XBRL 2.0

Digital financial reporting that actually works

THE XBRL FILES: OF WHAT USE ARE THE RULES?

I recently listened in on a meeting of the XBRL-US Data Quality Committee (DQC), a well-intentioned group that promulgates rules to improve data quality. They were reviewing new, non-mandatory rules governing XBRL tagging. It included a 20-minute, mind-numbing discussion of the proper presentation of lease liabilities. It was unclear what this had to do with XBRL. 

 

More generally, I was struck by the extent to which XBRL governance had devolved into complex accounting minutia and technical details. The whole idea behind XBRL was to simplify financial reporting against a common dictionary that would allow easy comparisons across companies. This would level the playing field for small investors in accessing standardized financial data. We could have predicted that, like other regulatory endeavors, countless rules and restrictions would make compliance more costly and undermine its original goals.

 

The purpose of standardization is to move up the abstraction ladder, to repackage detailed data using a less detailed taxonomy. It seeks comparability at the expense of granularity. But the SEC’s implementation of XBRL is unwilling to sacrifice granularity. The US-GAAP standard taxonomy continues to grow. Custom tags make comparability impossible. We’re left with a hybrid of limited utility.

 

Between the DQC rules and the Edgar Filing Manual, there are plenty of rules to follow. And yet, there is wide variability in how the rules are interpreted and little clarification, much less enforcement, from the SEC. (a rule that's not enforced is just a suggestion) The result is chaos that resides just beneath the surface of normal-looking financial statements. It’s in the metadata - the incorrect tags, the extensions, the missing element relationships, the ill-conceived dimensional structures, and the extended taxonomies that are either invalid or inconsistent with the standard taxonomy. It requires experts to understand. The data is unreliable and therefore, of limited utility. 

 

Ultimately, the main benefits of XBRL accrue to compliance software vendors and the large data aggregators. Financial data hasn’t been ‘democratized’ as many claim, it’s been further ‘institutionalized’ using a machine-readable format. Small investors were the target beneficiaries, but XBRL data isn't easily accessible. If they want fully-standardized, quality fundamental data, they're still paying for costly subscriptions.

 

To paraphrase Cormac McCarthy in ‘No Country For Old Men’, IF THE RULES FOLLOWED BROUGHT US TO THIS, OF WHAT USE ARE THE RULES?




Loading