Transcript 16th XBRL International Conference

“The importance of versioning for the
European COREP/FINREP taxonomy projects”
December 5, 2007
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


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
Global best practices
Basel II, IAS/IFRS …
European Law
EC 2006/48 & 49 …
9X,XX% best practices + EU requirements
Transposition into
national Legislation
Country 1
Country 2
Country 3
Country 27
National Regulation
Sup. 1
NCB 2
FSA 3
CEBS
Sup. 27
National Implementation
Report 1
----------------------------------
Report 2
Report 3
Report 27
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XBRL challenge!
Didactic model for explanatory purposes only
Basel II
IFRS
XBRL National implementation
XBRL
(National)
Basel II
IFRS
XBRL
(Europe)
Bank
Supervisor
Internet
Bank operations,
controls….
Presentation,
Analysis…
Errors
Errors
Bank Management
IS Supervisory
Basel II
IFRS
Operations
Counterparties
Collateral
…
to
XBRL
from
XBRL
Report
----------------------------
Report
XBRL Europe
----------------------------
File Transfer (National)
Basel II
IFRS
Reports
Other data
…
…
XBRL (optional or
compulsory)
Belgium
•Cyprus
•Denmark
•France
•Finland
•Germany
•Italy
•Lithuania
•Luxemburg
•Netherlands
•Norway,
•Poland
•Spain
•
Definitely Other Format
Austria, Czech,
Denmark, Eesti, Latvia,
Portugal, Slovak,
Sweden, UK
Interested in XBRL
Hungary, Estonia,
Greece, Lithuania,
Bulgaria, Italy
No information
•
Source: www.c-ebs.org
IT standards on filing among European Banking Supervisors
XBRL
COREP Taxonomy
FINREP(IFRS) Taxonomy
Belgian extension of FINREP
version 1.2
XBRL
Jurisdiction
Belgium
Compulsary
Belgian extension of COREP
version 1.2.4
Provisional
Cyprus
Compulsory
Version 1.2.3 dated 2007-02-02
Denmark
For the future - XBRL based on the EU taxonomy
Provisional
Finland
Optional
Versio 1.2, perustuu EU-tason taksonomian versioon 1.2.4
COREP-Fin-taksonomia 30.04.2007
In construction
France
Compulsory
COREP Extension Taxonomy
05.02.2007 (Version 1.2)
Taxonomy Version 1.2
Provisional
Germany
Optional
Taxonomy version 1.2.4
Planned
Yes
Greece
No
No
No
In construction
Ireland
Optional
Version 1.2
Taxonomy Version 1.2
Yes
Italy
No
.
In construction
Lithuania
Compulsory
XBRL 2.1 dimension 1.0
XBRL 2.1 dimension 1.0
Luxemburg
compulsory in
2008
Luxembourg XBRL Taxonomy for
COREP
Luxembourg XBRL Taxonomy for
FINREP
In construction
Netherlands
Optional
Taxonomy Version 1.2.3
Version 1.2
Yes
Norway
Optional
Will be 1.2.3 unless a new version
is released within first half 2007
In construction
Poland
Compulsory
Version 1.2 Release 3
Provisional
Spain
Compulsory
Version 1.2.2
Yes
SIZE ???
Svetlana Shekerdjieva
Core Team:
Supervisors
Workshops:
8 editions * DE, ES, IT, BE, GR +
70+ attendees Non Supervisors

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
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 +….

Dimensions: required for COREP

Versioning: Mainly CEBS team plus contract with consultant.

Formulas: Deep involvement of CEBS team, contract in course.

Close relationship with IFRS XBRL Team 
◦ Proposed by Charles Hoffman
◦ Main developers: Ignacio Hernández-Ros + Walter Hamscher
◦ Test cases, proof of concept tools and three (3) rewriting cycles of
COREP taxonomy, by the CEBS team.
◦ 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
MS Excel
XBRL
mapped into
templa
template
templa
.XSD
template
template
.XSD
.XSD
template
.XSD
.XSD
.XSD
consists of
primary
primary
.XSD
.XSD
dimension.
dimension
.XSD
.XSD
.
imports
imports
COREP Taxonomy
Version 1.2
dimension.
dimension
.XSD
.XSD
common
.
primary
.XSD
i
m
p
o
r
t
s
primary
primary
.XSD
.XSD
.
imports
i
m
p
o
r
t
s
template
template
.XSD
.XSD
imports
imports
FINREP Taxonomy
Version 1.2
IFRS
dated 2006-08-15
taxonomy
.XSD
dimension.
dimension
.XSD
i
m
p
o
r
t
s
.XSD
common
.
primary
.XSD
.
i
m
p
o
r
t
s
template
template
.XSD
.XSD
flexible
.
dimension
.
dimension
.XSD
.XSD
common
.
primary
.XSD
CEBS
i Taxonomies
m
p
o
r
t
s
template
template
.XSD
.XSD
two years period
IFRS
Taxonomy
taxonomy
.XSD
yearly

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.

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
Diffing
Diffing
Diffing
container
container
container
Visualise information
Analyse differences
interface
Global support for supply
chains and change managers
Diffing
Diffing
Versioning
container
container
container
Add comments,
i.e. Spanish vs. German
COREP extension taxonomy

Diffing
container





XVS defines all information to be
compared between two taxonomy
versions.
XVS defines equivalences between
concepts, relationships and
resources
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”.


On basis of the events identified by the
XBRL software supporting XBRL versioning
comments and documentation should be
able to be added.
Visualise information
Analyse differences
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.
Versioning
container
Versioning Report
Mapping
rules
Assignment
Assignment
Assignment
Action
Action
Action
Event
Event
Event
From DTS
Concept or
Resource (A)
Assignment
To DTS
Corresponds to
Concept or
Resource (B)
Action
Documentation
Event
Differences
Categories
Documentation
Version


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

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

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.


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
not all
not all
not all


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
all
all


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
FROM DTS
i SalesCanada
To DTS
i Sales
i SalesSpain
i A Canada
i SalesGermany
i A Spain
i A Germany


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).
www.c-ebs.org
www.corep.info
www.finrep.info
Ignacio Boixo
[email protected] / [email protected]
+34 618 52 64 34
Katrin Schmehl
[email protected]
+49 69 9566 6584
The XBRL Network of the