•
•
-
Facilitate company-specific extensions
-
Validate SEC public validation rules, EFM, and other ‘rules’
-
Import, view and manage multiple taxonomies
-
Wizard based taxonomy mapping features for tables, multiple elements
Workflow and Controls
-
Adequate Workflow and Control Administration
-
Extensibility to broad domain of reporting participants
-
Validation and analytical capabilities
Technical Capabilities
-
Compliance with XBRL Technical Specifications and relevant taxonomies
-
Interoperability with existing company software applications
-
Produce AND Consume XBRL (including iXBRL)
-
Timeliness of support (access and responsiveness; 2011 USFRT; EFM versions; etc.)
Refer to “Appendix 1: XBRL Tool Considerations” for a list of questions to ask the vendors.
PwC
37
XBRL Tool Considerations
Some key questions to ask the vendors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Is the tool simply a bolt on that creates XBRL documents, or does it
support the full creation of financial statements?
Does the tool allow for conditional assembly of the financial
statements (e.g. automatically include certain MD&A sections based
on performance)?
Can you extend the taxonomy using the tool itself, or do you need
an external taxonomy editor?
Does the tool allow you to tag the same data with multiple
taxonomies (e.g. IFRS and US GAAP)?
Does the tool currently support iXBRL? Are there plans for future
support?
Does the tool allow you to quickly compare taxonomies (US GAAP
2009 versus 2011) and identify the impact on your instance
document?
Does the tool suggest tags for the various concepts in the report? Is
the search tool for tags easy to use? Is there taxonomy mapping
wizard functionality? If so, how robust are its capabilities?
How does the tool allow you to rollforward from one period to the
next?
Does the tool have appropriate security controls (segregation of
duties, login and access by user, role, etc.)?
Does the tool enable workflow processes around the creation,
maintenance and review of company reports?
Does the work flow functionality align to your company's demands?
Does it enable decentralized mapping to source systems as well as
to the relevant taxonomies?
Can the tool interface with your consolidation software? Can the
tool import XBRL GL data?
Can the application consume XBRL from internal and/or external
sources via Web Service and/or RSS feed?
PwC
14. Can the tool interface with your document management system
(e.g. Documentum)?
15. Can the tool create units on the fly? Does the tool support
link:footnotes?
16. Does it make HTML/XBRL GL a true transparent and parallel
process? Does changing the presentation order update the
presentation linkbase?
17. What kind of validations does the tool allow you to perform on the
XBRL instance document? Most tools validate that the instance
document will be accepted by the SEC. Are there validations built
in that check more sections of the Edgar Filer Manual? Does the
tool allow you to write and check for your own validation rules?
18. Does the tool interoperable with the XBRL US Consistency Suite
to enable taxonomy mapping and consistency validation
assessments?
19. Does the tool allow you to easily check for calculation
inconsistencies and easily identify all calculation relationships in
the document?
20. Does the tool allow you to easily identify the attributes of each fact
(e.g. data type, unit, decimals, balance, etc.) in a standard report?
21. Does the tool enable EDGARization of company reports and
submission directly to Edgar? Does it facilitate corporate website
posting?
22. Does the tool allow you to run comparative analysis on your peers
of both numerical and narrative disclosures?
23. How quickly does the vendor respond and provide updates related
to new issuances of the US GAAP taxonomy and the Edgar Filer
Manual?
24. Does the tool fit within your IT infrastructure (e.g. client server) or
is it deployed via a Cloud implementation?
38
Project Planning
Project team:
- Core group to include supporting accounting teams
- Assess group and/or individuals in charge of tagging efforts
- Train team on Taxonomy mapping and extension process
◦ Need an efficient means of building/managing taxonomy components
Workflows:
- Define workflow for mapping and review efforts (divisional teams, topical
groups, etc.)
- Develop validation processes and acquire relevant tools
- Assess process and control modifications and ICFR implications
Policy Matters:
- Modified liability provision timeline for company
- Company specific extensions (documentation support)
Timeline:
- Mandated compliance reports
- Priorities for other relevant reports, materials and risk assessments
PwC
39
Taxonomy Considerations
• US GAAP Taxonomy – SEC Approved Taxonomies
- 2009 Taxonomy
- 2011 Taxonomy
“The SEC staff strongly encourages companies to use the most recent version of the US GAAP
taxonomy release for their Interactive Data submissions to take advantage of the most up to
date tags related to new accounting standards and other improvements.”
• Hierarchical structure = Conceptual Accounting Framework
• Commercial & Industrial Taxonomy view
- Browse
- Search
- Definitions
- References
- Calculations
• IFRS Taxonomy
• Corporate Actions Taxonomy
PwC
40
Compliance Process Considerations
Bolt-on / Outsourcing solutions are simply not scalable or sustainable
Transition to Built-in approach to streamline and automate current
manual report assembly and review process steps as well as lay a
foundation for other efficiencies
Anticipate SBR styled compliance environment in the next 3 to 5 years
IFRS relevant to compliance reporting across broad range of countries
Leverage Built-in reporting processes for compliance requirements in
all jurisdictions; minimize current territory specific manual compliance
reporting shops
Provide greater oversight and governance from above
Greater control for reconciliation between regions, reporting
requirements
PwC
41
Who is using XBRL?
PwC
42
Why analysts use XBRL?
Enhance cost and time to access, reuse , analyze, report and act
• Traditional data sources are error prone, incomplete, slow to market
and expensive
• Company has no control or input on third party tagging (Please see
Appendix A that compares company reported disclosures and data
aggregator data on the company)
• Third party data aggregator parsing errors and normalization of
company reported disclosures
• Typically 20% to 25% error rate on primary tables
• Note disclosures are limited to non-existent
• XBRL enhances: Speed, Accuracy, Completeness, Cost effectiveness,
analytical capabilities
• Company has limited insights on analyst use of company disclosures
or analytical drivers; social analytical platforms provide a
collaborative model
PwC
43
Examples of XBRL Enabled Analysts Applications
MicroStrategy Bank
Performance iPhone App
BlueMatrix Analyst Suite
XBRL US EDGAR Viewer
PwC
44
Examples of Social Analytics
Social analytics - Standards enable collaborative development and
maintenance of formulas and models among authorized individuals
PricewaterhouseCoopers iDP
PwC
45
Analysts Reflect on Company Specific Extensions
Quality of XBRL submissions is of interest to analysts
Company specific extensions are often created when USGT elements are
available for disclosure element.
Institutional Analysts, in particular, are focused on the inappropriate
use of extensions as outlined in this blog:
“XBRL Usability Part 2: Checking the Extension Cord”
http://institutionalrisk.blogspot.com/2011/02/xbrl-usability-part-2checking.html
Also: IRA's 2011 XBRL Dynamic Renderer
PwC
46
Implementation Considerations
Supplement Website Posting Requirement
XBRL Submission required to be posted on company website
◦ Need not be made available in a format comparable to paper-based
information. No viewer necessary.
◦ Link to SEC EDGAR to satisfy the posting requirement is prohibited
◦ Many companies are providing a link to third-party services that host their
SEC filings and often provide a viewer
Investor Relations related considerations
◦ Virtual renderings provide efficiency opportunity (example here)
◦ Be aware of EDGAR RSS Feeds
◦ Consider Company IR RSS Feeds
› Direct communication with relevant analysts / stakeholders
› ‘Fact Sheet’, Press Release, Proxy, etc.
◦ Consideration of Corporation Actions Taxonomy
PwC
47
RSS Feeds – html vs. XBRL
Direct vs. Indirect communications
RSS feeds of XBRL are actionable by software and can be analyzed
immediately; while the html pages may require some degree of human
intervention. The company may want to consider RSS feeds with
XBRL files.
XBRL
html
PwC
48
Company RSS Feeds - Financial
There is no content in the
Company RSS Feeds for Financial
content.
This provides an opportunity to
publish relevant financial content
in the XBRL structured format that
is highly reusable by analysts.
PwC
49
Company Earnings Press Release
PwC
50
Structured IR Content
Enables automation of information relationships
Structured content enables automation of content development and
relationships with broad range of relevant supporting content.
PwC
51
What is Going on Around the World
PwC
52
How many countries have migrated their
regulatory reporting format to XBRL?
XBRL in the G20: AR, AU, BR, CA, CN, FR, DE, IN, ID, IT, JP, MX, RS,
SA, ZA, KR, TR, UK, US, EU
XBRL outside of the G20: AE, BE, BM, DK, FR, HK, IE, IL, LU, NL, PL,
RO, SG, TH, TW, ES, SE, CH
XBRL Planet and XBRL International provide useful up to date information on
country compliance projects
“Convergence” redefined = “Standard Business Reporting”
• Regulatory burden reduction via convergence of agencies compliance
processes
• Harmonisation/reduction of reported data using IFRS Taxonomy
• Regulators & business sharing a common language
• SBR Mandated by Dutch MoF effective 1/1/2013
Official SBR participants – AU, CA, CN, IN, JP, NL, PL, SG, TW, TH,
UK
PwC
Key: Red = In production; Blue = In development
53
IFRS Taxonomy
Collaborative development expanding to capture broadest range of
common reporting disclosure concepts.
PwC
54
SBR in Australia
Reducing the reporting burden for business
PwC
55
SBR in the Netherlands
Reducing Reporting Burden
PwC
56
UK HMRC iXBRL Mandate
Each of the 1.6 million UK companies required to file a tax return is
affected by HMRC's new requirement for XBRL electronic tags to both
the tax computations and the statutory financial statements. The
requirement takes effect for returns submitted after April 1, 2011.
Companies with legal entities in the UK should consider these new
requirements.
Learn more here: http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/issues/xbrl.html
PwC
57
What can you do
PwC
58
Agreed Upon Procedures
Creation of Extensions
and Use of USGT Tags
Tagging of Note
Disclosures
Tagging is Accurately and
Consistently Applied
Completeness of XBRLtagged Data
PwC
59
Additional Opportunities to Consider
Benchmarking of tagging
over USGT standard tags
and extended tags to peer
companies.
Map existing SEC instance
document to revised SEC
USGAAP taxonomy.
For example: US GAAP
Taxonomy Transition from
2009 to 2011
PwC
Training/knowledge sharing
on SEC requirements,
considerations and process
implications, training on
more detailed year 2
taxonomy mapping
requirements.
Assessment of readiness
and/or implementation
options, tools, processes,
controls.
In a Built - In model: Process
and control assessments
related to standardization of
internal reporting and
compliance processes.
Assess compliance with
certain EDGAR Filer Manual
and other validation rules.
60
Appendix A – Data Aggregators vs.
Company Reports
PwC
61
Sample Data Aggregator Distortions
Following are a few example of the distortion and omission that exists
within the data that supply chain data aggregators provide to the
analyst community. These are examples from the publicly available
query sites.
Items highlighted in the red boxes reflect disclosures that are
“different” between what the company reported and what is available
via data aggregator feeds available to the analyst community.
Typically, the level of detail is normalized into summary concepts that
tend to limit company specific disclosures.
PwC
62
Company vs. Google Finance (Income)
PwC
63
Company vs. Yahoo Finance (Income)
PwC
64
Company vs. Google Finance (Assets)
PwC
65
Company vs. Yahoo Finance (Assets)
PwC
66
Company vs. Google Finance (Liabilities)
PwC
67
Company vs. Yahoo Finance (Liabilities)
PwC
68
Company vs. Google Finance (Cash Flow)
PwC
69
Company vs. Yahoo Finance (Cash Flow)
PwC
70
Appendix B - Resources
PwC
71
Other ‘Built-In’ Resource Articles
• ‘Standardize to Streamline’
• ‘Making Sense of XBRL in the US and the UK’
• FEI Issue Alert: “Year 2 of the SEC’s XBRL Mandate: Caution and
Opportunities on Compliance Requirements”
• FEI Magazine Article: “The Time is Right for Standard Business
Reporting”
• FEI Magazine Article: “Benefits of Comprehensive Integrated
Reporting”
• Breathing New Life into Old Systems with XBRL GL – Wacoal Case
Study
PwC
72
PwC Webinar: How to make the best out of the XBRL
situation?
The May 11, 2011 webinar covers:
Rules: Mandatory SEC XBRL requirements, specifically, implications of the
transition from year 1 to year 2 as well as the end of the modified liability
provisions for XBRL submissions.
Results: Reporting considerations and insights including common errors and
issues, ramifications for poor quality reports, and reporting best practices.
Rewards: Compliance process and control enhancements realized by
companies migrating from outsourcing/bolt-on to built-in implementations.
Also, a clear answer to the "Who is using XBRL?" question directly from a
leader in the Research community.
Rest of the World: Transition of regulatory compliance processes from paper
to the Internet by governments around the world and the related company
considerations.
Recording Access:
PwC
http://event.on24.com/r.htm?e=302048&s=1&k=16042203D8FF3360662148188178923C
73
Automating the last mile
The role of XBRL in streamlining financial reporting
PwC webinar on “Automating the last mile: The role of XBRL in
streamlining financial reporting”
Recording Access:
https://www302.livemeeting.com/cc/pwclivemeetingroom/view?id=4FQZP6
PwC
74
AICPA ASEC XBRL ASSURANCE TASK FORCE
PROPOSED PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR XBRLFORMATTED INFORMATION
COMMENTS REQUESTED BY JULY 15, 2011
Primary Criteria:
Completeness
Mapping
Accuracy
Structure
PwC
75
Contact Information
Michael White
Michael.s.white@us.pwc.com
(720) 931-7589
PwC
76
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and
does not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon the information
contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No
representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or
completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent
permitted by law, [insert legal name of the PwC firm], its members, employees and agents
do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences
of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained
in this publication or for any decision based on it.
© 2011. All rights reserved. In this document, “PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP which is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each
member firm of which is a separate legal entity.
77