英语论文网

tigating the occurrence of squared standardized excess returns on the day the XBRL format reports are filed. They found that the price variance on the filing day is 1.58 times higher compared to benchmark period (a period of 250days prior to the filing day). Detecting significant price movements on the filing date shows that XBRL format financial reporting conveys incremental information to capital markets. Market reactions to the XBRL filling would propose that investors are using the information from XBRL filing for trading purposes.

XBRL实例文档的保障——Assurance on XBRL Instance Document

Although the SEC (2008) mandates top 500 public companies in the USA to submit XBRL formatted reports, starting from June 2009, along with the traditional filing, it is not mandatory that those XBRL based reports be audited by a third party. It is only required that these XBRL-based reports should reflect the same information in the financial statement in traditional format (official EDGAR filing) (SEC 2005). SEC does not require a third party assurance of XBRL-based report to encourage filers to conform to the SEC requirement without any incremental costs.

4.1  XBRL财务报表的保障(Plumlee and Plumlee 2008)——4.1 Assurance on XBRL for financial reporting (Plumlee and Plumlee 2008)

Plumlee and Plumlee (2008) describe the process of how an XBRL instance document is created and discuss the issues involved in providing assurance on XBRL instance documents. Authors concentrate on the shift from a paper-centric to a data-centric focus. 'Paper-centric' view assumes users focus on the printed form of financial information. On the other hand, 'Data-centric' view focuses on the appropriateness and the accuracy of the individual tags.

Authors point out that, since XBRL documents are produced by tagging financial reporting information with the XBRL taxonomies to make the information computer-readable and searchable, the possibility of material misstatements exists because of possible problems in 'tagging'. Based on this concern, authors raise several potential assurance issues for XBRL documents. First, it is important to make sufficient precision for what constitutes an 'error' in providing assurance on XBRL instance documents. Second, the guidance about the sampling method for the tags should be clarified. Lastly, it is unclear how the 'risk' and 'materiality' translate into the audit procedure of XBRL tags. On the other hand, authors do not present any conceptual structure for performing an audit of the XBRL instance document. Srivastava and Kogan (2008) build up 'a conceptual framework' for providing assurance on XBRL instance document.

4.2 XBRL实例文档的保障：“概念性框架的声明”——4.2 Assurance on XBRL instance document: 'A conceptual framework of assertions'

Srivastava and Kogan (2008) suggest a conceptual framework of assertions for providing assurance on XBRL instance document that is created based on the SEC interactive data filing requirements. Authors contend that, in the era that the XBRL-based reports become the main and only format of the SEC filings, this conceptual framework will must be revisited to be combined into the statutory audit methodology.

Authors propose three sets of assertions. Violating these ass本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。