2026 Is Becoming a Year of Execution

For many financial institutions, 2026 is shaping up to be a year when operational readiness is tested in practice. The pressure is not simply about understanding what regulation requires. In many cases, that phase is already well advanced. The harder question is whether institutions can demonstrate that their systems, data, reporting processes, and internal teams are ready to deliver consistently under growing scrutiny. This shift is happening in a supervisory environment that continues to place strong emphasis on operational resilience, ICT capabilities, and stronger risk data aggregation and reporting. DORA has also been in application since 17 January 2025, making digital operational resilience a live requirement rather than a future milestone. This is why 2026 feels different. It is not only a year of interpretation or roadmap planning. It is increasingly a year of evidence. Can systems support execution at the level expected? Can data stand up to challenge? Can reporting hold its ground when examined closely? Can teams respond with speed, control, and clarity when pressure builds? These are the questions that now matter most. That conclusion is an inference grounded in the ECB’s supervisory priorities and the fact that DORA is already in force. For institutions, this raises the bar in several ways. Strategy remains important, but it is not enough on its own. Readiness is being judged through operating models, the strength of governance, the quality of reporting architecture, and the ability to connect data, systems, and accountability across the organisation. Where those foundations are strong, institutions are better placed to absorb pressure with consistency. Where they are weak, regulatory demands can quickly expose fragmentation. This inference is also supported by the supervisory focus on resilience, ICT risk, and reporting quality. The same direction is visible in the broader reporting agenda. The EBA continues to push for more efficient and integrated reporting, including work on a common European data dictionary, DPM 2.0, and improvements to reporting quality and semantic consistency. These developments point to a regulatory environment that expects reporting to become more structured, better connected, and less dependent on fragmented processes over time. This matters because readiness is increasingly operational in nature. It depends on whether the organisation can move from requirement to execution without excessive friction. It depends on whether reporting processes are stable, whether data can be relied on, and whether teams can act with discipline under pressure. In this context, the institutions that stand out are likely to be those prepared to perform in practice, not only those prepared to discuss regulatory change in principle. That is an inference based on the supervisory and reporting direction cited above. For many firms, this creates a clear strategic implication. Operational capability is becoming a central part of regulatory readiness. The quality of internal execution now has a direct bearing on resilience, confidence, and the ability to respond effectively as expectations continue to evolve. That is one reason why 2026 can be viewed as a year of execution. At Prognosys Solutions, we help financial institutions strengthen the reporting environments, operational structures, and delivery capability needed to meet that reality with confidence.

Regulatory Change Reflects Operational Strength

Regulatory change is often viewed through the lens of compliance. New requirements emerge, timelines are set, and attention turns quickly to interpretation, implementation plans, submissions, and readiness. These are important priorities. Yet regulatory change also does something else. It reveals how well an organisation is built to operate. That matters because today’s regulatory environment places increasing pressure on execution. Supervisory focus across Europe continues to reinforce expectations around operational resilience, ICT capabilities, and stronger risk data aggregation and reporting. In parallel, DORA has already moved into application, making resilience, control, and response capability a live operational issue for financial entities across the EU. In practice, periods of regulatory change tend to expose the same underlying realities. They show whether data ownership is clear or fragmented. They reveal whether reporting depends on repeatable workflows or on manual intervention. They make it easier to see whether governance works only at a formal level or whether it supports timely and coordinated action when pressure increases. They also test whether systems, functions, and teams can work together consistently as expectations shift. This is why regulatory readiness is built internally, even when the requirement comes from outside the organisation. It depends on the strength of the operating model, the clarity of accountability across functions, the discipline of the reporting environment, the quality of data foundations, and the ability of technology infrastructure to support connected delivery. Organisations that respond well to regulatory change are often those with stronger operational maturity in place before the pressure arrives. That maturity tends to show up in practical ways. Ownership is clearer. Data flows are better governed. Reporting processes are more stable. Collaboration between teams is more structured. Decision-making is supported by stronger visibility and fewer workarounds. In these environments, regulatory change becomes easier to absorb because the organisation has already built the internal conditions needed to respond with control and consistency. This is also where the wider value begins to emerge. A stronger response to regulatory change can improve reporting quality, reduce friction across functions, support more resilient processes, and strengthen confidence in future transformation initiatives. The EBA’s work on reporting and supervisory convergence also reflects the continued push for better data quality, consistency, and more effective regulatory processes across the financial sector. For modern institutions, this changes the meaning of compliance. It is not only a matter of meeting obligations. It is also a reflection of how effectively the organisation functions under scrutiny. The institutions that adapt best are often those that recognise regulatory change as an operational test as much as a regulatory one. This final point is an inference grounded in the supervisory priorities and DORA implementation context above. At Prognosys Solutions, we support financial institutions in strengthening the structures, reporting environments, and delivery frameworks needed to respond to regulatory change with greater clarity, control, and confidence.

Rethinking Compliance: Understanding your organisation’s maturity level

As regulatory expectations continue to rise, organisations are being tested less on intent and more on execution. The question is no longer simply whether compliance processes exist, but whether they are strong enough to support consistent reporting, reliable data, operational resilience, and sound decision-making. Recent ECB supervisory priorities for 2026 to 2028 place clear emphasis on operational resilience, ICT capabilities, and stronger risk data aggregation and reporting. This is why compliance maturity matters. In practice, an organisation’s compliance model often reflects the broader strength of its operating environment. It shows how well data flows across systems, how much reliance is placed on manual intervention, how reporting is produced, and whether governance structures are equipped to support increasing regulatory complexity. The EBA has also highlighted the growing use of RegTech across the EU financial sector, particularly in AML/CFT, fraud prevention, and prudential reporting, pointing to a wider shift towards more technology-enabled compliance models. At an earlier stage of maturity, compliance is often managed through manual processes spread across multiple systems. This may be enough to meet basic requirements, but it can create pressure on time, increase the risk of inconsistency, and make scaling more difficult. As organisations become more structured, reporting processes improve and responsibilities become clearer, but a heavy operational burden may still remain. In these environments, compliance is more organised, though not yet as efficient or resilient as it needs to be. The next stage is typically defined by stronger automation and more disciplined data management. Reporting becomes more consistent. Data quality improves. Internal teams spend less time on repetition and more time on review, control, and response. At a more advanced level, compliance becomes more deeply embedded in the operating model. It is supported by stronger governance, more integrated systems, and better visibility across the organisation. This supports not only compliance itself, but also wider operational performance. That final point is an inference based on ECB and EBA emphasis on risk data aggregation, reporting quality, operational resilience, and reporting modernisation. Understanding where your organisation stands is an important starting point. It helps leaders identify where friction exists, where investment is needed, and what a realistic path forward should look like. This matters because regulatory pressure is becoming more connected to infrastructure, data quality, reporting capability, and the ability to deliver consistently under scrutiny. The EBA’s 2024 annual reporting also points to ongoing work on integrated reporting, data point model improvements, and tools aimed at better data quality and consistency. For many organisations, the real opportunity lies in treating compliance as part of operational maturity rather than as a standalone control function. The stronger the foundation, the easier it becomes to adapt, respond, and grow without carrying unnecessary complexity across the business. This conclusion is an inference grounded in the supervisory and reporting priorities cited above. At Prognosys Solutions, we support organisations throughout this journey, helping them strengthen reporting frameworks, improve operational efficiency, and build compliance environments that are structured, reliable, and ready for greater complexity.

Regulatory Landscape 2026: Why execution now matters more than interpretation

As financial institutions move through 2026, the pressure is increasingly operational. The main challenge is not simply to understand new regulatory requirements, but to apply them consistently across reporting, governance, systems, and risk management. This is the context in which the current regulatory landscape must be viewed. CRR III is already in application and is raising expectations around capital, risk, and supervisory alignment. DORA has applied since 17 January 2025 and is now testing how well institutions can demonstrate digital operational resilience in practice. CRD VI is progressing through national transposition and phased implementation, while AMLA is advancing its institutional build-out and setting the direction for a more integrated anti-money laundering supervisory framework across the EU. Taken together, these developments are placing greater emphasis on how institutions operate internally. Data quality, reporting accuracy, governance structures, and cross-functional coordination are becoming more closely connected. Regulatory change is increasingly exposing whether internal systems are strong enough to support consistent delivery under pressure. That matters because compliance performance now depends heavily on execution capacity, not only on regulatory interpretation. This conclusion is an inference grounded in the implementation demands of the current frameworks. For firms still relying on fragmented workflows, manual interventions, or disconnected reporting environments, the margin for error is narrowing. In contrast, institutions that have invested in stronger controls, structured processes, and scalable infrastructure are better placed to respond with speed, accuracy, and confidence. In practical terms, this makes regulatory readiness a broader business issue. It affects resilience, credibility, and the ability to adapt without creating unnecessary friction across the organisation. This is also an inference based on the operational direction of the cited measures. This is why 2026 stands out. It is a year in which the industry is being tested on delivery. Supervisory expectations are becoming more exacting, and institutions are expected to show that their reporting frameworks, governance models, and resilience measures work effectively in practice. The organisations that respond well are likely to be those that treat regulation as part of the operating model, supported by the right structures, systems, and internal visibility. At Prognosys Solutions, we support financial institutions in strengthening the reporting frameworks, operational processes, and technology foundations needed to manage regulatory change with clarity, control, and confidence.

Everyone wants better compliance. so why is transformation so hard?

In financial institutions, calls to transform compliance are increasing. They often follow audits, regulatory findings or internal concerns about inefficiency and risk exposure. Leadership seeks stronger oversight, fewer unexpected outcomes and greater confidence in how regulatory obligations are fulfilled. The objective is clear. Compliance should be consistent, transparent and embedded across the organisation. Yet meaningful transformation remains difficult to achieve. A key reason lies in the operating environment. Regulatory change is continuous. Interpretations evolve. Supervisory reviews demand attention. Business units expect fast, reliable answers. Under this constant pressure, most compliance teams focus on meeting immediate obligations rather than reassessing the overall framework. As a result, transformation efforts frequently take the form of isolated adjustments. A revised process. A new control. A system enhancement. These initiatives are often necessary, but they rarely address structural misalignment. Compliance functions as an integrated system. Regulatory requirements influence interpretation. Interpretation shapes policies and processes. Processes rely on systems and data. Governance and ownership determine how decisions are applied and sustained. When these interdependencies are not visible, improvement efforts become fragmented and difficult to scale. Visibility is therefore central to effective compliance transformation. When institutions can clearly trace how regulatory requirements are interpreted, implemented and maintained across the organisation, compliance becomes more manageable and defensible. The impact of change can be assessed early. Decisions can be documented. Accountability becomes clearer. Technology can enable this visibility, but only when implemented with purpose. Structured RegTech solutions help map regulatory requirements, record interpretation decisions, and connect regulation to operational execution. When aligned correctly, technology reduces ambiguity rather than adding layers of complexity. Governance reinforces this structure. Defined ownership, documented responsibilities and transparent decision-making processes reduce reliance on informal practices. Over time, this strengthens institutional confidence and control. At Prognosys Solutions, we believe compliance transformation succeeds when clarity precedes acceleration. Institutions that understand how compliance truly operates today are better positioned to redesign it for resilience tomorrow. Better compliance is rarely about doing more. It is about understanding more, aligning better and building structures that endure.

Managing Money Laundering risk in a high-pressure regulatory environment

Anti-Money Laundering compliance has become one of the most demanding areas of financial regulation. Institutions face expanding regulatory obligations, increasingly sophisticated financial crime schemes and heightened supervisory scrutiny, often while operating across fragmented data environments. For compliance teams, the challenge is no longer interpreting the rules. It is managing scale, complexity and speed without compromising accuracy or control. Manual processes, disconnected systems and siloed data extend investigation cycles, increase operational cost and limit the early detection of emerging risk patterns. From Fragmentation to Unified OversightTo address these challenges, Prognosys Solutions and its sister company, Fusion Compliance Tech, combined their expertise to co-develop the Fusion AML Suite. The platform is designed to support compliance teams across the full lifecycle of customer monitoring through a unified and structured approach. Fusion AML delivers a consolidated, 360-degree view of customer information, transactional behaviour and risk indicators. By centralising data within a single environment, institutions can investigate anomalies faster and with greater confidence. Advanced analytics and visualisation tools enable compliance teams to prioritise genuinely high-risk cases, rather than spend time navigating multiple systems. Comprehensive AML CapabilitiesThe suite supports core AML functions, including name screening, SWIFT filtering, transaction monitoring, risk profiling and linkage analysis. Artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities enhance risk detection, while flexible reporting tools support internal governance and regulatory expectations without adding unnecessary operational burden. End-to-End KYC IntegrationFusion AML is fully integrated with the Prognosys DMS Solution, creating a seamless approach to Know Your Customer processes. From onboarding to continuous monitoring, institutions gain consistent visibility across the entire customer lifecycle. This integration strengthens traceability, improves governance and ensures alignment between customer due diligence and ongoing risk assessment. Building Sustainable AML ResilienceAs financial crime risks continue to evolve, effective AML compliance depends on integration, scalability and clear oversight. Fusion AML is designed to move institutions beyond reactive compliance and toward a more resilient, sustainable framework for managing money laundering risk. In today’s environment, clarity of data and strength of architecture define the effectiveness of compliance.

XBRL-CSV by March 2026: the transition that reshapes regulatory reporting operations

The mandatory adoption of XBRL-CSV for regulatory reporting by 31 March 2026 represents one of the most technically demanding milestones in the current regulatory cycle. While selected reporting streams have already transitioned, all remaining regulatory reports must comply under the EBA Reporting Framework 4.2. At Prognosys Solutions, this transition is viewed not as a format update, but as a structural change to how regulatory reporting operates. Why XBRL-CSV changes the reporting model XBRL-CSV impacts the reporting lifecycle end to end. Existing production pipelines must be redesigned, validation logic must be reworked, and testing environments must support more frequent and technically complex iterations. In practice, this brings reporting closer to a controlled software release process than a periodic compliance exercise. From experience supporting financial institutions across multiple frameworks, the most significant challenges arise not from understanding the specifications, but from implementing them reliably under tight timelines and parallel regulatory pressure. A compressed and unforgiving timeline The XBRL-CSV transition coincides with several major milestones tied to late-2025 and early-2026 reference dates, including Resolution Planning, FinRep for Credit Acquiring Companies and the adoption of NACE Codes Rev. 2.1. For reporting teams, this convergence increases operational risk if capacity, sequencing and testing are not carefully managed. This is where preparation matters more than interpretation. How Prognosys supports preparedness Prognosys works alongside institutions to ensure that XBRL-CSV adoption strengthens reporting capability rather than disrupts it. In practice, this means: Designing scalable reporting architectures that support XBRL-CSV requirements Implementing robust validation and testing workflows Supporting controlled change management and release cycles Ensuring consistency across reporting domains and frameworks By focusing on infrastructure, automation and governance, institutions are better positioned not only to meet the March 2026 deadline, but to absorb ongoing regulatory change beyond it. Beyond compliance XBRL-CSV reinforces a broader supervisory expectation: structured, high-quality and machine-readable data delivered consistently across reporting cycles. Institutions that invest in resilient reporting foundations are able to respond faster, reduce operational friction and maintain credibility with supervisors. The defining question for 2026 is not whether reports can be produced in a new format. It is whether regulatory reporting is treated as a standing operational capability. At Prognosys, supporting that transition has been at the core of our work for more than 20 years.

2026: A defining year for regulatory reporting preparedness

In 2026, regulatory change is a permanent feature of the financial landscape. It shapes daily operations, influences governance decisions, and places continuous demands on systems and people. What was once addressed through scheduled implementation projects now sits at the core of institutional functioning. The regulatory momentum built during 2024 and 2025 has carried fully into this year. Supervisory expectations continue to intensify. Reporting timelines are tighter. Data quality and consistency are increasingly assessed as signals of institutional preparedness rather than procedural compliance. For banks, investment firms, payment institutions, and crypto-asset service providers, the pressure in 2026 does not originate from a single regulatory initiative. It stems from the combined effect of overlapping frameworks, parallel reporting streams, and sustained supervisory scrutiny. Regulatory reporting has evolved into an operational discipline with direct implications for credibility and resilience. In Cyprus, these realities are well understood by Prognosys Solutions. For more than two decades, the company has worked alongside financial institutions as regulatory reporting matured from a technical requirement into a strategic operational capability, supporting more than 80% of the local banking market. A demanding regulatory cycle The current regulatory cycle reflects a convergence of European frameworks and supervisory priorities. Central to this is the adoption of the EBA Reporting Framework 4.0, together with the implementation of CRR III and CRD VI. In parallel, investment firms have aligned with the IFR and IFD framework, while MiCAR has brought crypto-asset activities firmly within the regulatory perimeter. Alongside prudential reform, DORA has reshaped expectations around digital and operational resilience. Reporting obligations now extend deeper into ICT risk, incident management, and third-party dependencies. The direction is consistent. Supervisors expect structured, validated, and coherent data across regulatory domains. This shift has transformed reporting environments. Institutions are required to deliver high-quality data across prudential, financial, operational, and resilience frameworks, often under compressed timelines and evolving technical standards. What is already in force Several regulatory changes became effective at the start of 2026, leaving limited flexibility once reporting deadlines were set. Resolution Planning is a clear example. A revised set of Implementing Technical Standards introduced expanded data requirements and stricter validation rules. Institutions must submit detailed organisational, liability, and critical function information through RESOL 1 and RESOL 2 within the first months of the year, in line with EBA specifications. At the same time, FINREP for Credit Acquiring Companies became applicable from the 31 December 2025 reference date, following the Central Bank of Cyprus’s introduction of a new reporting template. For affected institutions, this added a new reporting stream with specific data modelling and validation requirements. Another immediate change is the application of NACE Codes Rev. 2.1 from 1 January 2026. While supervisory guidance has been issued for selected reports, including AnaCredit and CCR, other areas remain subject to interpretation. Reporting teams must therefore apply careful judgement and maintain close oversight as further clarification develops. The most technically demanding milestone of the year is the mandatory transition of all remaining regulatory reports to XBRL-CSV by 31 March 2026. Linked to the EBA Reporting Framework 4.2, this transition requires changes to report generation processes, validation logic, and testing environments. For many institutions, it represents one of the most resource-intensive reporting initiatives of the year. An evolving year, not a static one Regulatory pressure in 2026 does not concentrate in the first quarter. It continues to unfold throughout the year. Initiatives such as the Pillar 3 Data Hub and DAC 8 reinforce the push towards greater transparency and comparability. Structured reporting now extends beyond supervisory submissions into public disclosures and tax-related reporting for crypto-asset activities. Instant Payments Reporting introduces harmonised templates and retrospective submission requirements. Payment service providers must revisit historical data while ensuring alignment with current reporting standards. Additional complexity is expected through expanded operational risk reporting under CRR III and CRD VI, alongside the forthcoming EBA Reporting Framework 4.3. Expected later in the year, Framework 4.3 is anticipated to consolidate changes across FINREP, liquidity, market risk, and selected DORA-related elements. These developments coincide with the start of direct supervision by AMLA. This marks a new phase in AML oversight and signals closer alignment between AML, prudential, and regulatory data sets. From a reporting perspective, 2026 is characterised by continuous regulatory movement rather than a single milestone. Reporting as an operational capability As supervisory expectations rise, regulatory reporting increasingly reflects institutional maturity. Data quality, automation, governance, and accountability now sit at the centre of preparedness assessments. Experience shows that institutions with scalable data models and adaptable reporting infrastructures absorb regulatory change more effectively. They limit operational disruption, respond faster to supervisory demands, and maintain consistency across reporting cycles. In 2026, the defining question for financial institutions is not which regulation will arrive next. It is whether their reporting capability is resilient enough to evolve continuously. Those that treat regulatory reporting as operational infrastructure rather than a reactive compliance task are better positioned to operate with confidence in an increasingly complex supervisory environment.

Navigating Regulatory Change and Growth in 2026

Insights from Elias Afxentiou, CEO of Prognosys Solutions Elias Afxentiou, Founder and CEO of Prognosys Solutions, was recently interviewed by InBusiness on the outlook for the RegTech sector in 2026, the growing role of mergers and acquisitions, and Prognosys’ strategic priorities for the year ahead. In the interview, he shares a clear assessment of the regulatory environment and the factors that will shape growth across the industry. How do you expect your company’s sector to move in 2026? What major trends or shifts do you anticipate and what do you see as the key challenges? Regulatory change has defined financial services for more than a decade. The continuous expansion of compliance requirements has driven the rise of Regulatory Technology, as institutions seek dependable and automated solutions. This trend will continue in 2026, even as European and national regulators take steps toward proportionality. We have already seen the first signs of simplification, such as the recent repeal of several returns by the Central Bank of Cyprus. Similar changes are emerging across Europe as supervisors acknowledge the operational burden on institutions. Despite this shift in tone, 2026 will be one of the most demanding regulatory years to date. Multiple major frameworks will come into force at the same time and will reshape how institutions manage reporting, data and risk. Resolution Planning Reporting has been redesigned completely. The transition to NACE Rev. 2.1 takes effect on 1 January. DAC8 introduces new obligations and closer alignment with MiCA and revised DAC2 requirements. From 31 March, all EBA submissions must use the XBRL CSV format. At the same time, CRR3 delivers significant changes across operational risk reporting, the new Pillar 3 Data Hub and updated reporting for third country branches. This creates a heavy regulatory calendar with overlapping implementation timelines and strict milestones. While simplification remains the long term objective, the transition period will be complex and resource intensive for financial institutions. Our position in this environment is strong. For more than 20 years, we have helped institutions manage regulatory change with certainty. Our solutions reduce operational pressure, support continuous compliance and allow organisations to focus on their core business. In 2026, this will be more important than ever. A strong trend taking root in the Cyprus business landscape is mergers and acquisitions. Do you expect this trend to intensify in your own sector? Mergers and acquisitions have become a defining feature of the global RegTech sector. Internationally, we see around 300 transactions per year, fuelled by high investor interest in regulatory technology and the need for scale and sophistication. Cyprus has so far seen limited involvement in these global waves, but investor attention toward local firms is clearly increasing. The most attractive candidates for potential acquisitions are companies that have developed scalable solutions, built strong technology platforms and proven their ability to operate internationally. These firms stand out because they combine technical credibility with healthy export performance, which is precisely what global investors and funds seek. Conversely, smaller or purely domestic players face growing pressure. Margin compression and scale limitations reduce competitiveness and make international investment less likely. As this gap widens, consolidation becomes a natural outcome. Given current conditions, we expect M and A activity within the RegTech sector to intensify further in 2026. The firms that can scale internationally and maintain sustainable growth will be the primary targets. What should we expect in terms of your organisation’s growth and expansion strategy in 2026? In 2026, our focus will be on managing the significant regulatory changes that come into force. These reforms will naturally drive demand for stable, accurate and efficient regulatory solutions, and our priority is to support institutions through this period with precision and speed. We will also continue strengthening our international footprint. Greece, Malta and the Middle East remain core markets for us. Rather than expanding into new jurisdictions, our strategy centres on deepening our presence in the markets we already operate in, increasing market penetration and growing our client base. This disciplined approach allows us to maintain operational excellence, invest in regulatory innovation and ensure consistent delivery across our client base. By staying focused on these priorities, we are well positioned for another year of solid, sustainable growth.

2026: From Regulatory Change to Regulatory Readiness

A Moment to Reframe Compliance at the Start of 2026 The start of a new regulatory year is not defined only by new rules coming into force. It is also a moment to assess whether your compliance framework truly supports daily operations. As regulatory expectations expand, many institutions face a common issue. The challenge is no longer understanding individual requirements. It is managing how those requirements connect. Reporting, data governance, risk management, and supervisory oversight now operate as a single system. This increases the need for coordination, clear ownership, and consistent data across the organisation. Regulatory change exposes reality. It shows where processes remain manual. It highlights fragmented responsibilities. It reveals legacy systems that struggle to meet tighter timelines. When multiple obligations overlap, operational pressure rises fast. This creates a clear question for 2026. Will compliance stay reactive, driven by deadlines and events, or will it evolve into a stable, integrated capability? Institutions that invest in strong governance, defined accountability, and scalable reporting infrastructure adapt more easily. They reduce friction. They improve consistency. They gain confidence in regulatory outcomes. At Prognosys Solutions, we see the start of 2026 as a chance to reset the approach. A move away from reactive compliance. A move toward long term regulatory readiness that supports control, clarity, and informed decision making.