A Dec. 3 proposal from FASB’s Accounting Standards Update (ASU) might provide some flexibility for private businesses and select nonprofits. “Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326)” looks at measuring credit losses for contract assets and accounts receivable for these entities.

When it comes to determining projected credit losses for current accounts receivables and current contract assets, businesses face immense resource needs and reporting requirements, including for assets acquired prior to the publication dates of financial statements.

With public comments being received through Jan. 17, 2025, industry professionals have reported that when it comes to gauging projected credit losses for current contract assets and current accounts receivable, there’s a massive undertaking and validation necessary for assets collected prior to financial statement issuance dates. Industry professionals argue that being able to factor in collections post-balance sheet date in calculating expected credit losses would reduce the complexity for preparers, whereas, for third parties, including investors and others who utilize financial statements, it would provide them with valuable data.

FASB proposed an amendment to ASC 326 207 to allow private companies and certain not-for-profit entities to employ a more flexible and efficient way to better gauge their projected credit losses for current contract assets and accounts receivable that originate from transaction accounts under ASC 606.

Working with the Private Company Council (PCC) to look at stakeholders’ concerns that estimating projected credit losses can be exorbitant and complicated for financial proceedings, FASB is soliciting comments on whether or not to expand the scope of entities included for ASU standards, along with different asset classes.

Current Criteria

According to ASC 326-20, when expected credit losses are estimated by entities, an entity must evaluate their ability to garner cash flows via the lens of contemporary economic circumstances, rational and documented projections, and past losses. Past losses may need to be fine-tuned to approximate project credit losses if past circumstances change from present conditions or from well-ground estimates and documented projections. Another consideration when formulating credit loss projections is that entities aren’t required to factor in collections obtained post-balance sheet date.  

Proposed Additions

When it comes to the proposed additions, FASB speaks to a practical expedient and an accounting policy election. The practical expedient concerns an entity’s well-grounded, data-dependent projections. If an entity chooses the practical expedient, it would be able to factor in collection activity beyond the balance sheet date when projecting expected credit losses.

Practical Expedient

To formulate projections that are rational and based on verified accounting details, this so-called practical expedient can be chosen by the entity that assumes its present balance sheet conditions will last for the entire projection time frame. Choosing a practical expedient also implies that an entity’s accounting policy will factor in collection activity past its balance sheet date when gauging expected credit losses. Specifically, under 326-20-30-10C for the practical expedient, during the projection time frame, an entity will maintain the exact circumstances of the balance sheet throughout the rational and data-based projection period.

If a business, for example, has determined a particular client is facing monetary challenges, it would account for its client’s financial issues through projections of estimated expected credit losses for said client, even though it has not impacted the business’ historical loss experience or if the business is up to date as of the balance sheet date.

Accounting Policy Election

Per 326-20-30-10E, when a practical expedient from 326-20-30-10C through 30-10D is chosen by entities for their accounting policy election when projecting credit losses, it signals that the entity factors in collection activity after the balance sheet date, but prior to the date of financial statement issuance. If an entity uses one or both of the practical expedient and/or accounting policy elections, disclosure is mandatory.

Conclusion

Lastly, such advice would be administered on a forward-looking basis, and both of these entities (PCC and FASB) will make the ultimate findings and guidelines of the implementation dates once industry professionals’ comments are considered. However, entities will likely be able to utilize these guidelines sooner.

For eligible companies, these standards could provide greater flexibility and the ability to divert resources to more productive allocations.