Reducing XBRL Extensions
For example - going from the following:
Option 1) Concept extension: Backlogamortization with Axis: Business Acquisition with extended member for the acquiree
Option 2) Concept: Amortization of Intangible Assets; Axis: Finite-Lived Intangible Assets by Major Class with "Order or Production Backlog Member"; Axis: Business Acquisition with extended member for the acquiree?
Essentially my question is, at what point does the extension render the fact "less usable" to the end-user. You can imagine how much time dimensionalizing all facts would be, so I want to efficiently add value. My concern is that once a member is extended, it leaves the fact in the same context that it was with the extended concept. Is that thecase?
It's great to hear you are reviewing your extensions. Extensions are a key focus area in improving data quality. We definitely want to avoid extensions where we can, but it is important to clarify that there are certain sections of the taxonomy that expect extension Members. These Member extensions relate to specific parts of your company (i.e. name of your plan, name of the company you acquired, etc).
Understanding the differences in the modeling for each section of the taxonomy as well as utilizing guidance (like the FASB implementation guides) can help clarify where extensions may still be appropriate. By studying each section of the taxonomy, we can bring that mapping and modeling approach into a filing.
If we look at the section of the taxonomy in your example, we can see that the type of intangible is distinguished via axis/member (as opposed to integrating into line item concept).
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.