Alleged vendor conflict among XBRL standard setters in the US is creating a level of disquiet about who the real beneficiaries might be when the mandated introduction of XBRL comes into force in 2011. In usual fashion, those who make up XBRL US say:
There is nothing wrong with XBRL US providing such [validation and certification] services because companies need to interpret the tags consistently, said Mike Willis, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers and founding chairman of XBRL International. “The idea here is that XBRL US would provide a collaborative effort to create consistent rules to be delivered in the marketplace.”
Of course it is not as clear cut or as simple as this:
“I’m always slightly uncomfortable about vested interests at standard-setters,” Mr. [David Turner, CMO at CODA] Turner said, noting that accounting firms created XBRL US, pushed for adoption of the technology, and could reap large payments in the form of validation and other consulting services. “It’s funny how these guys seem to do well in all these issues, isn’t it?”
He’s not wrong. Depending on how the certification procedures are written up, the professional firms could make a killing. The fact that all founding members of XBRL US are suppliers to business doesn’t go un-noticed.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Microsoft Advances XBRL Data Standard in the US, Paving Way for Big Innovation In Financial Analysis
- Microsoft uses new XBRL data tags in SEC filing
loading...
loading...
