preparedness for the crd iv

7/29/2019 Preparedness for the CRD IV

1/17

Copyright Quocirca 2013

Clive Longbottom

Quocirca LtdTel : +44 1189 483360

Email:[email protected]

Bob Tarzey

Quocirca LtdTel: +44 1753 855794

Email:[email protected]

Preparedness for the CRD IV

Financial institutions across the EU have been faced with getting ready for the

latest round of regulation around the Capital Requirements Directive, CRD IV.

February 2013

The latest round of regulation from the EU to attempt to create a

more stable financial system that can better withstand global

economic cycles and upheaval was meant to come into force on

January 1

st

, 2013. The Capital Requirements Directive (CRD), nowin its fourth iteration, brings new reporting structures into place. A

business-driven language, the eXtensible Business Reporting

Language (XBRL) is a mandated part of how financial organisations

across the EU will have to submit their prudential reports to the

necessary bodies.

Just how prepared were the financial markets across Europe for

CRD IV and XBRL?
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/17


Quocirca 2013 - 2 -


Financial institutions across the EU have been faced with getting ready for the latest round of

regulation around the Capital Requirements Directive, CRD IV.The deadline for initial

compliance with CRD IV

passed nominally in

January 2013

CRD IV was meant to come into operation as of January 1 st 2013, providing the legal framework

for Basel III and Solvency II. However, with the banking industry under stress, politicians have not

solidified the requirement. Even so, few financial organisations seem to be well prepared for CRD

IV, with high levels of confusion over what is involved and what technology needs to be put in

place to ensure compliance.

European financial

organisations are broadly

positive in their views on

regulation

54% of those interviewed felt that further regulation would be good for the financial markets as a

whole, with 19% seeing regulation as having a negative impact on the markets. However, 5% fewer

see regulation as being positive when the question is posed specifically about the impact on their

own organisation.

The biggest overallconcern for financial

organisations is around

brand and reputation

Although managing the risk of possible financial penalties against the organisation has more votesas a primary concern, brand and reputation management heavily outscores this when secondary

concerns are taken into account. Ensuring the right levels of transparency in dealing with

stakeholders also outscores managing the risks of financial penalties in this way. Managing the risk

of individual penalties such as jail terms and being banned from practising - is perceived as only

slightly less of a concern than organisational financial penalties.

The biggest areas for

competition are seen as

coming from other

national and EU

organisations

There is little sense of competition emerging from Africa, South America, APAC, China or the US.

Only Germany sees significant possible competition from the near neighbours such as Switzerland

or Turkey. This near-shore view may not help EU financial organisations if far-shore competitors

manage to leverage more lax regulatory environments in their dealings with the EU.

There is little real

preparedness for CRD IV

Although 47% stated that they were already, or would be, compliant with CRD IV in time, 22% hadlittle to no chance of meeting the deadline. A further 30% stated that the basics were in place.

XBRL awareness and

readiness is even worse

CRD IV compliance requires that XBRL is in place as a means of submitting prudential reports to

central bodies. However, 7% see XBRL as being of no importance to them whatsoever, 31% are yet

to understand the impact XBRL will have on their organisation, and 35% acknowledge that they

will have to adopt XBRL, but see it as being forced upon them. Only 9% have implemented an XBRL

solution, 16% have chosen a solution but have yet to implement it, 37% are still trying to identify

a suitable solution and 27% are still in fact-finding mode.

Much remains to be done:

it is unlikely that the

markets will be ready intime

48% stated that the changes required to meet the requirements for CRD IV either didnt bear

thinking about or would involve major changes to their existing systems. 65% stated that

integration of existing systems was a main concern, with 45% saying that data modelling was and

43% that the speed to create the required reports was an issue.

Conclusions

The research shows that financial organisations across the EU were not in a position to be CRD IV compliant as of the

January 1st 2013 deadline. Lack of awareness of what CRD IV means at both a business and a technology level indicates

that the EU and the national financial regulators have done a bad job of educating the market. Combining this with a lack

of political solidity in carrying through the financial mechanisms behind CRD IV, and the financial markets feeling that

putting in place technology in preparation for a movable feast of regulation is not in their own interests as yet, it is likely

that the transition period will need to be viewed leniently for some time before general compliance can be demonstrated

across the EU financial markets.


3/17


Quocirca 2013 - 3 -

Background

In 1988, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision came up with the Basel Accord, now known as Basel I, in order

to strengthen the banks through advising on minimum capital ratios. The EU implemented Basel through the Capital

Requirements Directive (CRD) in 2007, with financial institutions implementing the advanced approaches as of January

1st 2008.

Basel II was introduced in June 2004, and created a concept of three pillars. Pillar 1 sets out the minimum capital

requirements required for credit, market and operational risk. Pillar 2 sets out whether an organisation should hold

additional capital against risks not set out in Pillar 1 and Pillar 3 aims to improve market discipline through an agreed

framework for reporting and publishing against their risks, capital and risk management.

Although Basel II has been around for some time, the failure of the financial markets in 2008 and 2009 brought

increased focus on the stability and risk management of the financial institutions. Basel III was therefore proposed,

under which a strengthened regulatory regime was to be put in place to ensure that there was a higher quality and

quantity of capital, an enhancement of Pillar 1 requirements, a new leverage ratio to act as a backstop to risk-based

capital, a buffer on capital conversion and a countercyclical capital buffer along with an enhanced liquidity regime

through the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) and Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR).

Basel III nominally came into effect as of January 1 st 2013, with a transition period running through to 2021. Basel II

becomes part of European law through changes to the existing CRD, resulting in CRD IV. Through EU Regulation and

EU Directives, CRD IV is planned to be a major step in the harmonisation of financial oversight and legal frameworks

across the EU.

However, as the world economic climate continues to be poor, EU and national politicians have had to return to their

plans and have been discussing changes to the levels of capital and liquidity that the banks will be required to carry.This late intervention means that the actual financial mechanisms behind CRD IV are not, at the time of writing this

report, finalised.

As part of the new regulation, financial institutions will need to be able to provide all of their prudential reports

through a centralised means using XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language). XBRL is a specialist set of

eXtensible Markup Language (XML) tags which create a framework for the automated creation and submission of

prudential reports in a manner that will allow more timely visibility, and therefore action, against events that could

force a financial institution outside of the rules mandated by CRD IV.

Even with the financial mechanisms behind CRD IV still uncertain, financial institutions should be preparing for a

change in regulation. Technology can, and should, be put in place in order to support whatever changes come through

and can then be used as a platform to embrace any future changes in how regulation is imposed and modified onthe markets in the coming years.

This paper uses the analysis of research carried out by Quocirca during October 2012 across the UK, Germany, France,

Italy and Spain to show how financial institutions across these different geographies view regulation as a whole, and

how well prepared they are for the CRD IV rules that come into play in 2013.


4/17


Quocirca 2013 - 4 -

Research approach

100 interviews were carried out via telephone in native language with a profiled set of respondents in the UK,

Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Respondents had to have a position that covered at least one of the following areas:Head of Compliance, Solvency II/Basel III programme or project manager, Chief Architect, Chief Risk Officer, COO, CIO,

CFO.

The respondents were provided with a series of questions or comments and were invited to choose from a series of

responses which one most closely matched their own feelings. Interviewees could also respond Dont know or

proffer their own response to any of the questions or comments.

Figure 1: Breakdown by country of interviews

Views on regulation

Interviewees were asked their views on regulation within the financial services market (see Figure 2). Over one third

responded that they felt that industry regulation was a mess, with a further one in five saying that it was likely that

regulation would change to reflect the publics views of a need for greater centralised control. However, one in five

also felt that the amount of regulation was about right, and one in eight said that more regulation was required.

It is apparent that EU and national governments have failed to bring the financial institutions with them in their

approach to regulation. A lack of clarity and a perception that politicians are just bending to the will of the people

makes it unlikely that the financial markets will place meeting regulatory needs towards the top of the priority lists.

26%

25%10%

10%

29%

Country Breakdown

France

Germany

Italy

Spain

UK


5/17


Quocirca 2013 - 5 -

Figure 2: What are your views on current legal regulation for your business?

At a geographic level, we see a greater contrast (see Figure 3). Germany has the largest number of respondents stating

that there is too little regulation, whereas Italy is the least positive on its views of regulation. France and the UK are

the countries with the greatest expectations of regulatory frameworks changing due to public pressure.

Figure 3: What are your views on current legal regulation for your business?

However, the overall feeling is that centralised and regional regulation is not operating well. When interviewees were

asked about how well they felt they were being informed around regulatory issues, the responses were also mixed

(see Figure 4).

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Too little we need more controls in place

About right

Its a mess what is there is contradictory

Too much we need a lighter touch to be able tooperate successfully

It makes no difference the current public view

of the finance industry means that regulation

will change anyway

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

France

Germany

Italy

Spain

UK

Too little we need more controls in

place

About right

Its a mess what is there is

contradictory

Too much we need a lighter touch

to be able to operate successfully

It makes no difference the current

public view of the finance industry

means that regulation will change

anyway


6/17


Quocirca 2013 - 6 -

Figure 4: How well do you think regulatory bodies have kept you informed of what the CRD regulations mean to you?

Nearly half of interviewees (47%) indicated that they felt that they had not been kept informed adequately, with only

one in ten stating that they felt they had been given everything that they needed.

However, the amount of effort that interviewees feel that their organisations put into meeting their regulatory

requirements is also mixed (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: How much effort does your organisation already put in to meeting its regulatory needs?

39% state that they do enough to be leaders in compliance, but nearly one in five (19%) say that their organisation

does not do as much as they would like. However, as can be seen from other research analysis in this report, this

perception of leadership is probably badly placed the overall preparedness for changes in regulation is not high

across the respondents. Nearly one in ten (9%) states that their organisation does too much, which again is unlikely

based on the rest of the research.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Very badly

Badly

Not good

OK

Fine

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Very little

Not as much as I would like

Enough to meet the bare minimum of the

regulatory needs

Enough to be a leader in regulatory compliance

Too much its overkill


7/17


Quocirca 2013 - 7 -

Market concerns

Interviewees were asked about where they saw competition coming from over the next few years (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: Please choose the top two concerns to you and your organisation re competition

By far the biggest primary concern is for competition within the interviewees national boundaries. When taking into

account secondary concerns as well, competition from other EU organisation runs a close second. Near neighbours

outside of the EU run a distant third, while competition from elsewhere in the world is not really seen as a concern.

However, Quocirca believes that this may well be an Achilles heel for financial institutions. If central EU regulation isseen as a burden, rather than as a means of creating better, more flexible and effective processes, then the different

regulatory approaches from other geographies could provide an opportunity for non-EU financial organisations to

enter the markets through different means.

Figure 7: Please choose the top two concerns to you and your organisation re competition

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Competition from South America

Competition from Africa

Competition from China

Competition from APAC

Competition from the US

Competition from near-neighbours not in the EU (e.g. Turkey,

Switzerland)

Competition from others in the EU

Competition from other national financial institutions

Primary concern Secondary concern

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

France

Germany

Italy

Spain

UK

Competition from South America

Competition from Africa

Competition from China

Competition from APAC

Competition from the US

Competition from near-neighbours

not in the EU (e.g. Turkey, Switzerland)

Competition from others in the EU

Competition from others national

financial institutions


8/17


Quocirca 2013 - 8 -

Again, the breakdown of views across national boundaries raises some interesting differences (see Figure 7). As can

be seen, Italy is only concerned about national and EU competition. The UK has the biggest concerns about

competition from APAC, whereas Germany has the largest concerns about competition from near-neighbours outside

of the EU. France had the only respondent with any concern about the possible competition from China.

With regard to internal matters (see Figure 8), interviewees biggest concern was with the risk of financial penaltiesagainst the organisation with 28% stating this as their main issue. However, 26% stated that brand reputation was

highest for them and, when secondary concerns were counted, brand reputation was an overall larger priority than

the risk of financial penalties, with transparency towards stakeholders also being a greater concern. It is interesting

to note that, now that board-level individuals can be held directly responsible for certain elements of malfeasance

within a financial institution, managing the risk of penalties against individuals is also relatively high in interviewees

concerns.

Figure 8: Which of the following are the two most important areas for your business?

0% 20% 40% 60%

Risk of financial penalties to your

organisation

Risk of individual penalties (e.g.

banned from operating in the financial

markets, jail terms)

Need for transparency towards

stakeholders

Brand reputation suffering due to

inability to comply/competitive

standing

Risk of security breaches

Main problem

Secondary problem


9/17


Quocirca 2013 - 9 -

Impact of regulation

Interviewees have a mixed perception of the impact of CRD regulation on their organisations (see Figure 9).

Figure 9: How much financial impact has/will preparing for CRD have on your organisation?

12% state that there will be substantial negative impact to the organisations bottom line, with a further 26% saying

that the business disruption will be significant. However, nearly one in four (23%) state that CRD regulation will be

positive for their organisation. Overall, this shows that there is an appetite within the financial institutions for

regulation as long as it is handled well between governments, the EU and the institutions concerned.

At a market level, interviewees further demonstrate this acceptance of good regulation, believing that future

regulation will be overall positive on the financial markets (see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Overall, do you see the impact of future regulation to the financial markets as being:

54% of interviewees believe that future regulation will be positive for the markets, with only 19% believing it will be

negative.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Substantial impact it will be adversely

measurable on the bottom line

Significant impact but it will not adversely

impact the bottom line to any significant extent

Little impact it has all been (or will be) part of

regular regulatory project expense

Its been (or will be) positive the improvement

in process and policy will help the business

Dont know

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Highly negative the markets need to be

innovative and regulation stifles this

Negative Rules need to be bent occasionally,

and more regulation will mean that there is a lack

of capability for differentiation in the markets

Neutral regulation has always been there;future plans make little difference

Positive regulation creates a level playing field

and so it is down to each organisation to perform

better than the competition

Very positive regulation will give us the

capabilities to out-perform those competitors

who will struggle to demonstrate compliance.


10/17


Quocirca 2013 - 10 -

Comparing this with interviewees perception ofthe impact of future regulation on their own organisation, however,

gives a slightly different view (see Figure 11).

Figure 11: Overall, do you see the impact of future regulation to your organisation as being:

Here, 45% see it as being positive, with 20% as negative. There is a slight leaning towards a belief that more regulation

is for other organisations, and that this will improve the overall markets: more regulation for the interviewees own

organisation may not be quite so positive.

It is important that this slight difference in perceptions is addressed all institutions have to apply the same levels of

focus on regulatory frameworks for harmonisation across a large trading bloc, such as the EU, to work. A view of its

for others, not for us will result in on-going issues and a possible failure in the regulatory framework due to lack oftransparency and capabilities for information to be exchanged effectively between institutions and central bodies.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Highly negative it will prevent us from working

effectively

Negative it will get in the way of work

Neutral we will find ways to work with or

around the regulations

Positive we need more controls in place

Highly positive the organisation will be far more

effective due to the regulations


11/17



CRD and XBRL preparedness

When questioned on their preparedness for CRD, over half of the interviewees (52%) said that they had, at best, only

the basics in place (see Figure 12). Only 13% stated that they were already compliant. At the time of interviewing, thedeadline for initial compliance was still being stated as 1st January 2013. This did not leave much time for getting

everything in place for compliance.

Figure 12: How prepared are you for meeting the needs of CRD (e.g. Basel II/III, Solvency II)?

The difficulties encountered in getting interviewees organisations as far as they have to date are shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13: How hard has it been/will it be to deal with the following in meeting the needs of CRD compliance?

The major issue seen has been in creating the reports required for CRD compliance. However, when combining

major and considerable problems, business process integration is a more pressing issue, followed by modelling

and then report creation.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Completely underprepared

Not well prepared

The basics are in place

We will be ready as and when the needs are

mandatory

We are already compliant

Dont know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Availability of suitable business

Availability of data/information

In-house skills to manage the

Modelling capability to visualise the

Integrating the various aspects of

Speed to create the reports and data

Major problem

Considerable problem

A minor problem

Not much of a problem

No problem at all


12/17



The mandated framework for delivering prudential reports for CRD IV is the eXtensible Business Reporting Language,

XBRL. Through adoption of XBRL, financial organisations will be able to use automated reporting for centralised

prudential reports. However, the levels of knowledge around XBRL are not strong (see Figure 14).

Figure 14: In your view, which of the following statements best matches your opinion of what XBRL does?

Only 4% of respondents see XBRL as being a business-driven language for reporting against a mandated taxonomy,

whereas 29% see it as a data integration approach, 30% as a simple reporting schema and 34% as a method of data

aggregation. Again, as a distinct requirement for CRD IV compliance, it appears that little has been done by regulators

to get this need across. A greater emphasis on what XBRL is, and what it entails, needs to be in place.

There is also a distinct lack of appetite for XBRL (see Figure 15).

Figure 15: How important do you believe XBRL is to your organisation?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

It is simply an output format for data that my IT

department can generate

It is a data format that enables businessapplications to interoperate without intervention

It is a way for data to be dealt with to create

internal and external reports

It provides a way for data to be more simply

aggregated to meet data-centric prudential

reporting needs

Its a business-driven language to enable central

reporting against a mandated taxonomy

Don't know

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Of no importance whatsoever

We know it is important but dont yet

know understand its real impact

It will be forced on us, so well have tocover it

It will change the way that we create all

regulatory prudential reports

It will change the way we interact with

all the organisations stakeholders


13/17



35% state that they will have to adopt XBRL purely because it will be forced on them. A further 7% see it as having no

importance whatsoever even though it is a legal requirement going forward. 31% state that they know it will be

important, but that they dont understand the real impact as yet. Only 27% see it as changing the way they create

their prudential reports or deal with their stakeholders.

As to preparedness for XBRL, the results dont quite agree with those stating that they are already compliant with CRD(see Figure 16).

Figure 16: How prepared are you for XBRL?

Only 9% state that they have a solution in place, whereas 13% profess to already be CRD compliant. 60% are still at a

fact-finding stage or are still trying to identify a solution. Again, this was leaving it very late to meet the 1st January

2013 deadline for compliance, with the research being carried out in October 2012.

Figure 17: How much work do you think would be required to adopt XBRL in your organisation?

Over 48% of respondents state that the amount of effort required to adopt XBRL would either be a lot of work or a

complete replacement of systems (see Figure 17). Only 3% state that their systems are ready for anything, with a

further 15% saying only tweaks would be required against their systems. Again, with three months between the

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

We are leaving it up to an external (software

vendor, systems integrator, etc)

We are still at the fact-finding stage

We understand the basics, but are trying to

identify the solution

We have chosen a solution but havent

implemented it yet

We have implemented a solution and are ready

for XBRL reporting

Don't know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

It doesnt bear thinking about we would need

to do a complete replacement of central systems

A lot we would need to change all the data

schemas for all our applications

A fair amount some systems would need

changing, others would be OK

Most of our systems would be OK however, we

would need to tweak some of them

No problem our systems are ready for anything

Don't know


14/17



interviews and what was, at that point, the expected start of a need for being able to demonstrate CRD IV compliance,

these statements show how poorly prepared financial institutions are for CRD IV.

However, interviewees did seem to have a reasonable awareness of when the deadline was meant to come in (see

Figure 18).

Figure 18: Are you aware of the mandated timescales for CRD and Solvency II?

At the time, depending on whether you took the deadline as December 31st 2012 or January 1st 2013 (the EU works

on a January 1st date), then 63% of respondents were reasonably correct. However, 20% believed that they had until

the end of 2013, with 7% believing that the deadline had not been set yet, and 5% not knowing. With the capital and

liquidity levels still not agreed at the EU level, the actual date for CRD IV compliance has turned out to be a moveablefeast as yet, at the time of writing the report, agreement had still not been reached on the financial measures that

will underpin CRD IV.

Conclusions

For the EU and the national financial regulatory bodies, this research should raise flags about how ready financial

institutions across the EU are to become compliant with CRD IV and the regulations it supports, such as Basel III and

Solvency II. There is a great deal of confusion over what is involved, over what is required from a technology point of

view to attain levels of compliance and also around the actual dates for when compliance has to be put in place. This

last one has proven to be well founded, as prevarication and political indecision has led to late changes in the corefinancial measures behind CRD IV.

For the financial institutions involved, the research must also raise issues. The lack of preparedness for CRD IV may

well be overlooked for a period of time by the regulators during an initial transition period, but the pressure from the

public, coming through politicians, will mean that such leniency will be short-lived.

Financial organisations should be far more prepared than it seems they are. Although the hard timescales for CRD IV

have slipped, at the time of the interviews being carried out, the initial deadline for compliance was still January 1st

2013. For this, the use of XBRL to meet the requirements for the centralised submission of prudential reports was a

key aspect yet few seem to be prepared for this. Unfortunately, XBRL is not just a simple bolt-on that can be bought

and plugged in to existing systems a lot of pre-planning and integration into existing systems is required, and

financial institutions will have to speed up their planning to be able to demonstrate suitable capabilities within areasonable timescale.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

The deadlines have already passed for

them

The deadline is before the end of 2012

The deadline is within the first half of

2013

The deadline is before the end of 2013

The deadline has not been officially

agreed as yet

Don't know


15/17



In the UK, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has stated that it will still expect to be gathering prudential reports

centrally via XBRL as of 1st July 2013 under the terms of Common Reporting a little bit of a breathing gap for financial

institutions, but not much.

The capability to operate against an agreed standard reporting language should not be seen nor positioned as amandated, centrally-driven, forced adoption. Through adoption of XBRL for business facilitation, organisations should

find that their overall business processes, along with internal and external governance, compliance and audit, are

improved. Financial organisations should not be fighting XBRL adoption but should be looking at ways where it can be

used for competitive gain and for addressing the main issues that interviewees voiced in this research in dealing

with the speed of creating reports, in dealing with brand and reputation issues, in mitigating the risks of organisational

and individual penalties and in improving the transparency in how they communicate with the many different

stakeholders in their businesses.


16/17

About EMC

EMC Corporation is a global leader in enabling businesses and service providers to transform their operations and

deliver IT as a service. Fundamental to this transformation is cloud computing. Through innovative products and

services, EMC accelerates the journey to cloud computing, helping IT departments to store, manage, protect and

analyse their most valuable asset information in a more agile, trusted and cost-efficient way. Additionalinformation about EMC can be found atwww.EMC.com.
http://www.emc.com/http://www.emc.com/http://www.emc.com/http://www.emc.com/


17/17

About Quocirca

Quocirca is a primary research and analysis company specialising in the

business impact of information technology and communications (ITC).

With world-wide, native language reach, Quocirca provides in-depthinsights into the views of buyers and influencers in large, mid-sized and

small organisations. Its analyst team is made up of real-world practitioners

with first-hand experience of ITC delivery who continuously research and

track the industry and its real usage in the markets.

Through researching perceptions, Quocirca uncovers the real hurdles to

technology adoption the personal and political aspects of an

organisations environment and the pressures of the need for

demonstrable business value in any implementation. This capability to

uncover and report back on the end-user perceptions in the market

enables Quocirca to provide advice on the realities of technology adoption,

not the promises.

Quocirca research is always pragmatic, business orientated and conducted

in the context of the bigger picture. ITC has the ability to transform

businesses and the processes that drive them, but often fails to do so.

Quocircas mission is to help organisations improve their success rate in

process enablement through better levels of understanding and the

adoption of the correct technologies at the correct time.

Quocirca has a pro-active primary research programme, regularly

surveying users, purchasers and resellers of ITC products and services on

emerging, evolving and maturing technologies. Over time, Quocirca has built a picture of long term investment trends,

providing invaluable information for the whole of the ITC community.

Quocirca works with global and local providers of ITC products and services to help them deliver on the promise that

ITC holds for business. Quocircas clients include Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, O2, T-Mobile, HP, Xerox, EMC, Symantec and

Cisco, along with other large and medium-sized vendors, service providers and more specialist firms.

Details of Quocircas work and the services it offers can be found athttp://www.quocirca.com

Disclaimer:

This report has been written independently by Quocirca Ltd. During the preparation of this report, Quocirca has used

a number of sources for the information and views provided. Although Quocirca has attempted wherever possible to

validate the information received from each vendor, Quocirca cannot be held responsible for any errors in information

received in this manner.

Although Quocirca has taken what steps it can to ensure that the information provided in this report is true and

reflects real market conditions, Quocirca cannot take any responsibility for the ultimate reliability of the details

presented. Therefore, Quocirca expressly disclaims all warranties and claims as to the validity of the data presented

here, including any and all consequential losses incurred by any organisation or individual taking any action based on

such data and advice.

All brand and product names are recognised and acknowledged as trademarks or service marks of their respective

holders.

REPORT NOTE:This report has been writtenindependently by Quocirca Ltd

to provide an overview of theissues facing organisationsseeking to maximise theeffectiveness of todaysdynamic workforce.

The report draws on Quocircasextensive knowledge of thetechnology and businessarenas, and provides advice onthe approach that organisationsshould take to create a moreeffective and efficient

environment for future growth.
http://www.quocirca.com/http://www.quocirca.com/http://www.quocirca.com/http://www.quocirca.com/

preparedness for the crd iv

Documents