I continued playing until I found a document with relevant info near the search term "subsidiar", and it seems there is no standard place to disclose subsidiaries. For example, the following document has a single phrase at the start of Part 1 mentioning the company's two wholly owned subsidiaries (I didn't check the document to see if it discloses any non-wholly-owned subsidiaries).
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1349976/000114420413044838/v350454_10k.htm I've found a document where in Item 15 it lists "Active Subsidiaries of the Registrant", which can then be searched for in the document to determine ownership %. Another document calls it "List of Subsidiaries" in Item 15. A strange thing is that a subsidiary StarTrak Systems, LLC was sold to ORBCOMM Inc., yet it's also described as being a wholly-owned subsidiary - my understanding is that the deal has not yet been closed. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/98618/000009861813000011/k10_063013.htm The same document lists subsidiaries under a "Principles of Consolidation" heading, in case that heading appears in other documents. Similar headings in further documents include "Basis of Presentation" and "Basis of Presentation and Consolidation". It may be worthwhile to compile a list of these. "Percentage of Ownership" seems to be a popular column heading. It may be worthwhile to add a field to the data collection form to express the user's certainty as to whether all wholly-owned subsidiaries mentioned in the document have been collected. For example, one document in the "forward looking statements" before Part 1 explicitly says that the company has five wholly-owned subsidiaries, which makes me certain that I've found all five: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1425173/000101968713003726/novagen_10k-123112.htm Another document helpfully says "We do not have any subsidiaries." but it seems most are not so helpful. If there is no mention of subsidiaries, does that mean there are no subsidiaries? Should a button be added for cases where no info can be found, or should I just click the "it's complicated" button? In once case the list is described as "previously filed", with no other mention of subsidiaries. Similarly, this document says it has subsidiaries, but doesn't name them. Should a button be added to report these cases, or should I just click the "it's complicated" button? http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1435936/000143593613000153/f10k_20130531r5.htm Have you noticed cases where in one part of the document, a subsidiary is described as wholly-owned, but is later described as not wholly-owned? e.g. How much attention should be paid to verb tenses? Some documents don't give the jurisdiction of subsidiaries. What to do? I can't submit the form without filling in the jurisdiction, but I would expect that a partially filled form is better than no form? For example: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1020477/000135448813004921/robk_10k.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/825322/000121390013005438/f10k2013_mphase.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/896429/000118811213002827/t77452_10k.htm The instructions should perhaps warn that some documents mention the subsidiaries of other companies, so it's important to check that you're reporting about the right company. Most confusingly, the following document starts talking about companies with entirely different names as though they are the subject of the document: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1496741/000116169713000700/form_10-k.htm Lastly, I'd eliminate one click and put the "Step 1" content after the other content on "Step 3". James On 2013-10-03, at 1:09 PM, James McKinney wrote: > Hi Seb, > > I've tried the game, but I'm getting very long (50+ page) documents that > don't seem to have any relevant information near search terms like > "subsidiar", "own", "wholly", etc. It may be the case that these documents > have no subsidiary information. However, I also notice that the two documents > I've looked at so far have identical tables of contents. Could you provide > instructions as to which section(s) within this (at least somewhat) standard > table of contents would contain the relevant information, to avoid having to > carefully read 50+ pages? > > Examples: > > http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50292/000091431713000879/form10k-131780_ieh.htm > http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/874710/000114420413052878/v355226_10k.htm > > Thanks! > > James > > On 2013-10-03, at 7:39 AM, Seb Bacon wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> If you fancy helping turn unscrapeable info about corporate control >> networks into open data, consider having a go at our >> fun-for-all-the-family game! >> >> Background: >> http://blog.opencorporates.com/2013/10/02/help-uncover-corporate-networks/ >> >> Game: >> http://opencorporates.com/games/secfilings >> >> We know it's a bit rough around the edges, but our goal with this >> iteration was to make it good enough that 100 people could >> successfully use it to add relationships. If you can give it a go, >> ask your partner, your children, your grandparents, that would be >> great! >> >> Feedback to [email protected] please >> >> Thanks >> >> Seb >> >> >> -- >> skype: seb.bacon >> mobile: 07790 939224 >> land: 01531 671074 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> developers-public mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >> >> Unsubscribe: >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/james%40opennorth.ca > _______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
