DistributionofXBRLinEurope.pptxVIP

 Best Practices   XIII European Banking Supervisors XBRL Workshop. Luxembourg, 24th November 2010  Katrin Schmehl CEBS XBRL Operational Network Distribution of XBRL in Europe quality time cost eu-related harmonization enhanced analysis interoperability standard transparency BSI-MIR FINREP COREP Modularisation How changes were adapted to the national needs? Large report Medium report Small report Custom report FINREP superset of reports Expected: Best Practices Best Practices Responsibility of the CEBS XBRL Operational Network Best Practices + Harmonisation efforts on  basis of the XBRL instances /index.php?title=Best_Practices_on_Data_Definitions Best Practices on Data Definitions Best Practices: Precision / decimal attributes No possibility to adjusting the precision on a COREP table All tables are going to be reported in full Euro amounts (incl. 2 decimals) ? no reporting of rounded values Overcomes the difficulties in rounding ? eases the electronic reporting Agreeing on a certain value of the decimals attribute and establishing this as a best practice for EUROFILING will help financial institutions deal with creating instance documents. From the current perspective the greater common nominator required by the European supervisors is decimals=2. Best Practices: Nil, null, zero and blank values zero value: The value of the fact is 0. null value: The value of the fact is not known or cant be received. not applicable information: The value is an inapplicable information. Numeric values including zero are to reporting as facts in an instance. Unknown or not applicable information should not be included in an instance. The according fact should be left out. If a fact with a nil attribute is sent then the value should be treated as not existing and to be ignored. Best Practices: Reporting institution identification If available the MFI ID code should be used as value of the xbrli:identifier element in the instance to report on COREP a