EBA published a discussion paper on the feasibility study on the integrated reporting system across prudential, resolution, and statistical reporting in EU. The discussion paper takes stock of the quantity and scope of current data collection to present a range of options for key areas in the development of an integrated and consistent reporting system—namely, a common data dictionary, design of a central data collection point, and the related governance aspects. In the paper, EBA has also compiled the preliminary feedback received from a survey on the use of regtech services (from institutions and regtech providers), with the aim to analyze the use of technology through regtech services. EBA is inviting feedback on the feasibility of options to increase efficiencies and reduce costs for the entire reporting ecosystem. The comment period ends on June 11, 2021 and EBA plans to use the feedback received to this paper to prepare a final report on the feasibility study.
The discussion paper on the feasibility study is a first step on the road to an integrated reporting system. It allows the identification of different options, and their pros and cons, for building an integrated reporting system. The discussion paper is an opportunity to enter into a dialog with all stakeholders on the future of regulatory reporting and to discuss how reporting processes could be made more efficient, analyze possible bottlenecks in the reporting system, and find synergies with projects already in place. To achieve this, the report considers the principle commonly referred to as "define once, report once," which means the report will consider the feasibility of a common language and dictionary for "define once" and analysis of architectures to achieve "report once." The feasibility study will analyze the feasibility of various options for creating an integrated reporting system as a way forward to reduce the reporting costs, streamline and increase the efficiency in the reporting processes, facilitate data comparability and remove overlaps (following the "define once" principle), and facilitate sharing of data and increase coordination among authorities (following the "report once principle")
The paper outlines the potential benefits and costs that an integration might have at the different steps of the reporting process chain as well as any possible interdependencies between the different steps of the reporting process chain. With respect to the key areas in the development of an integrated reporting system, the aspects in focus in the discussion paper include the following:
- Common data dictionary. A common data dictionary for prudential, statistical, and resolution data collections is considered a central piece all along the reporting process chain in this discussion paper. The data dictionary would offer a common understanding of the reporting requirements and support their design in the view of the "report once" principle. The topic of granularity can be considered in connection to the data dictionary analysis. Three scenarios for collecting data on a more granular basis are identified and assessed in the paper.
- Central data collection. The analysis on whether the creation of a Central Data Collection Point is feasible starts from a predominantly technical focus by putting forward possible design choices from a range of system architectures and topologies. Additionally, the paper explores two different data reporting architectures for data collection, the "Push" and "Pull" approaches, with the aim of gathering more evidence on the implications and the potential costs and differences of these two approaches.
- Governance. The paper also includes a broad analysis of the main governance considerations that would need to be taken into account to achieve an integrated reporting system. A more detailed assessment on these considerations would need to be performed once the different options are analyzed on data dictionary and central data collection point. The general consideration could focus on the following main topics: submission of data, access to data, data-sharing, and the general governance of the possible future integrated reporting system.
Comment Due Date: June 11, 2021
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Reporting, CRR, Basel, Integrated Reporting Framework, Statistical Reporting, Resolution Framework, EBA
Previous ArticleEBA Proposes Guidelines on Stress Tests of Deposit Guarantee Schemes
The three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) issued a letter to inform about delay in the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) mandate, along with a Call for Evidence on greenwashing practices.
The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) of the IFRS Foundations made several announcements at COP27 and with respect to its work on the sustainability standards.
The International Organization for Securities Commissions (IOSCO), at COP27, outlined the regulatory priorities for sustainability disclosures, mitigation of greenwashing, and promotion of integrity in carbon markets.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) issued a statement in the context of COP27, clarified the operationalization of intermediate EU parent undertakings (IPUs) of third-country groups
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an annual report on its activities, a report on forward-looking work.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) finalized amendments to the capital framework, announced a review of the prudential framework for groups.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hubs and several central banks are working together on various central bank digital currency (CBDC) pilots.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published the results of its thematic review, which shows that banks are still far from adequately managing climate and environmental risks.
Among its recent publications, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final standards and guidelines on interest rate risk arising from non-trading book activities (IRRBB)
The European Commission (EC) recently adopted regulations with respect to the calculation of own funds requirements for market risk, the prudential treatment of global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs)