Practical aspects of COREP and FINREP …IX European Banking Supervisors XBRL Workshop and Tutorial,...

IX European Banking Supervisors XBRL Workshop and Tutorial, Practical Aspects of COREP and FINREP Implementation with XBRL, Paris

2008-09-30

2006-2008 © Business Reporting – Advisory Group 1

Practical aspects of COREP and FINREP implementation with XBRL

IX European Banking Supervisors XBRL Workshop and Tutorial

Michal Piechocki

Paris, 30 September 2008

2006-2008 © Business Reporting – Advisory Group Sp. z o.o.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to warmly thank allthe participants of the survey and theirsubstantial and committed contribution to its development and prompt response.


2008-09-30



Disclaimer

• The information provided by this presentation is for educational, communication and information purposes only and is not intended to constitute official review of the COREP and FINREP implementation status nor state official

• The survey was conducted in a limited time and it was agreed with theparticipants that further study should be carried for review, update and clarification, which is stated in the Conclusions and Recommendations section

• The author does not assume and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person or entity for any claims, damages, liability or other loss resulting from any use of or reliance on this information

• The survey implemented an approach allowing, wherever possible, for limited and defined set of answers (e.g. YES/NO). The author is aware of a limitation resultingfrom this approach and suggests that the consecutive study replaces thosequestions with a scale-based responses or allows for comments


Agenda

Model implementation plan: big picture

Survey presentation

Survey results presentation

Conclusions and recommendations


2008-09-30



feasibility analisys

Detailed analisys of existing situation with regard to implementation of XBRL

Knowledge acquisitionPlanning of financial and human resources and attainable project timeframe

Specifications of requirements

Model implementation plan


implementation



2008-09-30



implementation

Documentation, plan, resources

Processes and

procedures

Tools and Technologies

Knowledge and

experience

preparation



implementation

showcase

Communication!

internal external



2008-09-30



implementation

development

taxonomy reporting platform

.xbrl



implementation

development

taxonomy

regulations data model XBRL taxonomy


XBRL metadata

processes and procedures

architecture and modularization


2008-09-30



implementation

development

reporting platform

REPORTINGCHAIN


Report generating/

creating

Transfer/ Receiving

Validation

Mapping/ DB design

Analysis & Publication


implementation

development

reporting platform

development using own resources only

development using available tools as

components

purchase of the solution covering entire reporting chain

independency customization possibility

time and effort minimizing less knowledge required



2008-09-30



implementation

testing

A+

A

B

C

D

E

evaluation&

improvement

Fool-proof testing

Validation procedures

Common errors

Performance issues



implementation

pilot project

Real time / real data tests

Feedback from the market



2008-09-30



maintenance

stability functionality

versioning information

v.1 v.2



Survey introduction

• Participants

▫ Selection of representatives from National / Central Banks listed on the CEBS Network mailing list

▫ Representatives indicated on the COREP & FINREP extensions project list (website)

• Efficiency

▫ Sent to 10 European National / Central Banks

▫ Received answers from 7 entities

▫ Response: 70%

▫ Included in the survey results: 6 entities (1 came today)

• Time

▫ 09.09.2008 – 29.09.2008

• 108 fields of first-level information about implementation aspects


2008-09-30



Survey scope

• Strategy (37 fields)

▫ Goal

▫ Organisation

▫ Development of taxonomy

▫ Development of reporting platform

▫ Communication

▫ Schedule / timeline alignment

▫ Support

• Taxonomy (47 fields)

▫ Domain

▫ Technical


Survey scope

• Reporting platform (24 fields)

▫ Technology

▫ Mechanism

▫ Address of website

▫ Validation engine

▫ Mapping mechanism

▫ Analysis software

▫ Encryption, authentication mechanism

▫ Comprehensive single access point for preparers


2008-09-30



Goal statement

83%

17%

Number of projects with goal stated explicitly

Goal present

No goal

• Goals emphasized:

• Integration of banking sector in EU

• Applying recommendation of CEBS

• Enable XBRL as optional standard of filing

• but also…. meeting colleagues


COREP & FINREP: projects number

100%

0%

Number of projects implementing COREP

Yes

No

83%

17%

Number of projects implementing FINREP

Yes

No


2008-09-30



COREP & FINREP: open vs closed reporting

20%

80%

FINREP*

Open

Closed

17%

83%

COREP

Open

Closed

* out of 5


Total number of target financial institutions

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6

Total number of institutions

• Average: 600 entities

• Minimum: 100

• Maximum: 2200


2008-09-30



Departments involved

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Not involved

Involved


Experts involved

33%

50%

0%

0% 17%External

0

1 to 2

3 to 5

6 to 10

16%0%

67%

0%

17%

Domain

0

1 to 2

3 to 5

6 to 10

10+

0%

50%33%

0%

17%

Technical

0

1 to 2

3 to 5

6 to 10

10+

33%

50%

17%

Total

1 to 5

6 to 10

10+


2008-09-30



Taxonomy development

67%

33%

Process

Internal

External


Reporting platform development

72%

28%

Process

Internal

External

50%33%

17%

Development

In house

Components

Full solution


2008-09-30



Communication with software vendors

• 100% declared liaison with CEBS Network

33%

67%

Website for software vendors

Available

Not available

33%

67%

Seminars for software vendors

Provided

Not provided

33%

67%

Dedicated contact line

Provided

Not provided


Communication with preparers

0%50%

100%

Website

Seminars

Dedicated

Provided

Not provided


2008-09-30



Alignment of timeline

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

COREP

FINREP

IFRS

Yes

No


Pilot project

25%

75%

Scope

Full

Limited

50%25%

25%

Participants

Selected

Voluntary

All

Exemplary numbers of participants inpilot projects: 170, 9, 4

67%

33%

Pilot project

Conducted

Not conducted


2008-09-30



Supporting tools for preparers

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Interface

DOC

PDF

Application

Other

XLS

HTML0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Temporary /

Continuous

Not defined

Continuous

Temporary


Domain: COREP & FINREP

• COREP

▫ Mostly both solo and consolidated (66%)

▫ Very often annually and quarterly (50%), often half-yearly and monthly (33%)

• FINREP

▫ Consolidated (40%), both (40%)

▫ Monthly (40%), quarterly (40%), annually (40%)

▫ Local GAAP not used (80%), used (20%)


2008-09-30



Taxonomy: COREP

67%

16%

17%

Document, entity data identified separately

Yes

No

Unknown

67%

16%

17%

Version

1.2.4

1.2.2

1.2.1

83%

17%

Extension

Yes

No


Use of elements and best practices: COREP

• Number of extended elements varies from 4 to 700+

• Percentage of COREP elements used varies from 10% to 85%

33%

67%

XBRL BP

Yes

No

67%

33%

COREP BP

Yes

No


2008-09-30



Language used for documentation

67%

33%

EN

Yes

No

34%

33%

33%

Languages

National only

National and other

EN only


Type of documentation for COREP

• Architecture: 50%

• Design style guide: 17%

• Preparers guide: 67%

• Extenders guide: 0%

0% 50% 100%

Architecture

Design style guide

Preparers guide

Provided Not declared


2008-09-30



Taxonomy: FINREP

60%20%

20%

Document, entity data identified separately

Yes

No

Unknown

100%

0%

Extension

Yes

No


Use of elements and best practices: FINREP

• Number of extended elements varies from 350 to 2000+

• Percentage of FINREP elements used varies from 20% to 80%

60%

40%

XBRL BP

Yes

No

80%

20%

FINREP BP

Yes

No


2008-09-30



Language used for documentation

60%

40%

EN

Yes

No

40%

20%

40%

Languages

National only

National and other

EN only


Type of documentation for FINREP

• Architecture: 40%

• Design style guide: 0%

• Preparers guide: 60%

• Extenders guide: 0%

0% 50% 100%

Architecture

Design style guide

Preparers guide

Provided Not declared


2008-09-30



Data model: COREP

• XLS used in 100% cases

• Automatic derivation of data model: 0%

83%

17%

Data model created

Yes

No


Data model: FINREP

• In 100% cases data model was constructed

• In 100% cases XLS was the technology behind

• No one derived the taxonomy automatically


2008-09-30



Technologies used for reporting platform

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Java

.NET

Other

Yes

No

Other technologies used: J2EE, XSLT, XQuery


Reporting platform

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Website

Webservice

FTP

Other

Enabled

Not used


2008-09-30



Validation engine

• All projects declared validation engine to be implemented

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

XML

XBRL

Dimensions

Taxonomy

Contexts

Conducted

Not conducted


Business rules validation

• All declared support for business rules validation on the validator side

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proprietary XBRL Formulas

Not supported

Supported


2008-09-30



Mapping & analysis

67%

33%

Mapping mechanism

Used

Not used

50%50%

Analysis enabled

Yes

No


Security & authentication

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Login and password

Digital signature

Transfer encryption

Used

Not used


2008-09-30



Comprehensive interface for preparers

67%

33%

Complete reporting

Yes

No (COREP & FINREP only)


Conclusions

• Different requirements, different approaches

• Positive signs

▫ Best practices

▫ Discussion on harmonisation

▫ Growing volume of documentation

▫ Growing experience with software

• Questions

▫ How to discuss harmonisation when there is no common language?

▫ Consideration for implementation guidance

▫ Insufficient implementation knowledge


2008-09-30



Next steps

• Expanding the study

▫ Review of the survey and update if necessary

▫ Detailed technical comparison of taxonomies (difficulty with scope definition)

▫ Detailed analysis of software functionality

• Recommendation for implementation guidance definition

Michal PiechockiBR-AG [email protected]

http://www.br-ag.eu

Thank you

http://www.br-ag.eu/



Practical aspects of COREP and FINREP …IX European Banking Supervisors XBRL Workshop and Tutorial,...

Documents

Transcript of Practical aspects of COREP and FINREP …IX European Banking Supervisors XBRL Workshop and Tutorial,...