How to recognize impairment of financial assets under expected credit loss models
- Graziano Stefanelli
- Sep 18
- 4 min read
The measurement and recognition of credit losses on financial assets are critical to ensuring that financial statements reflect the economic realities of risk exposure. Under IFRS 9, the expected credit loss (ECL) model replaced the previous incurred loss model, creating a more forward-looking and comprehensive framework. In contrast, US GAAP follows a similar approach through the Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) model under ASC 326, though with key operational and scope differences.
The expected credit loss model is forward-looking and applies from initial recognition.
Under IFRS 9, entities are required to recognize ECLs on most financial assets from the moment of initial recognition, not only after a credit loss event has occurred. The model is based on:
Historical loss experience
Current conditions
Reasonable and supportable forecasts of future economic scenarios
This approach ensures that even performing financial instruments carry a credit loss allowance to reflect potential deterioration in credit quality over time.
Key financial assets subject to ECL:
Trade receivables
Loans receivable
Debt securities (held at amortized cost or FVOCI)
Lease receivables
Contract assets (under IFRS 15)
US GAAP’s CECL model also uses a forward-looking expected loss framework, but with no staging concept like IFRS. Instead, the entire expected lifetime credit loss is recognized immediately for all financial assets within scope.
IFRS 9 introduces a three-stage approach based on credit risk deterioration.
IFRS 9’s model divides financial assets into three stages that determine the amount and timing of ECL recognition:
A move from Stage 1 to Stage 2 is triggered by a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition.
A move to Stage 3 occurs when the asset is credit-impaired, such as default, delinquency, or other evidence of uncollectibility.
The ECL calculation must incorporate probability-weighted outcomes and discounted present values, integrating both quantitative and qualitative indicators.
The CECL model under US GAAP requires lifetime loss recognition for all financial assets.
Unlike IFRS, US GAAP’s ASC 326 (CECL) requires entities to recognize expected lifetime losses on day one for all financial assets carried at amortized cost. The CECL model is not segmented into stages, meaning there’s no progressive increase based on credit deterioration.
The emphasis is on:
Pooled loss estimation for similar asset types (e.g., retail loans, corporate receivables)
Use of historical loss experience adjusted for current and future conditions
Flexibility in method (loss-rate, vintage, probability of default models)
CECL’s broader and earlier recognition of losses can result in higher upfront provisions, especially in deteriorating economic environments.
Simplified approaches apply to trade receivables and lease receivables.
To reduce complexity, IFRS 9 allows a simplified approach for:
Trade receivables
Lease receivables
Contract assets
Under this approach, entities do not track credit deterioration but instead apply lifetime ECL from initial recognition, regardless of risk change.
In US GAAP, similar assets are also included in the CECL model, with loss allowances estimated using grouped pools and practical expedients. For short-term receivables, qualitative estimates based on aging and historical collection may suffice.
Credit loss estimation methods include statistical and judgmental models.
Both IFRS and US GAAP allow for various methodologies depending on the type of asset and data availability. These may include:
Probability of default (PD) × Loss given default (LGD) × Exposure at default (EAD)
Vintage analysis (especially under CECL)
Loss-rate models
Discounted cash flow forecasts
Aging schedules for trade receivables
Macroeconomic overlays—such as unemployment, GDP forecasts, inflation—must be incorporated if relevant and supportable. IFRS emphasizes the use of multiple forward-looking scenarios with probability weighting, while CECL allows more discretion, provided assumptions are documented and reasonable.
Disclosures focus on credit quality, inputs, and assumptions.
Both frameworks require comprehensive disclosures related to:
Credit risk management policies
Inputs and assumptions used for expected loss estimates
Movement of loss allowances during the reporting period
Reconciliation of opening and closing ECL balances
Credit quality indicators by asset class
IFRS 7 provides the disclosure backbone for IFRS reporters, while ASC 326-20-50 and related sections govern disclosures in US GAAP.
Key differences between IFRS 9 and CECL in impairment of financial assets.
The shift to expected credit loss models represents a significant evolution in financial asset impairment accounting. While IFRS 9’s staging mechanism allows more granularity and sensitivity to credit changes, CECL’s single-step model under US GAAP offers a more conservative upfront provision, often with operational simplicity in pooled asset environments. Both frameworks demand sophisticated modeling, high-quality data, and transparent disclosures to faithfully represent credit risk.
____________
FOLLOW US FOR MORE.
DATA STUDIOS
