Shaping regulatory reporting for 2026

As organisations across banking, insurance and superannuation plan for 2026, regulatory reporting is entering a slightly different phase. Established reporting standards remain central and non-negotiable. At the same time, as regulators strengthen their ability to analyse data at scale, there is a growing expectation that the data underpinning regulatory submissions is consistent, explainable and able to withstand deeper scrutiny — not just compliant at the point of submission.

This reflects a broader shift in supervisory practice, where regulatory data is increasingly used for analysis, comparison and transparency, rather than solely to meet reporting obligations.

From collection to capability

In practice, much of this change shows up at the data level.

Across industries, regulatory expectations are increasingly focused on:

• The quality of underlying granular datasets

• How consistently those datasets are reused across prudential, statistical, risk and financial reporting

• Whether reported outcomes can be traced back clearly to source data

  
  

Whether the data relates to lending, insurance policies, claims or member balances and investments, the emphasis is less on producing individual reports in isolation and more on whether the underlying data holds together across the reporting landscape.

For many organisations, this is also where reporting processes have historically been stretched — particularly where similar figures are built multiple times, or where manual intervention is relied on late in the process.

Analytics as a supervisory lever

This increased focus on data is closely tied to regulators’ investment in analytics capability.

Initiatives such as APRA Connect are often experienced initially as submission or technology changes. However, they also reflect a broader move to improve how regulatory data is accessed, compared and analysed.

As analytics capability improves, regulators are better positioned to:

• Compare outcomes across entities

• Identify trends and outliers more quickly

• Ask more targeted follow-up questions

For regulated entities, this doesn’t necessarily change what must be reported, but it does change the expectations around how robustly reported outcomes can be explained.

From analytics to enforcement

Improved analytics does not automatically mean more enforcement activity. What it does mean is greater confidence in supervisory conclusions.

Where this is starting to matter in practice is in areas such as:

• Differences between related returns

• Movements that are difficult to reconcile period-on-period

• Adjustments or overlays that are not well supported by underlying data

  
  

As analytical capability improves, these issues are simply easier to see. That dynamic is increasingly common across banking, insurance and superannuation, regardless of the specific regulatory framework.

Transparency beyond the regulator

Alongside these supervisory developments sits a broader transparency agenda.

More regulatory data is entering the public domain and being used by external stakeholders, including analysts, media, members and policyholders. As a result, the separation between regulatory reporting and public narratives is narrowing.

In practical terms, this means regulatory submissions increasingly influence not just regulatory outcomes, but also external confidence and trust.

Planning signals for 2026

Taken together, these developments raise a number of practical questions that many organisations are now considering as part of their 2026 planning:

• APRA Connect readiness: Has the transition been treated primarily as a technical migration, or as a broader change program with clear ownership, funding and executive visibility?

• Critical data identification and controls: Is there a shared understanding across finance, risk and regulatory reporting of which data elements are critical, how they are controlled, and where manual intervention still plays a role?

• Granularity and reuse: Are underlying datasets structured so they can be reused consistently across multiple returns, or are similar figures still being built independently in parallel processes?

• Explainability and overlays: Can key metrics be explained clearly from source data through to submission, including any management overlays or adjustments?

• Transparency exposure: Would reported outcomes stand up to external scrutiny if referenced publicly or compared across peers?

  
  

These are not new compliance obligations. They are capability questions that are becoming increasingly relevant as regulatory data is used in more ways.

Regulatory reporting as a continuous capability

Taken together, these shifts point to a gradual but important change in how regulatory reporting is approached.

Rather than being treated solely as a periodic compliance exercise, regulatory reporting is increasingly expected to function as a continuous organisational capability — one that supports insight, consistency and confidence over time.

For many organisations, 2026 will test:

• The resilience of existing reporting operating models

• Reliance on spreadsheet-driven or fragmented processes

• The ability to explain reported outcomes consistently across regulatory, financial and public contexts
  

At RegCentric, what we see working in practice is a growing focus on transparency, reuse of granular data, and tighter integration between preparation, review, sign-off and evidence — treating regulatory reporting as part of core data infrastructure rather than a collection of reporting tasks.

As planning for 2026 progresses, this is a good opportunity for regulated entities to step back and assess whether their current approach is aligned with how regulatory reporting is increasingly being used, not just how it has traditionally been delivered.