inform.pwc.com
This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute
for consultation with professional advisors.
© 2018 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the UK member firm,
and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity.
Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.
example, all contract assets have a comparable likelihood of not being recovered as
accounts receivable which have just been invoiced or are not yet due. This approach
might understate the provision, because it does not take into account the ageing or
population of the contract assets.
The most appropriate approach to take on transition will be dependent on the facts
and circumstances of the entity and its contract asset portfolios. For both approaches,
the contract assets portfolio should be actively monitored, following transition, to
develop a more accurate expectation of future credit losses.
In some jurisdictions, there might also be regulations in place designed to protect
consumers from long-dated bills yet to be invoiced; for example, any bill not raised
within 90 days might be prohibited by law from being raised at all. Such a regulation
would drive a write-off policy of unbilled receivables over 90 days. (See chapter 11 of
PwC’s Manual of Accounting at FAQ 11.295.1 for further considerations on contract
assets.)
What steps should be taken to audit this information?
The steps and approach to auditing the historical information used in a provision
matrix under IFRS 9 are no different from the way in which any other input to an
estimate or judgement would be audited. An understanding is needed of the entity’s
process, the methodology that it has adopted, the source of its data, and how it has
arrived at its position. Areas to consider include:
Data: What is the source of the data used as part of the provisioning
calculation? Is this from a system that we already have as part of the audit
scope for Information Technology General Controls (‘ITGCs’), and is there a
new report that we need to consider and test? Does it create a new IT
dependency, and does this change the nature and requirements of the current
ITGC testing? Should a walkthrough be performed of the process to generate
the data, to understand the information flows and to document any relevant
controls? If this is coming from a new system, do we need to consider
whether we would want to undertake ITGC work, or will we plan to test the
data within the report substantively back to source information (that is, bank
statements / invoices), or systems where we already have controls evidence?
Methodology: How has the entity arrived at its methodology for assessing
historical data? Has it used a complete set of data for all customers? From
what period of time has it considered data? Is this appropriate, based on the
payment profile and standard business practice in the industry? If a sampling
approach has been undertaken, how has the entity split its accounts
receivable into different groups? Are the groupings reasonable and based on
an assessment of the credit characteristics of customers? Are there sufficient
groupings based on the total population and materiality? Have we looked for
customers not used in the sample to assess and challenge the approach?
Execution: Have we reviewed and checked the entity’s calculations, to ensure
that the input data is complete and accurate? Are there any errors in the
entity’s calculations or workings? If the entity has grouped customers, have
we checked to ensure that they have been included and classified correctly in
the right group? Are we aware of any specific accounts receivable balances
that might need to be considered separately, due to current increases in
credit risk?
In order to answer some of the above questions, we will need to undertake
substantive testing, likely on a sample basis; and, in doing so, we use our core
standard approaches of target testing, non-statistical sampling and accept-reject as
appropriate.