XBRL can be complicated, time consuming and time sensitive. A comprehensive disclosure management vendor will offer a range of service options from XBRL review and one-time tagging services to full XBRL outsourcing. Different models work for different teams, and as requirements change and team structures transform, so do your needs. Here are a few questions to ask yourself when evaluating the right service model for your company.
In order to stay compliant and maintain efficiency, public companies need to continually evaluate and improve their external reporting processes. Many times there are workflow changes that can make all the difference like scheduling a post-mortem of your recent filing or automating the flow of data to mitigate risk and improve quality. Other times, companies might see a need to re-assess their vendor relationships, software functionality, and level of service. Shopping for a new vendor can be tricky, but there are three things we suggest you do to make sure you head in the right direction.
The SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis recently examined the use of custom axis tags in XBRL exhibits that reporting companies submitted with their 10-K disclosures. An axis tag in XBRL allows a filer to divide reported elements into different dimensions while also showing the relationships between separately reported elements. The SEC’s assessment found that while more than 300 standard axis tags exist in the U.S. GAAP taxonomy, the average annual XBRL exhibit only uses about 20.
In a recent press release, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has officially accepted the 2016 GAAP Financial Reporting Taxonomy. The 2016 Taxonomy contains updates for accounting standards and other improvements to the official taxonomy that was previously used by SEC issuers. In addition to the release of the 2016 Taxonomy, the FASB has also issued several implementation and style guides related to the new taxonomy.
If you’re reading this, you’ve likely gotten your 10-K out the door. Congratulations! After you actually stand up from your chair, unchain your ankles from your desk and get re-acquainted with your family, there are a few things you want to do while you have the year-end close process and experience fresh in your mind. Reflection is key, and before you know it the Q will be sneaking up on you.
Preparing financial disclosures is a hectic process, and one of the best ways to make sure you stay on track is to incorporate XBRL milestones into your filing schedule and use the resources that are available to you. In this blog, we provide some general guidelines for your XBRL timeline and valuable resources to help keep you on track and compliant.
Quality and data accuracy is everything when dealing with financial disclosures. The pressure of looming deadlines can sometimes lead to compromised quality for some public companies, but it doesn’t have to. In this blog, Jen Stretch, manager of compliance services at Certent, provides guidance around proper quality control procedures and critical quality reviews.
The SEC added a new frequently asked question to their Staff Interpretations and FAQs Related to Interactive Data Disclosure webpage. This online resource provides a bank of answers to frequently asked questions around interactive data disclosures and communicates best practices to financial reporting professionals as they pertain to XBRL.
Applying XBRL tags to your company’s financials is a time-consuming and complex exercise. But there are a few ways to ease the pain. In this blog, Jen Stretch, manager of compliance services at Certent, provides insight into effective time management and the importance of incorporating compares into your XBRL process.
Formed on June 24th, 2015, the XBRL US Data Center for Data Quality is dedicated to improving the utility of XBRL financial data filed with the SEC. In this press release, the Center announced its plans to address two main areas. The first area is to provide uniform, consistent tagging of financial data and to clarify those specific circumstances where custom tags are appropriate. And the second area is to automate validation rules to detect input errors and verify compliance with the Committee’s guidance.