Call for input on smarter regulatory reporting response form

We are asking for comments on this Call for Input by 20 June 2018.

Please use this online form or alternatively, send comments in writing to: RegTech & Advanced Analytics , Financial Conduct Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS

Email: [email protected]

We make all responses to formal consultation available for public inspection unless the respondent requests otherwise. We will not regard a standard confidentiality statement in an email message as a request for non-disclosure.

Despite this, we may be asked to disclose a confidential response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We may consult you if we receive such a request. Any decision we make not to disclose the response is reviewable by the Information Commissioner and the Information Rights Tribunal.

Once you complete this form, we will email you a copy of your submission to acknowledge receipt of your response.

Current Start
Your details
Complete

Q1: Are there more efficient ways to achieve machine executable reporting? Are there better ways to achieve the desired output at each step?

Q2: What technologies exist that would mean that the manual mapping work in Step 4 could be automated?

Q3: What is the most effective mechanism for collaboration by firms for addressing potential regulatory reporting ambiguity?

Q4: Are there particular regulatory reporting requirements that could most easily be adapted to machine executable reporting? For example, is a natural starting point to focus on existing requirements that apply to a small set of firms or to a large group of firms? Would a new reporting requirement or an ad hoc data request be more appropriate?

Q5: Are there any regulatory rules or policies that could be introduced to help implement machine executable reporting?

Q6: Are there any specific regulatory rules or policies that could act as a barrier to implementing machine executable reporting?

Q7: What are the opportunities in developing an open source rather than a commercial solution? How can we best use open standards and open collaboration to agree and implement the underlying architecture and approach?

Q8: Do you agree with our view of the potential benefits of machine executable reporting?

Q9: How do we ensure that the potential benefits and costs are appropriately shared across the industry?

Q10: Can you provide indicative costs of the current expense of regulatory reporting to your firm? It would be helpful if you are able to separate these costs by specific reporting requirements.

Q11: Which aspects of the current system (interpreting reporting requirements, changes to systems and processes, ongoing data submission, compliance and legal oversight) result in the most significant costs for firms?

Q12: What role would it be most useful for us to play in the progress of this work? Who should take the lead: FCA, industry or a combined approach?

Q13: Are there existing models of collaboration between industry and regulators, both within and outside financial services that could be adopted?

Q14: Do you have a view on what kind of funding model would be the most appropriate to progress the further development of the initial prototype design?

Q15: Can you provide detail on the business case potential of a move toward machine executable reporting for your firm or for firms of different sizes in general?

Q16: Are there any potential legal or other unintended consequences associated with a move toward machine executable reporting?

Q17: What is the most appropriate model to fund the development and ongoing run costs of machine executable reporting?

Q18: How can we ensure that the development of this proof of concept benefits from collaboration with international regulatory counterparts?

Q19: What kind of standards would assist the implementation of machine executable reporting? For example, would a common data model need to be established?

First published: 20/02/2018 Last updated: 20/02/2018