New corep finrep experiences
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 14

New COREP & FINREP - Experiences PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 185 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

New COREP & FINREP - Experiences. 5 May 2014 | Rome Owen Jones | CRR Taxonomy Project EBA. New COREP & FINREP – EBA Experiences. The chicken and egg problem The “two level” problem DPM / taxonomy s plit & the wider process Validation rules The near future.

Download Presentation

New COREP & FINREP - Experiences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


New corep finrep experiences

New COREP & FINREP - Experiences

5 May 2014 | Rome

Owen Jones | CRR Taxonomy Project EBA


New corep finrep eba experiences

New COREP & FINREP – EBA Experiences

  • The chicken and egg problem

  • The “two level” problem

  • DPM / taxonomy split & the wider process

  • Validation rules

  • The near future


The chicken and egg problem

The “Chicken and Egg” Problem

  • The format and tools

    • working at the edge of the XBRL standard

    • using the “under development” Table linkbase

    • DPM approach and highly dimensional XBRL had had limited exposure.

      • How can you define and impose a Europe wide reporting format in the absence of widespread software to build, test, check & use it ?

      • How will the market build such software in the absence of an agreed format?

  • Testing

    • Much larger data model than in most previous XBRL projects, everything changing at once – the legislation, policy, business model, data gathering and reporting chain

      • Limited realistic test data – and unlikely to be any until real reporting imminent


The market based kevin costner solution

The Market Based / Kevin Costner Solution:

  • “If you build it … they will come”

    • Field of Dreams - 1989

  • A wide variety of software vendors and consultancies have developed solutions – as have many reporting institutions.

  • A selection can be seen over these two days.

    • Developed the format whilst the standard was still being worked on

    • Inevitably we have ended up using a non-finalised version.

    • Expect the EBA to update to the finalised version in a future release.


The reporting landscape the two level problem

The Reporting Landscape – The “Two Level” Problem

  • Each CA has choice of mechanism for first level reporting

  • How should the EBA communicate precise data requirements in the absence of a common format?

  • Who is responsible for what?

EBA XBRL

CA

Reporters

Vendors

EBA XBRL

Own XBRL

EBA

CA

Reporters

Vendors

Own format

CA

Reporters

Vendors


The reporting landscape

The Reporting Landscape

EBA XBRL

Reporters

CA

Vendors

XBRL Taxonomy Relevant

EBA XBRL

Own XBRL Taxonomy

EBA

CA

Reporters

Vendors

EBA XBRL

EBA XBRL

Own format

Reporters

CA

Vendors

DPM Relevant


The reporting landscape experience

The Reporting Landscape - Experience

  • Fairly complex landscape

  • Fuzzy responsibilities

  • Uncertain communication channels

  • Has taken time for all CAs to make and communicate their decisions

  • Even when using EBA XBRL, many practical questions on first level reporting remain the domain of the CAs.

EBA XBRL

CA

Reporters

Vendors

EBA XBRL

Own XBRL

EBA

CA

Reporters

Vendors

Own format

CA

Reporters

Vendors


Dpm taxonomy split

DPM / Taxonomy Split

  • What should the Data Point Model be for?

    • Communication?(to precisely define/explain ITS)

    • Data collection? (to create a taxonomy)

    • Analysis? (to support usage of the data)

Regulations

Transmit to EBA

Taxonomy

DPM

Templates

Report to CA

Instructions

Understand Data Requirements

Validations

Analyse Data?

EBA Business experts

EBA IT experts

Competant Authorities

Credit Institutions


Dpm taxonomy split experience

DPM / Taxonomy Split - Experience

  • Good:

    • Get good, helpful feedback in Consultations

    • Get feedback on DPM from people who would be uninterested in / unable to understand XBRL

  • Bad:

    • Consultation timescales not long enough (DPM + particularly XBRL)

      • Relatively little feedback

      • Get significant feedback after the official window

    • XBRL savvy are often uninterested in engaging until XBRL available.

      • Miss the chance to influence at DPM stage


The process

The Process

  • Fairly linear:

    • ITS and templates  DPM  XBRL Taxonomy

    • Each stage consulted on and finalised before the next.

  • Experienced typical “waterfall” issues:

    • Problems "set in stone" by the time they are realised

  • Little chance to correct errors/improve impact of decisions of earlier stages

  • Slippage of early steps (e.g. regulation, ITS) cuts time for later ones

  • Consultations only pick up views of the main audience for each individual step (e.g. policy for ITS text/templates, technical for XBRL)


Future improvements

Future Improvements

  • Since size & technical innovation in future releases will be less

    • Can aim to bring the ITS, DPM and Taxonomy releases together

    • Maximise time for adjustment/correction

    • Engage the complete audience at once

  • Approach

    • Avoid specific consultations with (very) short windows

    • Keep an “always open” channel for feedback on DPM and XBRL

    • Incorporate later feedback in next version or patches.


  • Validation r ules

    Validation Rules

    • Including and publishing validation rules was ambitious:

      • Time pressure, lack of test data, systems, performance concerns etc

      • But necessary to trigger development in reporter/CA systems

  • EBA recently published a list of rules that should not be applied

  • Expect a patch update to the 2.0.1 taxonomy removing the disabled rules to be published shortly


  • Near future complexity outline 2014 15 timeline

    Near Future Complexity – Outline 2014/15 Timeline

    August ‘13

    December ‘13

    May ‘14

    September ‘14

    January ‘15

    June ‘15

    October ‘15

    • For the next 6 months

      • Increasing overlap of multiple phases of taxonomy development, patches, implementation and usage

      • Rapid change

      • Even shorter timescales

    • After that – gets better, settle into regular (semi)annual update cycle

    XBRL Dev

    Implementation

    L1 Submission

    ITS & DPM

    XBRL Dev

    Implementation

    L1 Submission

    L2 Remittance

    ITS & DPM

    ITS & DPM

    XRBL Dev

    Refine+Patch

    L2 Remittance

    Implementation

    L1 Submission

    XBRL Development

    Refine+Patch

    L2 Remit.

    Implementation

    L1 Submission

    L2 Remittance


    New corep finrep experiences

    • Owen Jones

      • [email protected]


  • Login