The landscape of regulatory reporting in capital markets is in constant flux, shaped by technological change, evolving compliance demands, and industry cost pressures. A recent webinar, Best Approaches for Trade and Transaction Reporting, hosted by A-Team Group in September 2025 and sponsored by the Derivatives Service Bureau, brought together senior RegTech executives and compliance practitioners to examine current challenges and emerging solutions. The discussion focused on simplification, standardisation, digitisation, and the cautious use of AI.
The Imperative for Regulatory Simplification
The opening theme was the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) call for evidence on simplifying reporting. Industry groups have advocated a re-evaluation of EMIR and MiFID, narrowing them to their core purposes of systemic risk monitoring and market transparency. Suggestions included moving Exchange-Traded Derivatives (ETDs) from EMIR to MiFID, shifting to single-sided reporting in line with the US CFTC model, and removing delegated reporting. Panel members also argued that valuations and collateral reporting could be inferred from submitted data, rather than separately reported.Historically, regulators have favoured dual-sided reporting to support matching, but speakers noted that concentrating obligations with larger, more sophisticated firms could improve consistency. One panellist estimated that the likelihood of single-sided reporting being adopted now stands at “about 50/50”, the most promising position to date. International identifiers such as ISINs, UPIs and LEIs, were seen as key tools for reducing errors by minimising the number of data points firms must submit.
The Digitalisation of Data and Reporting
Audience polling highlighted that translating regulatory updates into systems and controls remains the biggest challenge, followed by the integration of fragmented tooling and architectures. Panellists called for regulators to publish clearer, unambiguous rules – ideally in machine-readable form.
Industry initiatives such as Digital Regulatory Reporting (DRR) and the ISDA Common Domain Model (CDM) are designed to meet this need. The CDM provides a standardised, machine-readable representation of instruments and lifecycle events, while DRR applies reporting “skins” on top of this model. This enables automation of report production and supports rapid updates when rules change, reducing the burden of interpreting regulatory text.
Beyond DRR, wider use of international standards and identifiers has improved data quality and consistency. XML reporting formats and quality assurance providers have further enhanced validation, with some regulators themselves relying on QA services.
Operationalising Horizon Scanning and Oversight
Firms with global operations face significant difficulties monitoring regulatory changes across multiple jurisdictions. Thousands of unstructured documents from exchanges, regulators and CCPs must be reviewed monthly, making the process costly and resource-intensive.
Efforts are underway to mitigate this. One panellist described working with the Bank of England to embed metadata into regulatory texts, enabling structured extraction of key information such as applicability and deadlines. The DSB, meanwhile, has reduced implementation burdens by pre-populating UPIs from existing ISINs, liaising with regulators during rollouts, and providing free UAT environments in advance of compliance deadlines.
Automation, AI and Responsible Innovation
Adoption of automation and AI in regulatory reporting remains cautious. The “black box” nature of some AI models creates auditability concerns, with firms requiring traceability of outputs. For now, a “person in the loop” remains essential in compliance workflows. Long vendor onboarding processes and governance checks also slow adoption.
Nevertheless, firms are experimenting with controlled applications. One described developing an internal “Man GPT” tool trained on proprietary data, useful for document summarisation, error reporting, and internal knowledge queries. Smaller use cases, such as converting spreadsheets to XML via AI or co-pilot tools, are helping firms streamline manual tasks while maintaining auditability.Metrics, Dashboards and Continuous Oversight
The panel also discussed how firms measure and improve reporting quality. Key performance indicators such as timeliness, completeness, resubmission rates and exception ageing are being tracked more systematically. Dashboards now provide visibility of issues, while quality assurance checks at quarterly or semi-annual intervals help firms maintain confidence in their reporting processes. Regulators increasingly expect evidence of these practices during audits, reinforcing the importance of documented remediation steps when errors are identified.
Looking Ahead: A Collaborative Path to Efficiency
The next 12–18 months could bring meaningful progress in reducing reporting complexity. Both EU and UK regulators appear more open to dialogue on burdensome requirements such as dual-sided reporting. Panellists agreed that engagement must remain constructive, with firms demonstrating strong internal controls and data quality while pressing for simplification.
Key takeaways were clear: push for reduced reporting scope and single-sided models; deepen reliance on standards to improve accuracy; and support digitisation efforts that turn legal text into structured, machine-readable rules. With regulators and industry now working more collaboratively, there is a real opportunity to shape a more efficient and sustainable reporting framework.
Subscribe to our newsletter
