Written by Bob Schneider     Posted on November 30, 2008

Matt Kelly and Gary Purnhagen have weighed in — at opposite ends — on whether there will be an XBRL mandate this year. They know much more than I do about how the SEC works, and I have little insight to add to their remarks. FWIW – and I’m not saying it’s worth much – here’s whatever evidence I’ve seen in the public realm in the past several days:

11/25 InfoWorld published The XBRL Mandate is Here: Is IT Ready?; both the title and the content made it sound like a mandate is a fait accompli. But it appears the author merely jumped the gun in declaring metaphysical certainty on implementation.

11/21 In the course of writing up an interview with Charlie Hoffman, a reporter calls the SEC and asks if there will be a mandate. A spokesman says “…the commissioners may have an announcement within a month.”

11/21 In a Business Wire webcast on preparing for an XBRL mandate, David Blaszkowsky, Director of the SEC’s Office of Interactive Disclosure, is asked “When does it happen?” He replies ‘Our commitment is to bring this before the commission in the fall, recognizing we are deep in to the fall….This is an important issue to the chairman and this will be reviewed. You’ll see some news shortly, I expect. No, I’m not ready to give a particular date.”

11/18 Chairman Cox discusses XBRL in his valedictory speech to the FEI; here are his entire remarks on the subject:

This focus on the investor’s minterest in global comparability is also evident in the aggressive support of the IASC Foundation for eXtensible Business Reporting Language — a priority shared by FEI. In the same way that IFRS might someday soon make financial statements understandable to investors anywhere on earth, the 30 different spoken languages that will someday soon be embedded in XBRL data tags attached to public company financial statements could let any investor read an IFRS financial statement from any country in his or her own native language.

This account says Mr.Cox “highlighted” the XBRL initiative in his speech. But compared with the emphasis interactive data has received in the Chairman’s past speeches, and because there’s nothing in his remarks about a mandate, I think “mentioned” is a more appropriate word.

Nevertheless, I did find it positive, if unsurprising, that an XBRL requirement was included in the November 14 release of the proposed rule for the adoption of  IFRS by U.S. issuers. In the Milestones to be Achieved Leading to the Use of IFRS by U.S. Issuers section, there is “Improvement in the Ability to Use Interactive Data for IFRS Reporting,” including this language on page 28:

“…the state of development of an IFRS list of tags for interactive data reporting will be a consideration in the Commission’s determination of whether to require the use of IFRS for all U.S.issuers…the Commission staff is actively involved in the improvement and monitoring of the IFRS list of tags via participation in the IASC Foundation’s XBRL Advisory Council. The Commission believes it is appropriate to consider the IASC Foundation’s progress in the development of IFRS taxonomies prior to proceeding with rulemaking on IFRS for all U.S. issuers.”

I don’t want to read very much into this. Facilitating the use of interactive data had been part of the prerequisites for IFRS adoption announced earlier in August; it would have been surprising had it been left out of the proposed rule.

Nevertheless, I think it does provide evidence that, after considerable investment in resources, XBRL has become part of the infrastructure — if not the culture — of the SEC. Infrastructure can, of course, be discarded or fall into disuse. But since it’s in place, there may be enough momentum to decide to just go ahead and use it.

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg this

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am and is filed under SEC, . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.