EBA supervisory reporting simplification: What it really means for your data architecture

What has the EBA actually put on the table with its proposed framework for supervisory reporting simplification? 

Johannes Turner: At the simplest level, the EBA is proposing a broad overhaul of the supervisory reporting framework. On the surface, that means fewer data points, more proportionality, and closer alignment with supervisory needs. But the more important point is that the EBA is not treating reporting as a set of disconnected submissions anymore. It is trying to make the framework more integrated, more stable and easier to use across multiple supervisory purposes. 

Erik Becker: Yes, and that is where people should slow down before they call this a standard simplification exercise. Of course, reducing the reporting burden matters. But the package is also about bringing related reporting layers closer together. Stress testing, benchmarking, national collections, disclosure – these things have grown around the core framework over time. EBA is clearly trying to reduce the friction between them, and that brings its own kind of complexity.

Why is this happening now? 

Turner: Because the old model has become too fragmented. Over time, institutions have ended up reporting similar information across multiple exercises, often in slightly different forms and for slightly different purposes. Stress testing is a clear example: data that overlaps substantially with regular supervisory reporting has often still been gathered through separate exercises. That creates a lot of operational effort, but not always a lot of added supervisory value.  

Becker: There is also a practical reality here. Reporting requirements have continued to expand, while institutions are under constant pressure to improve efficiency, consistency and data quality. The conversation is moving toward how to organize those collection demands so they are more sustainable for both regulators and the regulated. The EBA is responding not just to reporting volume, but to the cost of overlap, reconciliation, and disconnected processes. 

The conversation is moving toward how to organize those collection demands so they are more sustainable for both regulators and the regulated. The EBA is responding not just to reporting volume, but to the cost of overlap, reconciliation, and disconnected processes. 

Erik Becker Product Director
Regnology

What do you think people are most likely to misunderstand about this simplification package? 

Turner: They might assume the goal of requiring fewer data points will result in less reporting, full stop. But that is too simplistic. The scope of European regulation is still expanding, with new requirements like IFRS 18 and ESG.  What is changing is not just the amount of reporting, but the expectation that the same data should hold up across more purposes and processes.  

Becker: I agree. If institutions read this as a light cleanup exercise, they will undershoot it. The bigger message is that reporting is becoming architecture-dependent. The winners will not just be the firms that update templates quickly. They will be the ones that understand how data integration, governance and reuse are becoming the new pillars of compliance. 

What is changing is not just the amount of reporting, but the expectation that the same data should hold up across more purposes and processes. 

Dr. Johannes Turner Strategic Suptech Director
Regnology

What kind of conversation do you hope this package starts? 

Turner: Ideally, a conversation about architecture, not just compliance. Institutions should of course focus on the immediate reporting changes, but they should also ask what kind of foundation they need for what comes next. 

Becker: And I would add a conversation about sustainability. Reporting frameworks tend to grow. The real question is whether they can grow in a way that is still manageable for both supervisors and institutions.