2. Brief history of XBRL usage in Banco de españa

3. XBRL Projects Reporting requirements FINREP 2012 COREP 2012
Nº Participants: > 300
Nº Filings / year: > 1000
ECB BSI and MRI
statistics
Nº Participants: > 300
Nº Concepts (EU): ~ 1.700
Nº Dimensions (EU): 12
Mutual guarantee
Exchange offices
Nº Participants: > 300
Nº Filings/year: ~1000
Nº Concepts (EU): ~ 950
Nº Dimensions (EU): 22
Add. Concepts (ES): ~ 553
Add. Dimensions (ES): 8
Sectorial
Statements
(FINREP)
Nº Participants: > 300
Nº Filings/year: > 7000
Nº Concepts: > 650
BSI Statistics (balance sheet of the monetary financial institutions sector statistics)  
MIR Statistics (monetary financial institutions interest rate statistics)
Solvency
Information
(COREP)
Nº Participants: > 50
Nº Filings/year: > 200
Nº Concepts: > 950
Public Statements
(IFRS)
Appraisal
Companies
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

4. XBRL Projects Taxonomy development Application / infrastructure
FINREP 2012
COREP 2012
Taxonomy development
Application / infrastructure
XBRL
Prototype
Basic XBRL
Infrastructure
SIIF System
XBRL Formula
integration
Taxonomy
viewer
Forms
Database
migration
Analysis DB
evolution
SIIF Dimensions
Evolution
Nº Participants: > 300
Nº Filings / year: > 1000
ECB BSI and MRI
statistics
Model editor
Nº Participants: > 300
Nº Concepts (EU): ~ 1.700
Nº Dimensions (EU): 12
Mutual guarantee
Exchange offices
Nº Participants: > 300
Nº Filings/year: ~1000
Nº Concepts (EU): ~ 950
Nº Dimensions (EU): 22
Add. Concepts (ES): ~ 553
Add. Dimensions (ES): 8
Sectorial
Statements
(FINREP)
Nº Participants: > 300
Nº Filings/year: > 7000
Nº Concepts: > 650
Solvency
Information
(COREP)
Nº Participants: > 50
Nº Filings/year: > 200
Nº Concepts: > 950
Public Statements
(IFRS)
Appraisal
Companies
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

5. System for the Exchange of Financial Information –REPORTING PROCESS
Banco de España
Financial Institutions
System for the Exchange of Financial Information –REPORTING PROCESS
XBRL filings
SIIF
Main
Data repository
XBRL
Metadata
XBRL Formula
Validation
Process
Submissions
Management
Other applications
Validation results
Formula Validation
** Xwand:
Server: 4 server licenses: 5,000 euros / per server
Client: € per desktop
Developer: € per desktop
Translation tool
CORENET + EXDI
Helper services
Fulfilment state querying
Pre-validation
XBRL viewer
XBRL on-line forms
Taxonomy browsing
Conversion tool
Multi-channel / Multi-protocol
Communication architecture

6. Benefits of XBRL

7. Implementation of a new regulation law (classic approach)
Supervisor
Business
user
IT analyst
IT developer
System
requirements C
Code
Regulation law
Commercial bank
Business
user
IT analyst
System
requirements
IT developer C
Code

8. Data filing and validation process (classic approach)
Supervisor
Analysis
Errors detected
Notification
Validation OK
Commercial bank’s systems are debugged during the first reporting months !!!
Data extraction
Data extraction
Commercial bank
Analysis
and corrections

9. Implementation of a new regulation law (XBRL approach)
Business
user
IT analyst
Supervisor
Regulation
Law
XBRL
Taxonomy
Commercial banks
Business
user

10. Data filing and validation process (XBRL approach)
Supervisor
Analysis
Validation OK
Data extraction
& local validation
Commercial banks
Analysis
And corrections

11. The business INFORMATION reporting CHAIN

12. The business reporting reality
Transaction data
Multiple departmental Excel spreadsheets
Consolidated spreadsheets for management

13. COMPLETE AUTOMATION OF THE REPORTING PROCESS No manual intervention
Long term BENEFITS
COMPLETE AUTOMATION OF THE REPORTING PROCESS
No manual intervention
Traceability of data gathered by supervisors

14. STABILITY OF THE REPORTING PROCESS
Changes should have a minimum impact Concept identification must not change because of: Changes of naming conventions at business level (or just a correction) A concept is moved from a table to another A concept is kept from an old version in a new one Examples: Common dictionary of concepts Abstract codification

15. Don’t leave the STANDARD path
Avoid using the standard as a proprietary solution Avoid constraints that are not supported by business requirements Don’t move to XBRL taxonomies limitations in inner systems You are not alone

16. QUESTIONS?

17. Lessons learnt

18. MARKET TOOLS VS IN-HOUSE DEVELOPMENTS
Less flexibility
Solutions ready sooner
Lower maintenance costs
More stability
Consider costs of integration
In-house developments
More control
Internal dependencies
Slow evolution
TCO

19. TOOLS assisted by METADATA
Model editor
Data warehouses
Taxonomy viewer
METADATA
(taxonomy repository)
Publishing system (2013)
Instance editor
Extraction for statistics
Validation system
Submission to EBA

20. Should NSAs provide supporting tools?NO
If there is demand, the market will provide solutions
There is no such a thing as a “small” bank (appraisal companies example)
YES
Reduces the resistance to changes
Increases internal costs
Unfair competition against the market
Discourages investments by credit institutions

21. Representation in International Groups
International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation
XBRL Advisory Council (XAC)
XBRL Quality Review Team (XQRT)
XBRL International
Standards Board
Best Practices Board
Abstract Model Task Force
API Signatures Task Force
Formula Working Group
Rendering Working Group
Specification Working Group