Data Workflow: From Quality Checking to Risk Dashboards

Gaetano Chionsini and Luis Garcia

As has been explained in previous chapters, risk assessment, whether micro- or macroprudential, requires a significant amount of good quality and reliable data, with different granularity and at different levels of aggregation and analytical information. The need for supervisory purposes of very timely granular data has increased dramatically with the global financial crisis, which proved that banks’ management of information technologies and data architectures were inadequate to support the broad management of financial risks, and regular financial and prudential reporting. Many information gaps were also linked to the inadequate use by supervisors of existing resources and information, hindered by the fragmentation and non-harmonisation of certain macro and micro-financial data across jurisdictions. These data gaps limited the ability of competent authorities¹¹For the purposes of this chapter, competent authorities are those defined in point 2 of article 4 of the Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (EBA Regulation), which refers to point (40) of article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR): “public authority or body officially recognised by national law, which is empowered by