6th University of Kansas International Conference on XBRL Transparency, Assurance, and Analysis April 26, 2013 J. Louis Matherne Chief of Taxonomy Development

 Key Goals for 2013  FASB Financial Data Analysis  ASU Integration  Understanding User Requirements  UGT Element Usage Topics 2

 Concurrent Taxonomy Exposure Drafts (TED) /Implementation Guides (IG) with Accounting Standards Updates Exposure Drafts  Help drive improvements in data quality  Promote a stable taxonomy  XBRL Implementation Guides  Increase input from data aggregators / users  Establish banking / financial services industry group  Support change management for all constituents Key Goals for

FASB Financial Data Analysis 4

 FASB XBRL Team assists in obtaining financial statement data  Disclosure topics where we have provided data: -Expected return of pension plan assets -FVO disclosures -Repurchase agreements -Joint ventures of REITs -Accounting changes and error corrections -Business combinations -Segments -Unremitted foreign earnings -Revenue recognition element use and label terminology FASB Data Requests 5

Query:  Identify trend in expected return on plan assets Can this be obtained through XBRL data? XBRL Data Example 3 – FASB Data Request 6

Key: Element Name 7

XBRL Data Example 3 – FASB Data Request Run query 8

XBRL Data Example 3 – FASB Data Request Results Exported to Excel 9

XBRL Data Example 3 – FASB Data Request Average 7.74%7.49%7.34%7.08%7.23% Median 8.00% 7.75%7.50% Mode 8.00% 7.50% Max 12.30% 15.00%14.25%9.20% Min 2.50%1.40%0.40%0.24%3.00% Count Results - Table 10

ASU Integration 11

12

Financial Reporting Model Accounting Standard Setters Data Modelers Focus is on Principles Focus is on Application Traditional print media New digital media 13

On FASB Agenda Deliberate Ballot Exposure Draft DeliberateBallot Final Watch Engage Model Disclosure Expose Taxonomy Fragment Revise Final Accounting Standards Update (ASU) Exposure Process Create example disclosure with ASU Project Team Create elements & modeling Create instance document Expose TED concurrent with ASU ED Revise based on public feedback and Board deliberations Release in base taxonomy as complete Steps Taxonomy Exposure Draft (TED) Process Taxonomy Exposure Draft Process 14

 XBRL team member assigned to project team based on topic area  Participation/presence at Board discussions  Links on website between exposure documents and XBRL ASU Taxonomy change page  Benefits of earlier integration in the process  Inform standard setting process  Conceptually align approach  Consider implications of data model  Assist with research Accounting Standards Updates 15

Recent Projects  Reclassifications from AOCI -Discussions with project team influenced modeling - users wanted effect of reclassification adjustments on Income Statement line items -XBRL Team prepared memo to Board on impact to UGT of presentation considerations -Participated in Board meeting to discuss memo -Follow up with Board member individually for further discussion -Resulted in ASU containing XBRL team recommendation (parenthetical requirement)  Repurchase Agreements -Discussions with project team on differences in definition of repurchase agreements between ASUs (Balance Sheet Offsetting and Repurchase Agreements) -Identified need for additional element to reconcile 16

Recent Projects  Revenue Recognition -Discussions with project team regarding impact to UGT of changes to presentation and disclosure requirements from original ED -Identified area in which XBRL data could assist project team with research -Clarified intent regarding contract assets/liabilities resulting in potential less impact to UGT  Discontinued Operations -Discussions with project team on appearance of redundancy in disclosure requirements, inconsistency in implementation guidance and reversion of definition -Result is clarification of disclosure, removal of inconsistencies in exposure draft and update of NTS for change in definition 17

Review of ASU Impact to UGT – XBRL Team  Most current draft available/listen to Board discussions -Important to understand underlying accounting & user expectations -Scope changes impact -Focus on presentation / disclosure areas and implementation guidance section  Identify areas of UGT that will be impacted -Flat file useful for filtering (references, element search) -Amendment section of ASU -Identify disclosure sections of UGT impacted -Consider impact to other areas (cash flow, disclosure overlap) 18

Review of ASU Impact to UGT – XBRL Team  Assess impact -New elements -Deprecations -Definition changes (conform to style guide) -Calculation relationship changes (additions, deletions) -Reference changes (additions, deletions)  Structure appropriateness -Dimension/Line item approach -Balance type - Income or cash flow perspective -Period type – consider context guide -Item type – consider EFM, SEC Staff Interpretations Question E.21, unit registry -Conform to XBRL Style Guide 19

Review of ASU Impact to UGT – XBRL Team  Discussion with project team -Prepare targeted questions to clarify open items  If extensive may be helpful to show specific section of ASU compared to section of UGT  Expectations of line items for general requirements  Which amounts expected to agree to face financials  Expectation of further breakdowns of values  Impact to other areas of Codification/UGT  Discussion with TAG  Modeling considerations 20

Meeting Data Provider Requirements 21

Data quality and assurance Extensions are a concern but can be manageable Tagged earnings release Greater coverage of the 10K and 10Q Reported fact value relationships matter Much analysis is performed based on topic How to identify changes from filing to filing and taxonomy to taxonomy Prefer tabular information over narrative Expressed concern that service providers are providing conflicting guidance Looking forward to inline XBRL What we know so far about data provider expectations 22

Revised, streamlined, and stable calculation hierarchy Stabilize taxonomy but XBRL taxonomy and instances will continue to change Need to focus on better change management from a data provider perspective FASB – Addressing data provider requirements 23

UGT Element Usage 24

UGT Element Usage Ks 25 “Rough” Estimate

UGT Element Usage Ks 26 “Rough” Estimate

27

28

29

30

31

32 UGT Element Usage Assume All Used Equally Normalized?

33 UGT Element Usage Target?

UGT Element Usage – Ideal? 34 UGT Element Usage Target?

Questions? 35

Bonus Slides 36

Data Modeling in the Standard Setting Process 37

Modeling ASU Presentation and Disclosure Requirements  Shift from modeling based on: -Paper-based financial reports presentations -COD/ASU descriptions and related implementation presentations  Shift modeling to: -Consideration of underlying relationships among fact values -Contemplation of data consumption 38

Questions we need to ask 1. WHAT is the underlying relationships of reported fact values based on common or unique disclosure structures? 2. WHAT is the best way to capture the underlying relationship - through a calculation or dimensional model? 3. WHAT is the most effective way to provide the information to data consumers? 39

The General Principles Behind Our “Data Modeling” Approach General Principles:  Recognize Primary Domain - Primary Line Items  For example, Balance Sheet items, or “Revenue” etc.  Identify Secondary Attributes or Disaggregation – Dimension  Each disclosure is a further description of face statement fact value attributes 40

Connect Financial Reports Analysis with Data Modeling Other Considerations:  Same Facts Should be Modeled in the Same Way  Users’ Perspective/Business Objective -Example Reclassification from AOCI ASU The Board received requests from financial statement users looking for the effect of reclassification adjustments on INCOME STATEMENT LINE ITEMS; AOCI and reclassification components are two fact value attributes of the primary domain and are modeled as dimensions. 41

7 “What” Questions We Should Ask During the Data Modeling Process * Subject to circumstance where no actual financial reports available 42

43

44

Organize the Disclosures in the “Template” 45

Data Model Scorecard® A tool that helps us evaluate the “template” post data modeling process. Steve Hoberman & Associates, LLC 46

Example – Other Comprehensive Income 47

Disclosing Reclassifications Out of AOCI on the Face Statements How do you distinguish expense amounts before and after the effect of reclassifications out of OCI? How do you distinguish gain on sale of securities amounts before and after the effect of reclassifications out of OCI? What if there is more than reclassification adjustment? 48

Using “Line Item” Approach 49

Using “Dimension” Approach 50

OCI - Template 51

Example - Revenue Recognition 52

 Disaggregation of Revenue  An entity shall disaggregate revenue from contracts with customers (excluding amounts presented for customers’ credit risk) into the primary categories that depict how the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors. To meet the disclosure objective in paragraph , an entity may need to use more than one type of category to disaggregate revenue. Revenue Recognition – Exposure Draft 53

Examples of categories that might be appropriate include all of the following: -a. Type of good or service (for example, major product lines) -b. Geography (for example, country or region) -c. Market or type of customer (for example, government and nongovernment customers) -d. Type of contract (for example, fixed-price and time-and-materials contracts) -e. Contract duration (for example, short-term and long-term contracts) -f. Timing of transfer of goods or services (for example, revenue from goods or services transferred to customers at a point in time and revenue from -g. Sales channels (for example, goods sold directly to consumers and goods sold through intermediaries). Revenue Recognition – Exposure Draft 54

Revenue Recognition - Template 55 Preliminary Data Model of