Solvency II Status and roadmap on XBRL reporting

Marjan Trobina and Aitor Azcoaga, EIOPA

Status on XBRL reporting

2

Solvency II, preparatory phase statistics Annual reporting in July/August 2015

• Solo insurance undertakings

– 1,687 unique submissions received

– 77 % valid submissions

• Insurance groups:

– 204 unique submissions received

– 79 % submissions

3

Solvency II, preparatory phase statistics Q3 reporting in January/February 2016

• Solo insurance undertakings

– 1,487 unique submissions received

– 74 % valid submissions

• Insurance groups:

– 185 unique submissions received

– 78 % submissions

4

Full Solvency II, number of legal entitiesThe numbers of entities have reduced due to consolidation of the sector.

Total number of entities in EIOPA registers as of 31 May 2016 is:

• (re)insurance undertakings: 4.006

• (re)insurance groups: 280 domestic, 87 cross-border, in total 367

The number of entities under the Solvency II according to EIOPA registers:

• 3.106 individual (re)insurance domestic undertakings– Pending S II status for 18 additional undertakings from 2 countries

• All of 367 groups

5

Full Solvency II, use of LEI.EIOPA promotes standardisation and in this context the use of LEI.

The guidelines on use of LEI apply from 30 June 2015 for firms under S II and from 30 June 2016 for other firms.

Based on EIOPA registers as of 31 May 2016:

• 2.873 individual (re)insurance undertakings under S II have provided LEI (92,5 %)

• For groups we do not have final numbers

The reasons for non-compliance are in specifics of national adoption.

6

Roadmap on XBRL reportingEIOPA published Governance on taxonomy releases and reporting in order to provide certainty on process and schedule to the market

7

High level timeline from business change to preparedness for reporting.

8

Governance of taxonomy releases As a general rule EIOPA plans one taxonomy release per year and aims to minimise the number of taxonomy

publications and it is expected that in regular years (most of the years) only one release will occur.

9

Governance of taxonomy releases At most, one adaptive publication per year.

• Needed in case of business changes (new reporting framework) or amendments to the existing ITSs or EIOPA Guidelines; it may include also new checks

• Publication of PWD by 1 June of n year. The stakeholders will have up to 4 weeks to provide feedback.

• Publication of official DPM and Taxonomy version for reporting submission by 15 July of n year.

• First submission with new taxonomy would be Q4 of year n (6 months before reference date and 8 months before submission date)

10

Governance of taxonomy releases At most, one corrective publication per year.

• The corrective publication will only include corrections to serious defects in the implementation or corrections to defects without impact in the report generation process, but no new business requirements.

• It is expected that in the majority of years, i.e. in years without major business change, EIOPA may decide to skip the corrective.

• Confirmation by 1 December if a corrective release will be published or will be skipped.

• Publication of Taxonomy PWD version for stakeholder review by 15 January.

• Publication of official DPM and Taxonomy version for reporting submission by 28 February.

11

Detailed schedule until 2017

12

SII Taxonomy artefacts1. The Governance of Taxonomy Releases and Schedule 2016 and the Taxonomy Roadmap

2. Release Notes

3. The list of known issues of 2.0.1 (updated the 10/05/2016)

4. DPM Dictionary and Annotated Templates

5. The detailed change log between 2.0.1 and 2.0.1CR

6. EIOPA DPM Documentation

7. List of validations (updated the 10/05/2016) and supporting syntax documentation

8. XBRL Taxonomy version 2.0.1 (as taxonomy package)

9. XBRL Taxonomy Documentation

10. Filing Rules for Solvency II Reporting

11. XBRL Test Instance documents

12. The DPM database 2.0.1 (updated the 23/11/2015)

Copyright ©2016 EIOPA

Solvency II Taxonomy roadmap EIOPA has published the Solvency II Taxonomy Roadmap that defines

• The deadlines for reporting obligations for the referenced dates until the end of 2019

• The deadlines for each reference date and reporting obligation define the taxonomy release to be used.

14

Sources of changes (2.1.0 vs 2.0.1) modelling issues identified in 2.0.1 and published as EIOPA_SolvencyII_List_of_Known_Issues”

changes/corrections to the ITS and new reporting requirements (i.e. qualifying investments)

implications of the above for validations reflected in EIOPA_SolvencyII_Validations

Copyright ©2016 EIOPA

What is new in 2.1.0 SOL2 DPM1. Inclusion of qualifying investments

Copyright ©2016 EIOPA

that change, although not large in scale, affected both the DPM dictionary and the Annotated Templates

What is new in 2.1.0 SOL2 DPM2. Mandatory vs. optional fields in open tables

Copyright ©2016 EIOPA

Filing rules for 2.0.1 provided explicitly information about cases where codes of instruments and codes of entities are mandatory vs. optional

There were still questions about other fields in open tables. EIOPA provided such information in 2.1.0 Annotated templates for all typed dimensions

What is new in 2.1.0 SOL2 DPM3. New add-hoc entry point

Copyright ©2016 EIOPA

gathers all the templates

no validation rules

What is new in SOL2 DPM4. Quality improvements/bug fixing

Copyright ©2016 EIOPA

most significant issues identified in 2.0.1 DPM:

• upgrade to consistency of RFF/MAP/Remaining part reporting

• not correct identification of consolidation scope in some of S.23 templates rows

• correction to the dropdown lists of ECB add-on content tables

• inclusion of artificial keys in S.23.04 instead of natural

• upgrade to consistency business lines labels

• …

all issues reported for 2.0.1 were solved in 2.1.0 (MANY THANKS FOR FEEDBACK!!!)

What’s new in the taxonomy? bug fixes:

• BZ 710 and 711: Filing indicators for SR templates do not take into account their potential multiplication by RFFs/MAPs/remaining – THE MOST CHALLENGING AND IMPACTING

• BZ 693: Test expression to link facts in open tables in some rules may result in wrong evaluations when typed dimension values are nil

• BZ 753: Technical validations checking patterns of typed dimension domain values do not allow for xsi:nil="true" when dimensions are optional (TV rules)

• BZ 700: Table definitions do not include the attribute @includeUnreportedValue for the dimensionAspect that can be nilled (BZ 700)

• BZ 738: xfi:fact-typed-dimension-value function issue in rules vr-tv1 to vr-tv10

• BZ 737: Missing validations between S and SE templates (already tested in hotfix)

• BZ 701: Assertions checking patterns for codes and allowing None are missing the end of string anchor

• BZ 689: Technical validations between content template and filing indicators are incorrect for more than one "Reported" option

other:

• a set of assertions making each content template cell mandatory

• ad-hoc entry point (ahr) linking all templates but no rules

• assertion severity added to each validation

• latest (recommendation) version of taxonomy packages

note: BZ 672 (dictionary hierarchies referenced from the table linkbase axes, e.g. AO_01, are not flat lists as in the dictionary but include top level element) not fixed due to high impact on the taxonomy generation process; details explained in the 2.1.0 taxonomy documentation

Copyright ©2016 EIOPA

Thank youMarjan Trobina and Aitor Azcoaga, EIOPA

02/06/2016, Eurofiling 2016 Frankfurt Copyright ©2016 EIOPA