Streamlining Regulatory Reporting in an Era of Change

Regulatory reporting has long been a burdensome, manual exercise—often disconnected from how institutions manage data day to day. Recent regulatory signals, including the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC’s joint RFI on the Call Report, acknowledge this strain and raise a central question: how can reporting be modernized to reduce burden while strengthening accuracy, transparency, and supervisory confidence? Increasingly, the answer points to data lineage, data quality, and governance as the essential foundation.

Regulatory Reporting Burden Is a Data Problem—Not Just a Compliance Problem

The FDIC’s request for feedback on potential ways to streamline the Call Report—while still meeting supervisory data needs—highlights what many institutions already experience in practice: regulatory reporting is often not fully automated, relies heavily on manual adjustments, and requires one-off calculations that exist solely to satisfy reporting definitions rather than internal management needs.

These challenges are not driven by reporting volume alone. They stem from:

Fragmented source systems
Inconsistent definitions across finance, risk, and regulatory reporting
Limited visibility into how reported figures are derived

When regulators ask which Call Report line items are most burdensome, institutions consistently point to areas where data cannot be easily traced, reconciled, or reused. In other words, burden increases as data lineage weakens.

Data Lineage: The Backbone of Streamlined Reporting

Data lineage—the ability to trace a reported number from the Call Report back to its authoritative source systems—is emerging as a critical enabler of both efficiency and credibility.

The FDIC explicitly seeks feedback on:

Manual data transformations
Misalignment between internal systems and reporting formats
The extent to which institutions maintain data solely for reporting purposes

Strong lineage allows institutions to:

Reduce manual reconciliations and adjustments
Automate repeatable reporting processes
Respond more efficiently to examiner questions
Confidently explain variances and trends

More importantly, strong lineage shifts regulatory reporting from a quarterly scramble to a repeatable, defensible process—one regulators increasingly expect as part of a mature control environment.

Data Quality as a Supervisory Signal

Regulators have been clear—explicitly and implicitly—that data quality is inseparable from safety and soundness.

The Call Report is not merely a compliance artifact; it fuels off site supervision, peer analysis, risk monitoring, and systemic oversight. Errors or inconsistencies can distort:

Capital and liquidity ratios
Asset quality indicators
Peer comparisons used to identify emerging risks

The focus on reducing non-essential or non-applicable data items reflects an important insight: more data does not automatically produce better supervision. Poor quality or irrelevant data can increase burden while diminishing insight.

Improving data quality requires:

Clear ownership of critical data elements
Standardized definitions aligned across finance, risk, and reporting
Controls that detect anomalies before submission—not during exams

In this sense, streamlining reporting is as much about eliminating low-value data as it is about improving high value data.

Governance: Moving Reporting Out of Silos

Another consistent theme is the recognition that regulatory reporting often sits at the intersection of multiple functions—finance, risk, IT, and operations—without clear enterprise ownership.

As reporting expectations evolve, institutions that treat the Call Report as a narrow finance activity often struggle to:

Implement consistent interpretations
Scale automation
Manage change efficiently

By contrast, institutions that embed regulatory reporting within broader data governance frameworks are better positioned to:

Align reporting thresholds with business models and risk profiles
Adapt to changes in forms, instructions, and eligibility criteria
Support reduced reporting options, such as expanded use of the FFIEC 051

Regulators’ interest in tailoring reporting requirements by size, complexity, and risk profile underscores the need for governance models that support differentiation without fragmentation.

Technology and the Opportunity Ahead

Perhaps the most forward looking aspect of the FDIC’s desire to simplify the Call Report is its explicit openness to modern reporting technologies—such as automation, improved vendor integration, and emerging tools that could streamline data submission and validation.

Technology alone, however, is not a solution. It becomes transformative when paired with:

Well defined data lineage
High quality, well governed data
Clear accountability and documentation

Institutions that invest in these foundations are better positioned not only to reduce operational burden but also to respond constructively to regulatory change—whether through revised thresholds, new schedules, or evolving supervisory expectations.

The Path Forward: Streamlining Without Sacrificing Oversight

A clear signal is emerging from regulators: they are open to change, but not at the expense of transparency, consistency, or safety and soundness.

The most credible path to streamlining regulatory reporting lies not in isolated form changes alone, but in enterprise-level improvements in data lineage, data quality, and governance. Institutions that can clearly demonstrate:

Where burden outweighs supervisory value
How data flows from source to report
How quality and controls are maintained

will be best positioned to influence the future shape of regulatory reporting—and to operate more efficiently regardless of how requirements evolve.

In an environment of continuous regulatory change, better data remains the most sustainable form of regulatory relief.

How Eliassen Group Can Help

As regulatory reporting expectations evolve, institutions need partners who can translate supervisory intent into practical, sustainable execution. Building on its proven experience across risk, compliance, and data driven control environments, Eliassen Group helps organizations streamline regulatory reporting by addressing the underlying data, governance, and operating challenges that drive burden and risk.

Eliassen works alongside clients to design, implement, and execute risk based compliance and regulatory programs that align with specific business models, regulatory requirements, and operating structures. Rather than treating regulatory reporting as a standalone compliance exercise, the firm focuses on integrating reporting requirements into broader data, risk, and control frameworks, enabling greater consistency, traceability, and resilience over time.

Through its Risk & Compliance practice, Eliassen supports institutions by:

Enhancing data quality and governance, including clarifying ownership, strengthening controls, and embedding quality assurance into day to day operations
Optimizing regulatory and compliance processes, reducing reliance on manual controls and fragmented interpretations
Supporting regulatory change initiatives, acquisitions, divestitures, and new business activities that require updates to policies, standards, data, and controls
Deploying experienced teams and enabling technology to scale execution while maintaining supervisory credibility

These capabilities reflect Eliassen’s emphasis on flexible, risk based execution—helping institutions focus effort where regulatory risk and supervisory value are highest, while avoiding one size fits all solutions that increase complexity without improving outcomes.

By grounding regulatory reporting in well-governed data, clear accountability, and repeatable processes, Eliassen helps institutions reduce operational burden, improve transparency, and respond more confidently to evolving supervisory expectations—without sacrificing safety and soundness.