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

1. The 6thUniv. of Kansas International Conference on XBRL Past, Current and Future Auditor Involvement with SEC Registrant's XBRL Exhibits Paul Penler– Ernst & Young LLP

2. 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

3. AUP and F&R engagements

4. 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

5. 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

6. AUP XBRL demand

7. Other services for audit and non-audit clients

8. Non AUP/F&R services • Examinations • Supporting development of creation processes and controls • Supporting development of XBRL consumption • Financial system implementation support • Other

9. Utilizing the XBRL data on financial audits

10. 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

11. It’s all about data quality When will quality XBRL data be easily accessible? One perspective in August 2009