When the BOT return says one thing and your management accounts say another, who does the CFO believe?
Your regulatory team builds one set of numbers. Your finance team builds another. Your risk team builds a third. They all draw from the same underlying data and they rarely agree. The reconciliation lives in someone’s notebook.
We speak Basel and IFRS 9. Not just BI.
In financial services, every number sits at the intersection of multiple regulatory frameworks. A single NPA figure must satisfy your internal credit committee, your external auditors, the Bank of Thailand’s FIDF reporting requirements, and your parent bank’s Basel III capital stack — simultaneously. Each audience has a different definition. Your existing reports satisfy one. The others ask for a re-run.
Your data lives across core banking systems, risk engines, treasury platforms, and general ledger. They were not designed to speak the same language. ECL under IFRS 9, LCR under Basel III, and your internal cost-to-income ratio are all calculable from overlapping source systems that use different date conventions, different counterparty hierarchies, and different cut-off rules. The gap between them is where your CFO loses confidence in the numbers.
Parent-company reporting demands — whether your shareholder sits in Tokyo, Singapore, Paris or Frankfurt — add another layer of translation. Your local GAAP does not map cleanly to their group consolidation definitions. Someone builds that bridge every quarter in Excel.
WizEmp has worked in data environments where regulatory precision is non-negotiable. We know what it takes to produce a single number a risk officer, a finance controller and a BOT examiner can all stand behind.
Regulatory and management accounts never reconcile cleanly
Your BOT return, your IFRS financials and your management pack all draw from the same source. They surface different numbers. Reconciling them takes three days before each board meeting.
NPA ratios differ depending on who runs the query
Credit, risk and finance each have their own definition of non-performing. When the CEO asks for the NPA ratio, the room goes quiet before someone names a figure. The silence is the problem.
Liquidity reporting is point-in-time, not intraday
Your LCR and NSFR are reported at month-end from a batch process. Your treasury desk manages liquidity in real time. The two views have never been connected in a single dashboard.
AML and compliance data is monitored but never analysed
Transaction monitoring flags alerts. The alerts are reviewed. Patterns across customers, branches and product types are never surfaced because no one has built the architecture to connect them.
Parent-bank consolidation requires a quarterly translation exercise
Your Thai subsidiary reports under BOT rules. Your parent books under IFRS or US GAAP. The mapping is rebuilt from scratch every quarter by two people who are the single point of failure.
Discovery that bridges regulatory and management reporting.
Wit, WizEmp’s AI-powered discovery process, runs structured anonymous interviews across all stakeholders before any report is built. It surfaces the real definition disputes — the ones that live in email threads and pre-meeting briefings — before they become architecture problems.
Vocabulary Wit uses in your environment:
Adaptation 01
Regulatory calendar drives the discovery sequence
Wit maps your reporting calendar — BOT deadlines, IFRS close, parent-bank consolidation windows — before interviewing stakeholders. Architecture decisions are made with the deadline stack visible.
Adaptation 02
NPA definition conflict surfaced as a primary question
Wit asks: when credit says the NPA ratio is X and finance says Y, which number goes to the board? The answer reveals the definition gap. The Shield of Truth closes it with signatures.
Adaptation 03
Data lineage traced from source system to regulatory disclosure
Every metric is traced back to its source table, transformation rule, and sign-off owner. When the BOT examiner asks “where does this number come from?”, the answer is in the Data Dictionary.
Adaptation 04
Parent-bank mapping captured at discovery, not during build
Wit interviews both local finance and group reporting teams. The translation logic between Thai GAAP and group definitions is documented before a single report is built, not discovered mid-project.
Adaptation 05
AML patterns treated as analytical candidates, not just compliance outputs
Wit asks which compliance metrics currently influence business decisions. The honest answer drives the difference between a checkbox dashboard and one your head of compliance actually uses.
A Necessary and Sufficient Architecture for financial services reporting.
WizEmp delivers in Microsoft® Power BI®. Once the Shield of Truth™ is signed, our team builds a Power BI Cockpit: the navigation hub connecting every report in your workspace. For a financial services operator, the Cockpit links reports that serve three master requirements: regulatory compliance, risk visibility, and management insight that traces back to the same source data.
Every report WizEmp builds follows the Overview–Exploration–Detailed structure. A CEO sees the capital adequacy ratio in 10 seconds. A credit officer drills to a specific counterparty’s stage migration in 2 minutes. Same report. Same data. Two entry points.
Power BI Cockpit · Financial Services Configuration
Your navigation hub: connecting every report in your workspace
Regulatory Capital
Credit & NPA
Liquidity & Funding
Revenue & Profitability
AML & Compliance
Executive HUD
“In financial services, every definition dispute is a regulatory risk. Wit surfaces those disputes before architecture is committed. The Data Dictionary and Metrics Dictionary are the first deliverables. Every report that follows draws from them — and every number traces back to a signed source.”
Every function in your institution. One coherent data architecture.
Finance & Controlling
Management accounts that reconcile to the regulatory return — without a three-day manual process before every board pack.
Risk & Credit
NPA, ECL, stage migration and RWA in one architecture. One signed definition. No more pre-meeting briefings to align on the number.
Treasury & ALM
LCR, NSFR and maturity profile connected to your management view. Liquidity risk visible in the same cockpit as the P&L, not in a separate silo.
Compliance & AML
Alert patterns, breach tracking, and regulatory submission status — giving your compliance team analytical capability, not just a monitoring checklist.
Let’s talk about your definition problem.
Most financial services BI projects fail not because of technology but because NPA means something different to credit, risk, finance and the regulator. Wit surfaces those gaps before architecture is committed.
Schedule a Discovery CallJust a conversation. Specific to financial services.