May 10th, 2012 by Jordan Woodard - Senior Compliance Manager
Jordan joins the Rivet Sales Team and gives a shout out to XBRL Cloud and CoreFiling.
Part of my role at Rivet Software is to evaluate other products. My focus is typically on compliance with SEC rules and other industry guidance. One of the most powerful tools to aid filers in their compliance is validation. In the following blog I will reflect on some different ways to validate and provide context around the meaning of various validation messages.
The new version of the XBRL Cloud EDGAR Dashboard is gorgeous, if you are reading this blog and you have not seen it yet, be sure to check it out. The dashboard consumes XBRL files and displays them in a stylistic and functional way. When a filing is posted on the SEC website, XBRL Cloud takes the information and adds a new line to the Dashboard that indicates the name of the filing company, the form type filed, the percent of extended elements, the creation software that was used to prepare the filing, and free validation checking for the EDGAR Filer Manual and US GAAP Architecture, In short, it is fantastic, it is a great rendering engine that reinforces the point that XBRL is about more than rendering in any specific rendering engine. XBRL cloud allows users to render the data in numerous layouts. A breakdown of some of its features can be found at xbrl.squarespace.com.
XBRL Cloud has rightfully generated quite a bit of attention resulting in me being questioned by filers about the XBRL Cloud Validation on the Dashboard, and being asked what it all means. The XBRL Cloud reports on “Errors”, “Warnings”, “Inconsistencies”, “Best Practices”, and “Information issues” as a number. For example RR Donnelley & Sons Co’s most recent 10-K filing has 26 “Inconsistencies”, but what exactly does that mean? Without digging into the details, it means that the filing is likely EFM 6.15.2 compliant. Because I know about the complexities of showing the required calculation relationships defined in EFM 6.15.2 and I know how this is especially complicated for detail foot note disclosures, I am not surprised that there are 26 inconsistencies. The point is that XBRL Cloud runs its own validation, but does not currently provide the context of the errors, or at least not for free.
Solutions like Crossfire and Magnify use validation methods similar to the XBRL Cloud by reporting errors and warnings in various categories. But both go a step further than the XBRL Cloud. Magnify shows the context of any given error tied to a fact in the rendering engine while Crossfire shows the context of the tagged number (fact) in the source document. But why is this a value add?
When there is a large source generating fact errors that appear throughout the document, it is much more efficient to simply double-click the Crossfire validation and see where the errors are originating in the source document and what tags are applied to those numbers. In Crossfire, the source document is the source of the XBRL and the HTML files. If a validation error is received that something does not foot, the number can be changed or the XBRL can be easily reviewed to see if it needs to be changed. Crossfire’s validation is performed before the final XBRL files are created, making validation a Crossfire feature available to self-filers. While self-filers using Crossfire tend to not get into the weeds regarding the technical nature of the validation messages, they are nevertheless able to easily fix potential errors since the validation links directly to the tags in the source. I personally like the multi-user commenting features so I can explain to my team why I changed a tag in the source and why, linking my comments to the numbers (facts) that triggered the validation.
My current position is Compliance Manager (aka technical expert) but today it sounds like I am on the sales team. For more information on getting the whole validation picture, contact the experts at solutions@rivetsoftware.com.
May 8th, 2012 by Jordan Woodard - Senior Compliance Manager
Jordan Woodard reviews the causes of the rise of filing amendments since the XBRL mandate.
Looking at amended filings (specifically form type 10-Q/A, 10K/A, and 20-F/A) I observed that the number of amendments have gone up since the pre-XBRL days, but why?
Using Really Simple Syndication (RSS), Rivet brings in real-time XBRL data from the SEC’s website to perform limitless analysis of financial data formatted in XBRL using our own Crossfire Reporting Platform. Today I was interested in examining amended filings.
The simple way to do this would be to search for XBRL facts with the element “dei_DocumentType” with a fact value of 10-K/A, 10-Q/A, or 20-F/A (you could look at any of the “/A” form types). That would be too easy, because of the SEC rules, and Question 105.08 of the Division of CorpFins’s Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&Dis) there are often amended filings that do not indicate the files are amended for XBRL. The Primary reason for this is because filers are using their 30 Day Grace Period defined in Rule 405(a)(2) of Regulation S-T where the form type filed with the SEC could be “10Q/A”, and the fact filed for XBRL is “10/Q”. That is, I could query in XBRL for 10/Q and return result for companies that files with the sec form type “10Q/A”. Read the rest of this entry »
Getting detail footnote tagging right requires experience… and a lot of it. With over 2,000 detail footnote filings prepared and submitted to date, the Rivet team has learned a thing or two along the way. Join us for a fun, interactive session and learn how to avoid detail footnote tagging’s common pitfalls and get up-to-date with the latest best practices to ensure your team makes a smooth transition.
Hear firsthand from the Rivet XBRL Jedis how to:
ensure your detail footnote filing is valid prior to submission
understand some of the complexity that is associated with detail footnote tagging
comply with the latest SEC guidance and best practices
properly model the US GAAP taxonomy
know which tags are appropriate for your company’s filing, based on your industry’s standards
This webinar will consist of 30 minutes of interactive panel discussion, followed by 15 minutes of open Q&A.
May 3rd, 2012 by Raul Varela, CFA - VP, Strategic Initiatives
Raul Varela, CFA explains how Adam Smith’s concept of the invisible hand is related to XBRL adoption.
In Economics 101 we learned about Adam Smith’s concept of the invisible hand. If you remember back to your classroom days, the concept has to do with an individual’s self-interest in maximizing their own gain. This self-interest actually promotes efficient markets and benefits society without the individual having any benevolent intentions, thus being lifted by an invisible hand. I believe we are witnessing the invisible hand of XBRL right before our eyes. Allow me to explain. I recently sat on a panel during the Suffolk University sponsored conference Structured Financial Data in an Age of Complexity: Exploring XBRL Use and Application Today and Into the Future. In our panel, we discussed actual examples of individuals using XBRL today. I was there to represent the perspective of our 1,500 customers. The outcome was my realization that there are actually two invisible hands promoting the usage of XBRL for our clients. Read the rest of this entry »
May 1st, 2012 by Jordan Woodard - Senior Compliance Manager
Jordan Woodard explains why expertise in detail footnote tagging is critical for building out a solid XBRL foundation.
This past weekend I prepared my house for the seller’s paradise that is Denver’s current housing market. Fortunately for me, my house was built well and is in great condition.
I did have to make some minor upgrades to ensure my house delivered maximum appeal. I did some painting, yard work, caulking, and staging of furniture – the more mundane tasks that I could take care of without paying an arm and a leg. I also had some cracks in the masonry of my brick. When I discussed fixing the cracks with my wife she gave me “the look”. “The look” is a super power that can will a man to pick up the phone and shell out some dollars to hire a professional without uttering a single word, a Jedi mind trick of sorts. Read the rest of this entry »
April 23rd, 2012 by Emily Huang - Co‑founder & SVP, Sales & Marketing
Congressman Darrell Issa, who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, introduced the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act) in June 2011. Nearly one year since its introduction, the DATA Act is expected to be passed by the House of Representatives on Tuesday, April 24th.
Recently approved by the SEC, the 2012 US GAAP Taxonomy includes 1362 new elements, 628 deprecated elements, and 1392 definition changes. Given the breadth of changes its important companies assess how the newly released Taxonomy will affect their filings, and create a plan to ensure a smooth transition.
Get the complete rundown from people who know the 2012 Taxonomy first hand. In this live, interactive webinar, FASB’s Chief of Taxonomy Development, J. Louis Matherne and Rivet Software’s Senior Compliance Manager, Jordan Woodard will discuss:
Differences between the 2011 and 2012 Taxonomy
Guidance for using the new Taxonomy and how to avoid errors
Tips to file successfully with the 2012 Taxonomy
Rivet’s Crossfire support of the 2012 Taxonomy and Conversion process
Join us on Thursday, April 19th at 1:00 pm ET to learn about the conversion to the 2012 Taxonomy. This webinar will consist of a 45 minute presentation followed by 15 minutes of open Q&A.
J. Louis Matherne
As FASB Chief of Taxonomy Development, Matherne is responsible for all aspects of the ongoing development and maintenance of the US GAAP Financial Reporting Taxonomy in support of the annual taxonomy release as required for use by Securities and Exchange Commission registrants.
Jordan Woodard
In his role as Senior Compliance Manager for Rivet, Jordan Woodard is responsible for educating the Rivet team on compliance-related best practices and developing the processes for converting all Rivet clients to the 2012 Taxonomy.
March 27th, 2012 by Jordan Woodard - Senior Compliance Manager
Jordan Woodard explains why the conversion from 2011 to 2012 US GAAP XBRL taxonomy is just like making rocket fuel, but he promises it doesn’t have to be as complicated as rocket science.
The word “conversion” can apply to many things in many ways: currency exchange rates, a switch in product preference, the adoption of a new religion, energy equivalency of mass, going for two instead of kicking an extra point, lemons turning to lemonade, units of measurement (1 Inch ≡ 1/36 yd ≡ 1/12 ft ≡ 0.0254 m.), or my personal favorite, the conversion (reaction) of chemical compounds in chemistry. Read the rest of this entry »
March 26th, 2012 by Raul Varela, CFA - VP, Strategic Initiatives
Raul Varela, Rivet Software’s VP of Strategic Initiatives, reflects on his experience at XBRL24.
High above the surface of the ever-changing world of XBRL, I had a lot of time to think about the past week’s events at the 24th XBRL International conference. My flight home from Abu Dhabi was close to 15 hours so my mind had the time to wander between the detailed taxonomy discussions, to countries gaining insight on how to best implement XBRL. Read the rest of this entry »
Mike Willis (PwC) joins Raul Varela and Phil Mennona (Rivet Software) to discuss:
Most common XBRL errors and their causes
How to avoid XBRL errors, ensure accuracy, and validate your filings prior to submission
How to implement Agreed Upon Procedures for XBRL, published by the AICPA, internally and in conjunction with your auditing firm
Steps to take in the future to avoid manual review processes
Name: Avoiding Common Errors in XBRL with Special Guest Mike Willis, PwC Date: October 6, 2011 1:00 PM ET Additional Info: Panelists – Raul Varela, CFA (Rivet Software); Mike Willis, CPA (PwC); Phil Mennona, CPA (Rivet Software) View webinar transcript »
Subscribe to Feed
J. Louis Matherne
Jordan Woodard
