iMedia Brands, Inc. filed
its 10K on 4/30/20. Compare the HTML version with the XBRL version. The errors
literally jump off the page – six incorrect or missing values.
How is it possible for four
professional organizations to allow this to happen? Here’s how:
THE FILER. The filer relies entirely on the software
vendor to produce the XBRL files. It does not systematically review even the
facing XBRL statements prior to filing.
THE SOFTWARE VENDOR. Workiva’s compliance software does not
validate the reported values against the taxonomy. It does not check for the
omission of facts. It does not reconcile the HTML version against the XBRL
version. Or if it does these things, corrections are optional.
THE SEC. The SEC’s validation software is
woefully insufficient, or it isn’t applied to every filing, or the
errors were flagged but no action taken. What’s troubling is that the SEC
recently explained their relaxed attitude toward incomplete XBRL metadata by
stating:
“In the past few years,
we have focused in our staff FAQs / data quality letters on errors that inhibit
the use of data, such as missing XBRL data or footnotes that are
not tagged.”
It’s hard to imagine a
more blatant example of missing XBRL data.
THE DATA RESELLER. Calcbench appears to simply render the
XBRL-based statements as filed, including errors. There’s no apparent data
validation and dimensional data is often ignored. It was in this case as the
correct value for operating earnings was provided as segment data. Other
companies that repackage XBRL data likely reported the same errors.
Errors happen and if this
was limited to one stage of the process, it could be forgiven. But there were opportunities
at every stage to identify and correct these errors before they reached the
investor. XBRL has no fail-safe mechanism. This is one of many examples of the
systemic failure of the XBRL to deliver consistently high-quality financial
data.
