Secrétariat
général de labancaire
Commission bancaire
Secrétariat général
de la Commission
IX European Banking Supervisors XBRL
Workshop.
Formulae in the European Finrep Taxonomy
Paris, October 29, 2008
SGCB
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy
Introduction
• Target: Implementation of Finrep European Formulae
• Background: Experience with formula 2004 and
translation to 2008 version (software provider)
• Test if and how each type of European formula can be
processed with 2008 version.
• Needs: European Business specification and technical
harmonization
2
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy
Summary
1•
French Background
-3 different types of formulae
-French Business Rules
-From 2004 to 2008 Version
2•
European Formulae
-Excel File for specification
-Formulae types
-Examples of architecture
-Drawbacks to be considered
3•
Prototype For Implementation
-Example of automatic formulae generation
3
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy
1 • French Background
Three types of French formulae
• Simple aggregation
all elements are primary elements that have the same
context and unit
ex: Calculation Link in all tables.
several primary items in one formula with break down
by dimension (ex: table 34 CL)
• dimensional aggregation
primary item(s) with same concept name, identifier, period,
unit and dimension with each domain member
one primary (ex: table 30B BR_49): «aggregator-compositor pattern»
French particularity with one formula for each primary item
• Simple formula
addressing every element of the XBRL instance
ex: between 100 and 200 formulae Table1.1 Form25
4
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy
1 • French Background
Business Rules
-Missing facts:
-2 taxonomies to manage different dates of reports (some CL are not triggered when no fact present
witch is contrary to business people requirement who wanted an error to be raised)
-Different acceptance radius if the bank belongs to « Grands groupes » or not.
-Don’t need to deal with entity: one instance = one entity + one Taxonomy + one currency
-Period: creation of an element « balance start » to differentiate starting and closing period with same
date.
-segment: no information to take into consideration for formulae in the segment tag
5
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy
1 • French Background
From 2004 to 2008 Version
2004: No modularization, no extensibility but readability, pure XPath
-Software provider rules implemented by a member of our subcontractor team
-Ex: BR9 Table7
-Equivalent of general variable in 2008 version
2008: Standardization, extensibility, modularity, general semantic
-All CL, Aggregation Dimension and simple formulae implemented with
Formula 2008 specifications (Software Provider)
-Ex: BR9 Table7
-So far: Temporary solution for architecture
2008: Specification limitations
-Inter-instances formulae problem: Resolution outside the scope of specification
-Very difficult to implement chains (output of a formula becomes the input of
another one)
-No specification for output
6
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy
2 • European Formulae
Excel Files for specification
Only business specification : Excel File provided with Finrep 1.3.0
Types of European formulae
• Simple aggregation (around 500)
ex: Calculation Link in all tables of 2008 Version
automation is required
- several primary items in one formula with break down
by dimension (ex: table 30B BR_48)
• dimensional aggregation (around 100)
- one primary (ex: table 30B BR_49)
• Simple formula (around 150)
ex:Table1.1 Form25
7
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy
2 • European Formulae
 Banco de España style guide
8
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy
2 • European Formulae
Trial implementation of French Formulae
• Simple aggregation: one file for each template (t-finrep-br-fr-2007-06-30TableXX-formulae.xml)
• Other formulae: one file for all formulae
Other solutions
• Software vendor solutions: everything in one file
9
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy
2 • European Formulae
Drawbacks to be considered
• Real Need of a shared architecture (best practice):
all editors should be able to deal with modification of a shared architecture
equivalent of Frta for XBRL 2.1
ex : -Spanish XSLT files and specification
-Our Contractor implementation
-Software provider implementation
• Defining shared business rules at European level?
-periodicity of reports for example
-need of being generic for national extensions
• Target: Firnrep with new ifrs
• Formulae <> Business Intelligence = still superficial controls (no historical or
complex statistical analysis) => not the same goal (control on a report)
• Backward compatibility (CL, output) at least
10
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy
3 • Prototype for implementation
• java prototype:
-500 calculations
-Need of Mapping File between Excel cells and XBRL Taxonomies
(Tool of our Software provider) Jérôme
-Use of Bank of Spain xslt files
-Java components : Poi, Jdom
.
• No European Codification: use of xbrl names
11
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy
Conclusion
• Basic Formulae can be implemented
straight away
• Need of business specification at
European level
• Need for standardization in the
architecture for software developers
12
SGCB
Formulae in the European Finrep
Taxonomy