Measurement of trade receivables under IFRS 9
Question
IFRS 9 classifies financial assets into several categories: at amortized cost, at fair value through profit or loss or at fair value through other comprehensive income.
How do you classify trade receivables and how do you measure them initially, especially when they are not interest bearing?
Answer
In general, under IFRS 9 you should classify trade receivables as at amortized cost, because trade receivables usually meet 2 criteria for amortized cost classification:
- They are held within a business model whose objective is to hold financial assets to collect contractual cash flows – in this case, companies usually hold receivables to collect them; and
- The cash flows arising from the financial assets on specified dates are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding – this is met for most trade receivables.
Of course, if you hold trade receivables to trade them, then they would not have met the 2 criteria for amortized cost classification.
All financial assets shall be measured initially at fair value (plus transaction cost if asset is not at FVTPL).
The exception is trade receivables without significant financing component – you should measure them at their transaction price.
The receivables contain significant financing component if the timing of payments provides the customer or the supplier some significant benefit of financing and is further described in IFRS 15. If the receivables are due in 12 months or less than 12 months after their creation, they do NOT contain significant financing component and can be measured at their transaction price.
Please see IFRS 9 par. 5.1.3, IFRS 15 par. 60-65 for your reference.
Example
On 1 January 20X1, ABC sold goods to one of its customers on credit. The cash-selling price is CU 9 500. How should ABC measure the receivable resulting from this sale if:
- The receivable is due in 3 months and the transaction price is CU 9 500
- The receivable is due in 24 months and the transaction price is CU 10 500?
In both cases, the receivable is a financial instrument at amortized cost. Initial measurement depends on whether the receivable contains significant financing component or not:
- Due in 3 months:
The receivable does not contain any significant financing component because it is due in less than 12 months and the transaction price is the same as the cash-selling price.In this case, the receivable is measured at the transaction price. The journal entry is:
-
Debit Receivables: CU 9 500
-
Credit Revenues from sales of goods: CU 9 500
-
- Due in 24 months:
The receivable contains significant financing component because it is due in more than 12 months and the transaction price is higher than the cash-selling price.As the receivable contains significant financing component, it must be measured at fair value – in this case, it is the present value of cash flows discounted at the rate prevalent in the similar transactions.
Let’s assume that the difference between the transaction price and the cash-selling price reflects the rate that would be reflected in a separate financing transaction between the customer and the supplier.
Therefore, the fair value of the trade receivable is CU 9 500.
Initially, ABC accounts for:
-
Debit Receivables: CU 9 500
-
Credit Revenues from sales of goods: CU 9 500
-
-
Debit Receivables: CU 487,49
-
Credit Profit or loss – interest revenue: CU 487,49
-
Debit Receivables: CU 512,51
-
Credit Profit or loss – interest revenue: CU 512,51
-
Debit Cash: CU 10 000
-
Credit Receivables: CU 10 000
Subsequently, ABC must recognize an interest in profit or loss using the effective interest method.
In this case, the annual effective interest rate is 5.1315% (apply formula IRR in Excel to the series of cash flows: 9 500, 0, -10 500).
At the end of year 20X1, ABC recognizes an interest of CU 487,49 (CU 9 500*5.1315%):
At the end of year 20X1, ABC recognizes an interest of CU 512,35 (CU (9 500+487,49)*5.1315%):
Thus the carrying amount of the receivable before cash receipt is CU 9 500+CU 487,49+CU 512,51 = CU 10 000.
When the customer pays, ABC’s journal entry is:
Tags In
JOIN OUR FREE NEWSLETTER AND GET
report "Top 7 IFRS Mistakes" + free IFRS mini-course
Please check your inbox to confirm your subscription.
18 Comments
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Recent Comments
- Silvia on IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements: summary
- Kevin on IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements: summary
- Silvia on 3 Biggest Myths in Accounting for PPE
- RASHEED ABOLOMOPE on 3 Biggest Myths in Accounting for PPE
- Silvia on IFRS Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economy (IAS 29)
Categories
- Accounting Policies and Estimates (14)
- Consolidation and Groups (24)
- Current Assets (21)
- Financial Instruments (56)
- Financial Statements (52)
- Foreign Currency (9)
- IFRS Videos (71)
- Insurance (3)
- Most popular (6)
- Non-current Assets (54)
- Other Topics (15)
- Provisions and Other Liabilities (45)
- Revenue Recognition (26)
- Uncategorized (1)
Hi Slyvia, what is the classification and subsequent measurement of debtors without significant financing component?
Hi Fhatu,
these receivables are at amortized cost basically, but since there is no significant financing component, you can keep them at the transaction price (minus ECL allowance if any).
Trade Receivables and Lease Receivable are not part of IFRS 9 Classification and Measurement. They are ONLY part of Impairment. From an IFRS9 portfolio perspective, they are not included. For this reason, they should not appear under Amortised Cost portfolio, but under Other Assets.
This article is not about lease receivables, so I am not sure why you are mentioning them here. I beg to disagree with your note about trade receivables. They ARE a financial instrument, too, thus the full IFRS 9 applies. Yes, there is an exception related to their initial measurement, but that’s it.
Hi Silvia, I have bought the IFRS kit and its very useful! I have one question that i could not solve it neither with the data from IFRS KIT neither from the Internet. If we have on receivable (lets assume that recorded in previous years) and in the current year I have updated contract that the payments will take place in the long future.. What discount rate should I use? The only guidance that I found is from PwC, but the article is from 2012 and I am not sure if IFRS 9 change this concept. The article mentions “The appropriate discount rate is the rate at which the customer could otherwise borrow on similar terms.
expected to be material.” (https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ifrs-reporting/pdf/ifrs_news_-_february_2012_global.pdf). Can you help?
Dear Pavlos,
thank you for your subscription, I really do appreciate.
So, I would kindly point you to the paragraph 64 of the standard IFRS 15 that speaks about the discount rate when there is a significant financing component in the transaction. It says that “an entity shall use the discount rate that would be reflected in a separate financing transaction between the entity and its customer at contract inception. That rate would reflect the credit characteristics of the party receiving financing in the contract, as well as any collateral or security provided by the customer or the entity, including assets transferred in the contract.” So, basically, it is very similar to what you found in older PWC material. I hope this helps.
Thank you very much! I really appreciate your prompt and accurate answer
Silvia, I have one more question! I have on trade receivable, which I know that will be receipt in the long term but I have no idea when…. My question is, Should I discount the amount with a generic and without serious evidence period or should I leave it as it (no discounting/face value)? Thank you!!!!!!
Dear Pavlos, it depends on the contractual terms. If the contractual maturity is within 1 year, do not discount it – even if you “know” that it will be long-term.
Thanks Silvia!
Do I understand correctly, that long-term trade receivables should firstly be discounted and after measured at amortized cost, if only contracts, which gave rise to the trade receivables, contain significant financing component? Or do we have to discount and measure at amortized cost all long term receivables?
Hi Maria, could you please describe the specific case of a long-term receivable without significant financing component?
Thanks Silvia. In initial measurement without significance component of financing it is to transaction price, but subsequently if it is measured to fair value through of p&G or OCI, how do you determinate the fair value? Discounting cash flow independently of that the receivable account is 12 months or minus?
Well, in that case, the fail value is usually affected by the credit risk mostly, so it is similar as with ECL calculation, plus if possible, adding some market factors to it. However, it is highly unusual to measure regular trade receivables at FV TPL due to practical issues.
Thanks for your answer. Yes, I was thinking of a company that factors its invoices. In that case, the business model would be to hold for sale and therefore they should be measured at fair value through profit or loss. That’s the scenario I had in mind.
Sorry, I meant “factoring” rather “factors”.
Thanks for your answer. The scenario I had in mind is that of a company that factors its invoices.
The last journal entry should be CU10,500, instead of CU10,000
Nicely explained. Thanks!