1

Past, Current and Future Auditor Involvement with SEC Registrant's XBRL Exhibits

Paul Penler – Ernst & Young LLP

The 6th Univ. of Kansas International Conference on XBRL

Auditor’s areas of involvement

AUPs and F&R engagements Other services for audit and non-audit clients Utilizing the XBRL data on financial audits

2

AUP and F&R engagements

AUP engagements-overview Auditors are not required (or expected) to:

Read, perform procedures, assess, or issue separate assurance on the XBRL exhibit or controls Agreed-upon procedures (AUP) engagements are separate from the audit and are less in

scope than an audit or review – no assurance is provided. The objective is to perform procedures in order for management to evaluate the completeness,

accuracy and consistency of the XBRL data Findings represents errors, alternatives, observations and recommendations

Procedures can be customized, but usually focus on: Tagging selection – use of the taxonomy and extensions Areas the SEC has identified as frequently having errors (e.g. signs, decimals, date contexts, etc) Company should evaluate whether findings would improve the XBRL submission and make final

judgment related to potential changes Level of effort:

Typical block text engagement takes 2–3 elapsed weeks and ranges from 50–90hours Typical initial detail tagging engagements takes 4–5 elapsed weeks and ranges from 150–250 hours Reoccurring engagements take considerably less time

Volume of findings: Typical detail tagging engagement averages more than 150 comments, with companies making

changes on most of the commented areas

4

AUP engagements - common errors observed

Not tagging all required information Parenthetical information, amounts in superscript footnotes, amounts written out (e.g.,

twenty percent), not tagging all amounts in the notes/schedules (detail tagging) Line items that have a non-determinable value (e.g., commitments and contingencies) Missing required S-X schedules, not including all required levels Not tagging all of the dimensions (e.g., missing dimensions represented in narrative)

Tag selection Extending tags unnecessarily or selecting the wrong standard tag Not using required tags or selecting different tags for the same amount and concept that

appear more than one time in the financial statements Other tag related errors

Wrong signs for the values (i.e., positive versus negative), wrong reporting period dates, wrong decimal settings or wrong amounts (i.e., proper number of zeros),

Wrong or missing calculations, wrong or missing units of measure Incomplete information provided for extensions tags (e.g., missing debit or credit

balances, as required) Not using XBRL footnote links, as required

5

AUP XBRL demand

24%

44%

32%

Involving auditor

Not currently but will reassess as limited liability provision expiration date ap-proaches

No plan to involve auditor

Source: November 2010 responses from ~1,000 public company financial reporting personnel on an EY webcast

Other services for audit and non-audit clients

Non AUP/F&R services

Examinations Supporting development of creation processes

and controls Supporting development of XBRL consumption Financial system implementation support Other

8

Utilizing the XBRL data on financial audits

Possible areas of usage by auditors

Non Industry Automatically updating analysis with each draft financials or when a

number changes Uses during quarterly work or Reporting/Conclusion, Uses throughout each phase of the audit

Industry Identify sig. accts; Rev/Exp PSP; peer/industry data w/sig. accts Extensive use of comparative face f/s info Moderate use of comparative F/S Note info Benefit scanning competitor/industry notes or supplemental

schedules for terms, numbers, relationships Limitations

Timing/approach of company’s XBRL preparation All text is not tagged at lowest level (e.g., tagging of text optional) Data Quality

It’s all about data quality

  2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014  2015Initial filers - 10%              

Face – Quality & consistency Mixed Better Good Good Good Good Good

Face – Company to company comparability Low Low Mixed Better Good Good Good

Detail Notes – Quality & consistency Low Mixed Better Good Good Good

Detail Notes – Company to company comparability Low Low Low Mixed Mixed Better

Additional large accelerated filers - 20%              

Face – Quality & consistency   Mixed Better Good Good Good Good

Face – Company to company comparability   Low Low Mixed Better Good Good

Detail Notes – Quality & consistency Low Mixed Better Good Good

Detail Notes – Company to company comparability Low Low Low Mixed Mixed

Remaining filers -70%              

Face – Quality & consistency     Mixed Better Good Good Good

Face – Company to company comparability     Low Low Mixed Better Good

Detail Notes – Quality & consistency Low Mixed Better Good

Detail Notes – Company to company comparability Low Low Low Mixed

When will quality XBRL data be easily accessible? One perspective in August 2009