Greece - a Grexit, Eurogeddon, or a big Yawn?

Get ready for Grexit. Or not.

1. A Greek exit may not happen.
2. Greek exit from the Eurozone will not destroy the Euro.
3. A Grexit will not be unprecedented.
4. The "playbook" for exiting a currency union already exists.
5. If, finally, it does happen, it will be controlled, and fast.

But, just in case, you should be considering carefully the potential impact on your business.

So here we are, again

On Sunday the 25th of January the Greeks went to the polls in a snap election that saw Syriza (a left wing part that barely registered in the voting five years ago) win 39% percent of the vote, and with that the right to form a government. This they have done in a remarkably short period of time.

Of course, with Syriza's win and forming of a government, a Grexit is neither a certainty, nor is will it happen immediately. Negotiations with Brussels and more importantly Berlin (even though the Greeks have said they will not negotiate with the Germans) will take weeks, with plenty of bluff and noise from all quarters. We can expect negotiations to break down two or three times, and eventually a very rapid dissolution, probably over the course of a weekend.

Is there a plan?

From late 2011 through the middle of 2012 when a Grexit seemed about to happen, central bankers, national finance ministries across Europe held "Non-meetings" with "Non-Papers" in unlisted conference rooms, thus ensuring that any participant could put hand on heart and say they had been to no meetings, and seen no papers, and that all was well and calm. We suspect that "Non-meeting" invitations have "not been sent" again, and "Non-Papers" are being dusted off and reviewed to confirm their continued relevance.

We would like to say that much has changed since 2011/2012, but realistically the only significant change has been a continually increasing total national debt burdens across of the Eurozone. The only other change has been the continued burden of austerity on the Greek people and economy, with little hope for any realistic prospects for improvement in the near term.

Greek unemployment in the younger cohort has since grown to as high as 60%, total employment continues to fall, incomes continue to fall, and the prospects are that this trend will continue. The Greek people have now lived through years of pain, and see only years of pain in front of them.

The Playbook already exist

Currency dissolutions are not new, and while they can be messy, though they can be handled quickly and effectively. Playbooks already exist, which call for a series of steps to take place very quickly, usually when the markets and banks are closed. So expect to see a breaking news flash on a Saturday afternoon saying that the Greek government has passed a number of new laws, including creation of the New Drachma pegged one for one to the Euro.

Also expect in those laws there to be:

1. Closure of the banking system for a week (at least)
2. Closure of the markets for a week (at least)
3. A requirement to have all Euro notes stamped (or hole-punched) at bank (that will be open for this purpose only) within a week
4. For contracts to be re-denominated in New Drachmas
5. For all national debt in the form of bond to be convertible at a rate of 1 New Drachma = 1 Euro

This is just a quick list. Search the internet and you will find a number of playbooks in much greater detail.

The next two years

Expect the New Drachma to devalue and a rocket pace. Of course this will be difficult to see in practice, as the only purchasers of New Drachmas will be those that are actually required to provide payments in New Drachmas in the immediate term. Virtually all others, including those with payments due, will defer payments by a week or two (at least) to get some idea of where the New Drachma will settle.

Imports to Greece will stop. 

Exporters will attempt to demand Euros for their exports, and will be in for protracted discussions / arguments with their customers over the terms of trade, and the currency in force.

Of course, there will be cheap - really cheap - holidays to Greece. Europe, and the US, will flood into Greece and the Greek Islands in a tourism boom never before seen. Exports will become very competitive. Greek olives and wine will be very affordable, and will bring "hard currency" into the country (along with the tourism sector).

Of course, that does not alone make an economy, but it will be a start, and a good start with a greatly deflated New Drachma. 

But no one should be deceived, it will come at a terrible cost in terms of Greek standards of living. These will continue to drop for another couple of years. No more BMWs for Greece, at least not for a number of years. And then, one day, there will be a positive GDP number, followed by more positive numbers, and finally, a growing and productive Greece.

Do you have a plan?

Of course, if it does happen, there will be some serious consequences for businesses across Europe and the UK. The implications could be considerable, including at a minimum the re-pricing of products and services in new currencies at a fixed conversion rate established at exit (with the potential for  a rapid devaluation of the new currency), potential liquidity issues, and sudden exposures to currency transactions between corporate entities that currently share the same currency. We would not be surprised, should any country exit the Euro, to find currency controls introduced in an attempt to limit the flow of capital out of the country. 

Cyprus taught people that cash is king, and we should expect to see runs on banks in Greece long before any actual Grexit.

This will not be TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It), nor will it be a ‘Big Yawn’?  Nobody knows right now, but we think it is worth running your business through a review to assess the impact you might face.

We recommend companies:

• Expect confusion and disruption for a period, but do not let this become all consuming, it shall pass
• Treat a potential Grexit as a Business Continuity event, and run a BCP exercise to confirm gaps and applicability of any plans
• Confirm that your CMT (Crisis Management Team) is appropraite for this type of crisis
• Shift where possible liquid assets out of jurisdictions with daily sweeps, ensuring that your specific capital control risk is minimised
• Identify the risk of write-downs in currency denominated assets, following devaluations
• Test processes for re-denomination or re-pricing of products and services
• Engage your legal counsel to ensure that contracts will survive an exit, or at least confirm te potential contractual impact of an exit, reviewing legal agreements to ensure continuity post any such change
• Speak with counter-parties to plan smooth transitions to any new currency
• Consider potential impacts of currency controls

Most importantly, consider your longer range options, including potentially shifting production of services capacity into Greece (or other exiting country) post the initial systemic shock. So, following a period of instability and currency fluctuation and probable significant devaluation, look to develop in a much cheaper labour market. Harvesting the upside is going to take time, planning and preparation.

And if nothing happens?

If there is no Grexit, you have lost nothing by dusting off your plans, running contingency exercises, reviewing contracts, and generally reconsidering your strategic risks. Greece will continue to deteriorate, and may actually become an attractive location for sourcing lower costs production or services.

Syria, and the West, again

In August 2012 I wrote about Syria, warning that our rush to support one set of factions against the national government was foolish. I warned that we simply have no way of telling a George Washington from a Timothy McViegh. Both saw themselves as patriots, yet one has a city and state named after him, while the other is reviled.

Well, since then we in the West have managed to help completely destroy another country.

The Syria I knew in the late 1970s was a sectarian, Baathist, totalitarian country. Damascus was a beautiful city, with parks, a river, incredibly blue skies, and the smells of the souk. The Street Called Strait, where Saul/Paul went to have the scales fall from his eyes, was still there, and unlike its name, was narrow and winding. Near the Street Called Strait were the perfumers with their tiny shops filled with bottles of essence.

Damascus claims to be the oldest contiguously populated city on earth. (Damascus - 1978)

The Omayyad Mosque is on of the most beautiful places in the world, and inside the mosque itself is a small shrine reputedly containing the head of John the Baptist (well, one of the places having his head). The mosque is probably one hundred meters long, with the floor covered with overlapping Persian carpets as far as the eyes can see. The room is cool and quiet, with light flowing in from the high windows. Outside in the huge court are the fountains for ritual washing, the sun beating down and off the white marble. Outside a gate in the side of the mosque compound is the small building build against the outer wall; the Tomb of Saladin the Great.

A tomb of global historical significance, and something that ISIS would happily destroy.

Since then, power has passed from father (as both dictator and figurehead of a group of factions) to the son (as both dictator and figurehead of a group of factions). "Democratic" elections have been held, and guess what, the entrenched elite won, and continued to run the country for their benefit.

Kind of reminds me of another country.

Corruption was rife when I was there. Just last month in the US (and this month in the UK), I paid someone a "tip" to do their job, knowing that it would not change the quality of service in any way, it was an expected level of, lets call it what it was, bribe for delivery of a service for which that person was already, in theory, being paid to accomplish.

Which reminded me of Damascus in the late 1970s. To collect something on my behalf from the international post office, I was happy to give someone (whose job it was anyway) some money "to pay his taxi fare" knowing that he would pocket that money, and I would get my package.

Of course people will tell me there is a difference. There isn't.

But that is not the purpose of this post, so my apologies for the distraction.

We, the West, have and are supporting rebels against a legitimate government, recognised by the United Nations (and the US which has/had an embassy in Damascus, along with every major Western country), and have intervened in the internal affairs of a country that we know almost nothing about. Why? Because they are an ally of Iran? Because they were supported by the USSR and then Russia? Because they are not "democratic" in the Amerikan style? Because a weakened Syria delivers greater security to Israel?

Probably for all those reasons.

But we, the West, did not intervene and support terrorists and rebels because they had anything better to offer in Damascus. They don't and didn't. They represent sets of vested economic interests and a desire to appropriate the greater share of the national wealth to themselves and their clans, factions, groups.

Now, with the failed civil war that we enabled, ISIS (or whatever they call themselves these days) are filling a void, and making an even greater void that will take decades to fill. We helped bring this on the Syrian people, and on ourselves. Every time you see pictures of Syrian refugees, be honest with yourself and say - "Yes, I helped do that".

We have been fools, but we will never admit it.

Yes, the Syrian Baathist regime butchered their own people, just like every other regime in the region, and just like so many regimes that the West has and does support. Yes, economic power and national wealth was (and still is) concentrated in the hands of a few, just like it is in the West.

Which I guess brings me full circle. Everything that we saw and wailed about, we can see on the streets of the US, UK, France and so many countries in the West. The causes of the Syrian Civil War are rife in our own countries.

So here is our lesson; when we support terrorists and rebels in countries we know almost nothing about, we should expect it to come home, and for those that support terrorists and rebels in our countries to have an equally distorted view of us, our culture and "freedoms", values and mores.

The one thing that we have in common - masses of economically disenfranchised fighting the entrenched oligarchies. Enjoy the coming revolution.

35 Years after 55 for 444, No Apologies for FUBAR

Yes, it really has been 35 years (yesterday, 4th November) since Iranian "students" occupied the American Embassy in Tehran. 35 Years since the beginning of the events in Argo (a great film, pity they misrepresented the actual role played by the New Zealand ambassador, but never mind).

Yesterday on Facebook I posted "35 years since Iran invaded US sovereign territory (embassies are sovereign territory). Until Iran formally apologies, they can, and should, stay out in the cold. Remembering 55 Diplomats held hostage for 444 days!"  55 diplomats who served their country, and could have died for their country. 55 diplomats abused by Islamic fruitloops steeped in an international culture of "blame the Americans" for every single FUBAR in their own countries.

I should have known, that with my international circle of "friends", that someone would take umbrage (nationality not mentioned here, because it is not relevant).

You see, as those of you who have lived outside the US as Americans know, every sin committed by the US is current, extreme, and you probably had something to do with it. Hell, you condoned it by being American. And there really is no hiding. With smiles our actual friends hide their disdain for, and in extreme cases loathing of, the US behind friendship with you as an individual.

But, you also are known by your love of something called the Constitution and the associated Bill of Rights. You have also had to put up with, for decades, ignorant people who have been told that everything wrong with their country, every bride paid or asked for, every overthrown government, every burst water main, every power outage, was somehow America's fault. Blow that!

So let me say a few things here:

1. I am proud to be an American (and of other things and nationalities that I'm equally proud of).
2. I have never tipped (oops, bribed) anyone that was not looking for a tip (oops, bride).
3. The US didn't start Vietnam, the Vietnamese did, and the French made it worse, then we really screwed it up.
4. Yes, bribes were paid to overthrow Mosaddegh (and I really don't care who did overthrow him - after all, it was Iranians, driving Iranian army tanks - bought by pre-Shah Iranians who overthrew Mosaddegh). Mind you, Mosaddegh was no paragone of democracy. He was also guilty of manipulating the political system. He played the game. He lost.
5. But lets move on - host Countries, as a rule, grant sovereignty over the land that an embassy is on to the country of the embassy. This has allowed political dissidents around the world to claim asylum in embassies (including Mr Assange [we'll assume for a moment that he  is a political dissident] in London, at the Ecuadorian embassy)
6. Lets look at the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 (of which Iran is a signatory) "Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolate and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property. Article 30 extends this provision to the private residence of the diplomats."
7. Moving away from Iran - the Greek military junta overthrew the Greek government, not the US (and the film Z helps show the lead-up - great film by the way, and a fantastic soundtrack). Greeks overthrew Greeks. How many times was I told that it was all America's fault?
8. So ITT helped overthrow Allende in Chile. And yes, Pinoche was a shit. Get over it. The Chilean airforce bombed the presidential palace, and the Chilean army overthrew him. Yes, ITT (and CIA) money helped, but bluntly, they probably would have done it anyway.
9. My family was evacuated from an American embassy when it became clear that the Iranians were willing to push the problem further.
10, My father stayed in that embassy for another 6 months, waiting for the Islamic fruitloops to come over the walls.

Has the US made mistakes? Absolutely. Have some of these been great mistakes? Absolutely.

I'll go out on a limb here. I was in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It was the right thing to do. Happy to discuss this privately. Did the US then manage to stuff-up EVERY SINGLE decision that they had to make after the invasion. Absolutely. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal believed what they wanted to, and were told lies that they believed. They also made FUBAR after FUBAR after FUBAR, resulting the mess we now have.


There are no excuses for how badly the screwed up, again and again. They should be tried in the Hague for war crimes.


But you know something; being Great as the US is, means that you do great things also. Yes the FUBARs are great, but so are the decades of quite development aid, the Marshal Plan, the food aid, the Peace Corps, the (too often too late) interventions like Serbia to stop ongoing genocide. America is great, and with that comes great failures and great victories, great successes, and great support for the oppressed. And yes, great FUBARs.



But getting back on track - The Iranian Government enabled, allowed, and supported the invasion of sovereign US territory 35 years ago. What the US may or may not have done is NOT relevant.There has been no apology.

Therefore, I will not apologise to calling Iran on their great FUBAR.

Living in the Past

One of the most common nasty things said about New Zealand is that on arrival, you go back 20 (or 30, or 50) years into the past. I've always found that to be a cruel thing to say (and now quite untrue), but have to admit that in the 1980s it did feel a bit like the 1970s, or earlier. Quiet, terrible coffee, bright walls, plastic chairs, and bland food.

A few days ago I passed through Jersey's port of Saint Helier (Google Map) on my way to St Peter Port in Guernsey. Being much closer to France than the UK mainland, Jersey and Guernsey were the only parts of the UK to be occupied during the second world war, a legacy that lives on in the street names and attitudes. Occupation saw Russian POWs brought in to build the fortifications that dot the coast. Underfed and poorly treated, accepting any food surreptitiously passed over or under the wire by locals, already themselves burdened with inadequate rations.

Sadly the coffee shop at the port is also a reminder of days gone by. While the city is becoming a strange morphing of Canary Wharf's glass faced buildings and old French(ish) village square, there has been no modernisation of the restaurant at the port. Truly it feels like traveling back to the 1980s or earlier. The coffee is better (just), but the food and ambiance is dire. Oh, and in a nod to the occupation, all the accents are Slavic.

It should be impossible to make a bad cheeseburger. Should. But under wartime conditions, who would be surprised by a little sawdust to fill out the meat content? Still, it is nicely in context for the era, whichever era Jersey remains firmly locked in.

Telling your story, your way - Or why extensions are here to stay

There has been quite a bit of discussion about the idea that XBRL filings should be comparable, and if they are not, that somehow is a surrogate indicator of lower quality XBRL. Yet this flies in the face of one of the key promises of XBRL - "Tell your story, your way".

Companies are different, and after years of attempting to create one-size fits all reporting. The SEC tried, and IFRS continues to think they have a one-size fits most (except SMEs). It remains clear that it is what is different about companies that enables them to be successful.

Three Motivations to Create Extensions

For years the example used was that of a major computer manufacturer and service provider, which included a negative expense line for 'IP expense'. The expense was negative because the company was bringing in over a $1 billion in revenue from patent licenses. The problem was that the data aggregators consistently aggregated (well, it is in the name) would combine all of their expenses into one 'other expenses' line, thus distorting the company's position, and message. They were (are) proud of their portfolio of patents, and reflect that in their business reporting.

We also see the example of the giant Zombie banks. Looking at their XBRL we see extension rates well above 50%. They are telling their story, their way - by intentionally making it difficult for simple Zombie to Zombie comparisons to be run. Difficult in fact, for anyone to perform automated analysis, including regulators.

There are also companies that have limited resources to spend on their external reporting, and XBRL has added to their burden. Sometimes creating a new extension is simply faster and easier than digging through 16,000+ elements, reading detailed definitions, and wondering why their exact concept is missing. Equally, as the US GAAP taxonomy evolves year on year, how many companies are reviewing their extensions, confirming that an extension created in a prior year is still required.

Three examples, three motivations, one outcome: more extensions.

1. Transparency if wonderful. We are different, and we want the investing community to know that we are different. We have unique line items and footnoted facts because we want to demonstrate why we are the better investment.

2. We'll happily pay for opacity. We are different, and exploitation of our differences enables us to be successful. Enabling easy comparisons between us and our 'peers' actually will reduce our ability to exploit our unique advantages - whatever they are. Transparency helps regulators and competitors, not us.

3. We are too busy and with no benefit from investing limited resources in XBRL, we'll get this done a quickly and cheaply as possible. If we can produce XBRL that passes the SEC's validation checks, then that is good enough for us.

One example uses XBRL to improve the quality of available information and increase transparency. The other harnesses the power of XBRL to protect their opacity. "Our 'black box' is what keeps us profitable, reduces competitors ability to match us, and keeps the regulators in the dark (without appearing to want to keep regulators in the dark)". The third simply does not have the resources to waste on XBRL, there's real work that needs doing.

They are not going away

There is simply too large a need for extensions, and too many different motivations. There are also over a million extensions already created. These are not going away. Some, possibly most, are either duplicates or are so similar as the make if difficult to differentiate. Yet these are not going away. If anything, expect the total number of extensions to continue to rise.

After all, even if the SEC, the FASB, the IASB, or any group, attempts to analyse extensions to identify a reduced set of new taxonomy elements, the three motivations outlined above will act as a 'headwind' to companies migrating off their extensions. 

So while we should see fewer 'errors', we will not see significant drops in extensions that are there specifically to influence comparability or reduce the 'auto consumption' of financial and business information. Controlling the message is what business reporting is all about, not providing transparent reporting. 

Only once they have driven down the number of errors will the SEC have the energy or resources to drive down the number of extensions - and for each one, the SEC will need to demonstrate that the filer did not, in the filers' view, have an adequate justification for the extensions created and used. 

Implications of XBRL on Audit firms

The growing requirement for companies to produce financial statements in the XBRL format is now beginning to impact auditing firms. Audit firms need to plan for the coming wave of additional effort required to provide assurance over XBRL documents, and need to be building the cadres of skilled individuals who will provide such support to audit teams. The phase-in periods are quite different by jurisdiction, as is the expected total additional effort.

Audit and assurance firms should be exploring the potential impact and planning exactly when and how they will build the skills and acquire the tools that they will need to provide assurance over XBRL documents produced by clients.

The potential cost of audit could have a negative impact on market acceptance of XBRL. We must be looking beyond the depth of the pockets of Megaconglomacorp, and understand the impact of XBRL audit on smaller filers and smaller (non Big-4) audit firms.

Go to Non-Sequitur to learn more about Megaconglomacorp: http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2010/07/21

XBRL is not a "new" standard and is being used around the world, primarily by regulators, to improve the quality of data collected, and to improve the quality and efficiency of analysis of that data. In some cases the information is converted to XBRL by the regulator, and in other cases the reporting companies produce the XBRL. It is company produced XBRL that will be audited.

Challenges

As with any "new" technology or process, audit firms will face challenges as they come to terms with new audit requirements. Certainly an initial challenge will be deciding if and when to develop a cadre of skilled individuals with the knowledge to be able to audit XBRL. Too early and these skills will not be required, too late and the rush will impact operational efficiency. Yet moving beyond the simple “do we / don’t we” question into a time when audit of XBRL is performed, there are three challenges that audit firms and the audit profession needs to consider.

Resources

As we know, the resource requirements of the audit process are not "smooth" through the year - there are clearly definable peaks of resource requirements, falling at quarter-ends and annual reporting events. These peaks vary from country to country depending on the distribution of financial year-ends and the amount of audit activity that gets squeezed into short periods of time.

I use the image of a wave moving toward the beach - the total resource required at any time represents the sea, and the increased time sensitive resource represent the wave. Consider how that wave approaches the shore (the mandatory reporting event) and the way the resource wave grows as it approaches the shore. At that last moment before breaking on the shore, the wave reaches its highest point - the most resources are being applied in that final short moment to ensure a final report.

XBRL reports are, in most cases today and for the coming three to six years, produced "after" the primary report is finalized, as an additional output format. This means that the audit of the XBRL (at least the "final" XBRL) report represents an additional set of highly specialized skill sets added to the top of that resource wave.

Software

Of course auditors mitigate the total resource required through the use of sophisticated software tools. Certainly in the XBRL space, tools are now available that help reduce the total incremental effort, and these tools are evolving quickly. Today however, most software is an extension to validation software and requires the user of the software to be an XBRL "expert".

Standards

Finally there is the problem of auditing standards. As yet there are no standards for the auditing of XBRL. There is guidance (from the American Institute of CPAs - AICPA) for the performance of "Agreed Upon Procedures" (AUP) examinations and reviews of XBRL documents. This assurance however remains "negative" assurance and for internal use only. The XBRL International Assurance Working Group continues to discuss issues around provision of assurance, but does not have the remit to produce an auditing standard.  It is probable that the AICPA's AUP guidance will form the base of any future standard for providing assurance over XBRL.

The lack of an international auditing standard for XBRL will not remove the need for auditors to provide some level of assurance over the XBRL being produced. Audit firms will need to consider their own thresholds of tolerance when providing assurance, and should be lobbying the IAASB and IFAC to fast-track the development of an auditing standard for XBRL documents.

Costs

While my purpose is not to suggest how Audit firms perform assurance, or to indicate the effort involved, it is worth noting that in the United States, AUP engagements for provision of assurance over XBRL documents have resulted in total auditor time of between 50 and 100 hours for the first basic "block tagged" XBRL (tagging of financial statements), and significantly higher for "detail tagged" XBRL (tagging of all financial information throughout the financial statements and notes to the financial statements). Subsequent quarterly "reviews" will take take, but should not require the full 50+ hours. Expect the total hours to quadruple for "detail tagged" XBRL.

The primary cost drivers are the time required to perform the engagements, and the software used in the engagement.  Subsequent engagements should see the total time commitment reduce, and enhancements in XBRL audit software over the coming few years should also reduce the total time required.

The Market and tolerances

This may seem simplistic, but I think it is fair to say that the average auditee will not lightly accept an additional 50 - 100 hours of audit time added simply to audit the XBRL. Those in the XBRL space that are focused only on the Fortune 1000 or FTSE 100/250 do not see this as an issue - these hours will simply be folded into the already thousands of hours and many millions of Dollars or GPB that makes up the total audit cost.

But we must look beyond the depth of the pockets of Megaconglomacorp, and try to understand the cost to the vast majority of other businesses. These are the companies, public and private, that will be paying first to create XBRL and then paying to have the XBRL audited. Therefore we must be looking for ways to reduce the incremental cost the cost of production and audit of XBRL. While process improvements and reductions in reporting time will reduce the cost of producing XBRL, the additional cost of auditing XBRL must also be reduced.

I fully expect software to audit XBRL to improve significantly over the coming couple of years, to the point where the total complexity and cost can be brought down to 'reasonable' levels. Of course, "my" reasonable and an auditee's reasonable may or may not be the same thing.

What will not change will be the need for auditors to gain a working understanding of XBRL, and the need for audit firms to have this additional expertise available.

What to audit in XBRL

Some (but only some) of the XBRL audit issues include:

• Use of extensions – if allowed, why were they created, and is there already an existing element?
• Confirmation that the information is the "same" – This covers more than simply “are the numbers the same”.
• Parentheticals – is all the information appropriately tagged, including information include within labels.
• Calculations – are all calculations appropriately constructed
• Dimensions/Tuples applied
• Label over-rides – have the taxonomy standard labels been used, or company specific labels, and do all labels match the non-XBRL documents
• Taxonomy selection – obviously the correct taxonomy must be used

The list goes on...

What is XBRL

XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) is an open standard for the interchange of business information between computer systems, by mapping information to entries in logical dictionaries (taxonomies) of business terms, thereby ensuring that the provider and recipient of the information share the commonly accepted meaning of each piece of information. XBRL also allows the creation of custom dictionary entries (extension elements and taxonomies) to allow the reporting or provision of company specific information.

In effect, XBRL allows a “wrapper” of information to be placed around any business "fact", be it a number, a date, or text. In XBRL terminology, this is called "Tagging", or to "Tag" a piece of information. That “wrapper” then ensures that the provider and recipient are referencing the same definition of the information, significantly improving the usability of information by reducing potential errors and confusion over the meaning of any individual piece of information.