“The importance of versioning for the European COREP/FINREP taxonomy projects” December 5, 2007 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Background  While national supervisory authorities are free to decide on the technical transmission specifications to implement the reporting framework, CEBS considers that XBRL can be a helpful tool in constructing a harmonised European reporting mechanism.  CEBS will therefore develop an XBRL platform and make it available free of charge to national authorities and supervised institutions. XBRL taxonomies will be developed for both the COREP (COmmon REPorting - Basel II-) and FINREP (FINancial REPorting -IFRS-) frameworks.” Point 4, Cover Note to the Framework for Common Reporting of the New Solvency Ratio

Flexibility Principle Basel II, IAS/IFRS … EC 2006/48 & 49 … Country 1 Sup. 1 Report 2Report Country 3Country 2Country 27 NCB 2FSA 3Sup. 27 Report Report National Regulation Transposition into national Legislation European Law 9X,XX% best practices + EU requirements National Implementation XBRL challenge! Global best practices CEBS

CEBS XBRL EU: implementation model Bank Bank Management Operations Counterparties Collateral … Report Supervisor IS Supervisory Reports Other data … Presentation, Analysis… Bank operations, controls…. Basel II IFRS to XBRL from XBRL Basel II IFRS Report File Transfer (National) XBRL (Europe) XBRL (National) Errors Internet XBRL National implementation XBRL Europe Basel II IFRS Basel II IFRS Didactic model for explanatory purposes only

European adoption XBRL (optional or compulsory) XBRL (optional or compulsory) Belgium Belgium Cyprus Cyprus Denmark Denmark France France Finland Finland Germany Germany Italy Italy Lithuania Lithuania Luxemburg Luxemburg Netherlands Netherlands Norway, Norway, Poland Poland Spain Spain Definitely Other Format Definitely Other Format Austria, Czech, Denmark, Eesti, Latvia, Portugal, Slovak, Sweden, UK Interested in XBRL Interested in XBRL Hungary, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Italy No information No information Source: Source:

IT standards on filing among European Banking Supervisors XBRLCOREP TaxonomyFINREP(IFRS) TaxonomyXBRL Jurisdiction BelgiumCompulsaryBelgian extension of COREP version Belgian extension of FINREP version 1.2 Provisional CyprusCompulsoryVersion dated SIZE ??? DenmarkFor the future - XBRL based on the EU taxonomyProvisional FinlandOptionalVersio 1.2, perustuu EU-tason taksonomian versioon COREP-Fin-taksonomia COREP-Fin-taksonomia In construction FranceCompulsoryCOREP Extension Taxonomy (Version 1.2) Taxonomy Version 1.2Provisional GermanyOptionalTaxonomy version 1.2.4PlannedYes GreeceNo In construction Ireland OptionalVersion 1.2Taxonomy Version 1.2Yes ItalyNo. In construction LithuaniaCompulsoryXBRL 2.1 dimension 1.0 Luxemburgcompulsory in 2008 Luxembourg XBRL Taxonomy for COREP Luxembourg XBRL Taxonomy for FINREP In construction NetherlandsOptionalTaxonomy Version 1.2.3Version 1.2Yes NorwayOptionalWill be unless a new version is released within first half 2007 In construction PolandCompulsoryVersion 1.2 Release 3Provisional SpainCompulsoryVersion 1.2.2Yes Svetlana Shekerdjieva

Project Management Weekly Conf. Call Yahoogroups 300+ Workshops: 8 editions * 70+ attendees Website, News & Communication Core Team: Supervisors DE, ES, IT, BE, GR + Non Supervisors

Welcome to the Euro-XBRL Banking Supervisors Homepage!

CEBS XBRL Resources  Ownership & Intellectual Property: CEBS Secretariat Ltd, UK  Allocated Budget: 0 € /Year.  Team: Supervisors (Core IT) part time + external support + Basel II & IFRS Supervision experts  Initial advice of Walter Hamscher and Carlie Hoffman  Workshop logistics provided by hosting National Supervisor

CEBS XBRL Reporting Line Committee of European Banking Supervisors Expert Group on Financial Information SubGroup on Reporting COREP Network FINREP Network XBRL Network Supervisors: Katrin Schmehl, Panagiotis Voulgaris, Mark Creemers, Victor Morilla, Michele Romanelli, Jacobo Varela, Ignacio Boixo + …. Collaborators: Colm O hAonghusa, Javi Mora + ….

CEBS Contribution to XBRL community  Dimensions: required for COREP ◦ Proposed by Charles Hoffman ◦ Main developers: Ignacio Hern á ndez-Ros + Walter Hamscher ◦ Test cases, proof of concept tools and three (3) rewriting cycles of COREP taxonomy, by the CEBS team.  Versioning: Mainly CEBS team plus contract with consultant.  Formulas: Deep involvement of CEBS team, contract in course.  Close relationship with IFRS XBRL Team

XBRL Europe Contribution to CEBS ◦ Best XBRL practices both at European and National level when implementing COREP & FINREP ◦ XBRL Taxonomies acknowledgment ◦ Support on required XBRL Standards  Advocacy at CEBS level: CESR, CEIOPS, ECB, EFRAG…  Background: Kick off meeting for XBRL Europe preparation at IASCF premises in London on 18 September 2007

Modular design of the CEBS taxonomies template.XSD templa.XSD template.XSD templa.XSD template.XSD template.XSD.. dimension.XSD.. dimension.XSD primary.XSD primary.XSD c o n s i s t s o f mapped into MS Excel XBRL

Extension structure of the COREP Taxonomies.. dimension.XSD primary.XSD template.XSD i m p o r t s COREP Taxonomy Version 1.2. common primary.XSD i m p o r t s.. dimension.XSD primary.XSD template.XSD i m p o r t s

Extension structure of the FINREP Taxonomies. common primary.XSD.. dimension.XSD.. dimension.XSD template.XSD i m p o r t s template.XSD taxonomy.XSD i m p o r t s FINREP Taxonomy Version 1.2 i m p o r t s IFRS dated

Period of changes taxonomy.XSD IFRS Taxonomy. common primary.XSD.. dimension.XSD.. dimension.XSD template.XSD i m p o r t s template.XSD CEBS Taxonomies yearly two years period flexible

Current obstacles of CEBS taxonomy users  The CEBS mission is to provide a common reporting frameworks for solvency ratio and financial statements in Europe but: ◦ The definition of the reporting standards is in the responsibility of the national legislator. ◦ The level of harmonisation depends on their willingness to harmonise. ◦ The process of harmonisation will last for some time.  XBRL is useful format to incorporate the different requirements among the European supervisors but: ◦ XBRL alone is not able to achieve the aim of harmonisation. ◦ XBRL taxonomies can be as good as their underlying framework. XBRL could support the European financial institutions by providing a standardised way to handle changes and differences between taxonomies.

CEBS versioning requirements  Documentation of the changes / differences between two taxonomies ◦ two versions of the COREP or FINREP taxonomies ◦ two extension taxonomies based on CEBS taxonomies  Addition of documentation concerning changes  change category  Supporting a human readable versioning report  Capturing versioning information during and after the development process of a XBRL taxonomy  Providing a standardised syntax to be processed by XBRL software  Support for mapping processes to adopt changes automatically  Flexibility and extensibility of the versioning report to ◦ provide data from a specific point of view ◦ add supplementary information and structures

Requirements on XBRL software Diffing container interface Diffing container Versioning container Global support for supply chains and change managers Visualise information Analyse differences Add comments, i.e. Spanish vs. German COREP extension taxonomy

Detect changes / differences  XVS defines all information to be compared between two taxonomy versions.  XVS defines equivalences between concepts, relationships and resources Diffing container  VWG recommends the use of the XBRL Infoset (a description of the content of a DTS without any references to the XBRL syntax.  XBRL Infoset object model could be integrated in XBRL software that support XBRL versioning.  XBRL Infoset is pending to be approved as Public Working Draft  The differences are being defined as “events”.

Analyse and comment changes / differences  On basis of the events identified by the XBRL software supporting XBRL versioning comments and documentation should be able to be added.  Errors as well as business changes should be reflected therefore the changes need a categorisation.  Especially when changes influence the creation of the instance document, a documentation is necessary.  Changes that aren’t relevant should be able to be removed.  The versioning result should also support multi-lingual documentation. Visualise information Analyse differences

Versioning report Mapping rules Assignment Action Event Action Assignment Versioning Report Versioning container

Object model of the versioning report From DTSTo DTS Concept or Resource (A) Concept or Resource (B) Corresponds to Action Event Version Assignment Differences Documentation Categories  all defined object are optional, so the versioning report can be reduced to contain only the necessary or project relevant changes  i.e. IFRS changes with no impact on the FINREP taxonomy will not be part of the versioning report

Provisional implementation  the syntax of the versioning report is defined in an XBRL taxonomy ◦ versioning report is an instance document  tuples are used to define the structure  advantages: ◦ extensibility ◦ well-know syntax ◦ the two compared taxonomy versions aren’t directly linked  disadvantages: ◦ real intension of an instance document is a business report ◦ context has no real usage

Criteria for a preferred solution  in excess of 8,000 users across Europe have to facilitate the mapping and remapping that will arise by using any new taxonomy version / change.  the preferred solution is to be based in technology already familiar for users.  adding extra information might be useful for: ◦ Change management on mapping by financial institutions. ◦ Software vendors providing change management tools. ◦ Project teams including value added information on changes.  Easy extensibility while protecting common core is a must XBRL instance technology as a suitable option.

Versioning on dimensions  General requirement: No syntactical changes should be reported!  In terms of dimension: ◦ No report of changes that don’t influence the Cartesian product of the hypercubes ◦ No versioning information when the dimensional representation of a concept changed not all all

Versioning on dimensions  General requirement: No syntactical changes should be reported!  In terms of dimension: ◦ No report of changes that don’t influence the Cartesian product of the hypercubes ◦ No versioning information when the dimensional representation of a concept changed all

Versioning on dimensions  General requirement: No syntactical changes should be reported!  In terms of dimension: ◦ No report of changes that don’t influence the Cartesian product of the hypercubes ◦ No versioning information when the dimensional representation of a concept changed i i i SalesCanada SalesSpain SalesGermany FROM DTS i Sales i Canada i Spain i Germany A A A To DTS

Conclusions  CEBS needs to have a workable solution on versioning to increase the acceptance of the COREP and FINRE taxonomies in Europe.  The current XBRL Versioning Specification ◦ is based on XBRL 2.1. ◦ covers a great amount of the requirements. ◦ provides an extensible as well as reducible versioning report.  A subgroup inside the VWG deals with the development of the XBRL Versioning Specification on Dimensions.  COREP XBRL Network mission: provide versioning files for ◦ (1) each COREP/FINREP version/release, ◦ (2) each new IFRS version as used in FINREP, ◦ (3) each national extension (if possible).

Ignacio Boixo / Katrin Schmehl The XBRL Network of the