I'd missed this story in Sunday's Seattle Times.
Anyone who's slogged though a 10-K annual report or a 10-Q quarterly report knows the feeling: The two or three key pieces of data you need are buried in pages of incomprehensible legalese. ...
That, in fact, was the theme of a breakfast-time panel last month in downtown Seattle sponsored by the Center for Audit Quality, which proved unexpectedly fascinating. (And yes, we're aware that the words "breakfast" "audit" and "fascinating" may never have appeared in the same sentence before.)
The center, an affiliate of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, is holding a series of forums around the country to discuss ways to improve how corporate financial results are reported and audited — and how to give the investing public enough information to ferret out incompetent or corrupt companies without unduly burdening the honest, competent ones.
Those of us who've attempted to mine government data have grappled with similar issues, particularly the "hide it in plain sight" response that sees a simple information request met with a mountain of minutiae.
That's why this development makes sense. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board does largely thankless work to increase transparency and accountability - stuff most often appreciated by wonks, gadflies, and ratings firm. But it's important stuff.
As pointed out by our AG in the Times story, the trade-offs aren't easy.
... state Attorney General Rob McKenna, one of the panelists, compared the financial reports to menus, with every stakeholder and interest group working to make sure the reports include at least one tasty morsel of data to their liking.
"That pension footnote is very important to somebody, even if it's not important to the average investor," McKenna said.
And speaking of pension problems.
