Will simpler transaction reporting put greater focus on data quality?

The FCA’s transaction reporting reforms aim to reduce complexity, remove low-value reporting, and improve regulatory data quality. While firms will have fewer reporting fields and some instruments will leave scope, regulatory expectations around data accuracy, governance and oversight remain unchanged. As reporting requirements become more focused, firms may face greater scrutiny of the quality, consistency and evidence of the data that remains.

The reforms set out in the FCA’s Policy Statement PS26/15 are intended to make the transaction reporting regime more proportionate and focus on reporting on the data the FCA considers most useful for supervision and market abuse monitoring.

The changes, published in August 2026, build on a regime introduced under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II) and applied in the UK since 2018. While it increased transparency across financial markets, it also created a highly detailed reporting framework that has required significant investment in systems, controls and oversight. Over time, firms, industry bodies, and reporting providers have questioned whether every reporting requirement still delivers meaningful regulatory value.

After consulting with industry, the FCA concluded that parts of the regime could be simplified without reducing its ability to supervise markets effectively. The resulting reforms remove reporting the regulator considers duplicative or low value, while retaining the information it sees as most important for market surveillance and supervision.

The wider implications of changes to FCA's transaction reporting regime

The changes also reflect the FCA’s broader post-Brexit review of inherited EU regulations. Rather than collecting more data, the regulator aims to improve the quality and usefulness of the information it receives. For firms, that creates an important distinction. Reporting volumes may reduce, but expectations around data quality, governance and oversight do not.

What has the FCA actually changed?

The reforms reduce reportable fields from 65 to 52, remove around seven million instruments that are only tradeable on EU venues, remove foreign exchange (FX) derivatives from scope and shorten the default back-reporting period from five years to three years. These changes should reduce reporting volumes and operational effort. However, firms will still need to review existing reporting frameworks and ensure controls remain effective.

What should firms be paying attention to?

• Understanding where obligations change: Firms first need to determine which reporting requirements, products and entities remain in scope. For larger organisations, consistency across systems, processes and teams will be critical.
• Maintaining confidence in reporting quality: The FCA continues to rely on transaction reporting for supervision and market abuse monitoring. Firms therefore remain responsible for ensuring reports are accurate, complete and submitted on time.
• Demonstrating effective oversight: Regulatory reporting is not simply about submitting data. Firms also need evidence that controls are working, risks are understood and governance arrangements remain effective.

Why monitoring and evidencing still matter

Simpler reporting does not mean lower regulatory risk. Transaction reporting remains an important supervisory tool and firms are still responsible for the quality and governance of the data they submit.

That places continued emphasis on monitoring, quality assurance and evidencing compliance activity. Firms need visibility over reporting processes, decision-making and control effectiveness as reporting requirements evolve.

Transaction reporting may be becoming simpler, but firms still need confidence that reporting controls are operating effectively. Recordsure helps firms monitor processes, provide evidence and strengthen oversight across regulatory reporting frameworks.