Comments on: Why Small Investors Deserve XBRL-Enabled Statements http://hitachidatainteractive.com/2007/08/23/why-small-investors-deserve-xbrl-enabled-statements/ XBRL News and Commentary from the Hitachi XBRL Business Unit Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:20:53 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: rc whalen http://hitachidatainteractive.com/2007/08/23/why-small-investors-deserve-xbrl-enabled-statements/comment-page-1/#comment-2774 rc whalen Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:57:11 +0000 http://blog.hitachixbrl.com/2007/08/23/why-small-investors-deserve-xbrl-enabled-statements/#comment-2774 I would not discount the cost issue as a major obstacle. The GAAP taxonomy project in the US appears to be headed toward a result that will be expensive compared to current alternatives. End users will be required to purchase specialized software and/or services in order to render and manipulate documents. And filers will apparently be required to employ consultants to prepare XBRL coded documents, especially the footnotes. Aside from the growing likelihood of a political backlash from filers as and when the SEC attempts to impose the new standard, why does anyone in the XBRL community believe that a solution which is not cheaper than current alternatives is viable? It seems that the only way that XBRL can be adopted in the US is via regulatory fiat since virtually nobody in the consumer or filer communities seems to have taken notice. And to that point, it should be remembered that the SEC cannot and probably will not mandate a standard which is not already widely used in the private sector. After years of effort by a lot of dedicated visionaries, we still do not yet have a viable business case argument to help advance adoption. I would not discount the cost issue as a major obstacle. The GAAP taxonomy project in the US appears to be headed toward a result that will be expensive compared to current alternatives. End users will be required to purchase specialized software and/or services in order to render and manipulate documents. And filers will apparently be required to employ consultants to prepare XBRL coded documents, especially the footnotes.

Aside from the growing likelihood of a political backlash from filers as and when the SEC attempts to impose the new standard, why does anyone in the XBRL community believe that a solution which is not cheaper than current alternatives is viable? It seems that the only way that XBRL can be adopted in the US is via regulatory fiat since virtually nobody in the consumer or filer communities seems to have taken notice.

And to that point, it should be remembered that the SEC cannot and probably will not mandate a standard which is not already widely used in the private sector. After years of effort by a lot of dedicated visionaries, we still do not yet have a viable business case argument to help advance adoption.

]]> By: Clare Harrison http://hitachidatainteractive.com/2007/08/23/why-small-investors-deserve-xbrl-enabled-statements/comment-page-1/#comment-2753 Clare Harrison Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:20:49 +0000 http://blog.hitachixbrl.com/2007/08/23/why-small-investors-deserve-xbrl-enabled-statements/#comment-2753 Perhaps the biggest hindrance to XBRL is not cost then, as I suggested, and more about inertia. It would seem that a significant number of investors both large and small are reluctant to embrace the technology, for whatever reason. While I praised the SEC for helping to push technological advances forward in the US, some in Germany feel that the legislator's imposition of mandatory XBRL filings on interim reports was unwarranted. One interviewee told me yesterday that 'nobody has applauded Germany for leading XBRL implementation in Europe.' http://www.thecrossbordergroup.com/pages/165/IR+magazine.stm?article_id=11985 So it would seem that the jury is still out on whether XBRL should be a market driven initiative or imposed by regulators. Perhaps the biggest hindrance to XBRL is not cost then, as I suggested, and more about inertia. It would seem that a significant number of investors both large and small are reluctant to embrace the technology, for whatever reason.

While I praised the SEC for helping to push technological advances forward in the US, some in Germany feel that the legislator’s imposition of mandatory XBRL filings on interim reports was unwarranted. One interviewee told me yesterday that ‘nobody has applauded Germany for leading XBRL implementation in Europe.’

http://www.thecrossbordergroup.com/pages/165/IR+magazine.stm?article_id=11985

So it would seem that the jury is still out on whether XBRL should be a market driven initiative or imposed by regulators.

]]>