Connect with us

Accounting

Assessing credit losses in financial statement audits: A guide for auditors

Published

on

Credit losses represent a significant area of focus in financial statement audits. As economic conditions fluctuate and accounting standards evolve, auditors face increasing challenges in evaluating how organizations estimate and report credit losses, and in providing a comprehensive overview of credit loss assessment in financial statement audits. 

This article will explore the concept of credit losses, examine relevant regulatory frameworks, discuss vital challenges auditors encounter, and offer best practices for effectively auditing credit loss estimates. In addition, it will also describe key emerging trends and technologies shaping the future of credit loss auditing.

Credit losses occur when a borrower fails to repay a debt according to the initial agreement. These losses are typically reported as allowances for credit losses or loan loss provisions in financial statements. They represent the estimated amount of debt that may not be collected, reflecting the credit risk associated with a company’s financial assets.

For auditors, understanding how companies calculate and report credit losses is crucial. This process often involves complex estimates and judgments, as companies must forecast future economic conditions and borrower behavior. The shift toward more forward-looking models, such as the Current Expected Credit Loss model in the United States, has further increased the complexity of these estimates.

Auditors must evaluate whether these estimates are reasonable and supported by appropriate evidence, ensuring that financial statements accurately reflect the company’s credit risk exposure.

Regulatory framework and standards

Various standards and regulations govern the accounting for credit losses, which have undergone significant changes in recent years. In the United States, the Financial Accounting Standards Board introduced Accounting Standards Update 2016-13, which implemented the CECL model. Internationally, the International Accounting Standards Board has issued IFRS 9, which includes a similar expected credit loss model.

These standards require companies to recognize expected credit losses over the life of a financial asset rather than waiting for a loss event to occur. This forward-looking approach aims to provide financial statement users with more timely and relevant information about credit risk.

Auditors must stay current with these standards and any related interpretations or guidance issued by regulatory bodies. They must also understand how these standards apply to different types of financial assets and industries to effectively audit credit loss estimates.

Critical challenges in auditing credit losses

Auditing credit losses presents several challenges:

  • Complexity of models: Credit loss models often involve complex statistical techniques and numerous assumptions. Auditors must assess whether these models are appropriate and whether the assumptions used are reasonable.
  • Data quality and availability: The accuracy of credit loss estimates depends heavily on the quality and completeness of historical and current data. Auditors must evaluate the reliability of data sources and the processes used to collect and maintain this information.
  • Judgment and estimation uncertainty: Credit loss estimates involve significant judgment, particularly in forecasting future economic conditions. Auditors must evaluate the reasonableness of these judgments and ensure appropriate disclosure of estimation uncertainty.
  • Rapidly changing economic conditions: Economic volatility can quickly render historical data and assumptions obsolete. Auditors must consider how companies have incorporated recent economic trends and events into their estimates.
  • Internal controls: Assessing the effectiveness of internal controls over the credit loss estimation process is crucial but can be challenging due to the complexity and judgment involved.
  • Potential management bias: Given the subjective nature of credit loss estimates, there’s a risk of management bias. Auditors must remain skeptical and alert to potential manipulations of these estimates.

Best practices for auditors 

To effectively audit credit losses, auditors should consider the following best practices:

  • Develop a thorough understanding: Gain in-depth knowledge of the company’s business model, credit risk management practices and the specific credit loss estimation methodology.
  • Assess model appropriateness: Evaluate whether the credit loss model aligns with accounting standards and suits the company’s specific circumstances. When dealing with complex models, consider involving specialists.
  • Test key assumptions: Critically evaluate the reasonableness of key assumptions used in the credit loss model. This may involve comparing assumptions to industry benchmarks, historical data, and economic forecasts from reliable sources.
  • Perform sensitivity analyses: Assess how changes in key assumptions impact the credit loss estimate to understand the model’s sensitivity and identify potential areas of concern.
  • Evaluate data integrity: Test the completeness and accuracy of data used in the credit loss model. This includes both historical data and current information used to inform forward-looking estimates.
  • Review disclosures: Ensure financial statement disclosures adequately explain the credit loss estimation process, key assumptions and areas of uncertainty.
  • Assess internal controls: Thoroughly evaluate internal controls’ design and operating effectiveness over the credit loss estimation process.
  • Consider management bias: When selecting assumptions or data used in the estimation process, remain alert to potential indicators of management bias.
  • Document thoroughly: Maintain clear and comprehensive documentation of audit procedures performed, evidence obtained, and conclusions regarding credit loss estimates’ reasonableness.
  • Stay updated: Continuously monitor changes in accounting standards, regulatory guidance, and industry practices related to credit loss estimation and auditing.

Emerging trends and technologies

The field of credit loss auditing is evolving rapidly, driven by technological advancements and changing regulatory landscapes. Emerging trends include:

  • Increased use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in credit loss modeling;
  • Greater emphasis on real-time data analysis and continuous auditing techniques;
  • Enhanced data analytics tools for identifying patterns and anomalies in large datasets;
  • Growing focus on climate-related risks and their potential impact on credit losses; and,
  • Increased regulatory scrutiny of credit loss estimates, particularly during economic uncertainty.

The impact of AI on auditing credit losses

Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing how credit losses are estimated and audited. Its ability to quickly process vast amounts of data and identify complex patterns is particularly valuable in this field. 

Here are some key areas where AI is making a significant impact:

1. Enhanced pattern recognition. AI algorithms can analyze historical data to identify subtle patterns indicating increased credit risk. For example, an AI system might detect that customers who make frequent small purchases followed by large purchases are more likely to default. This pattern might need to be more nuanced for traditional analysis methods to catch.

Example: An auditor reviewing a bank’s credit loss estimates could use AI to analyze the transaction patterns of thousands of credit card holders. The AI might identify a correlation between certain spending behaviors and the likelihood of default that the bank’s model hasn’t accounted for, prompting the auditor to question the completeness of the bank’s risk assessment.

2. Improved forecasting. AI models can incorporate a broader range of variables and data sources to improve the accuracy of credit loss forecasts. This includes nontraditional data such as social media posts, online behavior, or macroeconomic indicators.

Example: When auditing a mortgage lender’s expected credit losses, an AI system could analyze not just traditional factors like credit scores and income but also incorporate data on local real estate trends, employment statistics, and even climate change projections for coastal properties. The auditor could assess whether the lender’s forecasting model is sufficiently comprehensive.

3. Real-time risk assessment. AI systems can continuously update risk assessments as new data becomes available, allowing for more dynamic credit loss estimates.

Example: An auditor reviewing a company’s accounts receivable might use an AI tool that continuously monitors customer payment behaviors, news about customer companies, and industry trends. This could help the auditor assess whether the company’s credit loss allowances are updated frequently enough to reflect current risks.

4. Anomaly detection. AI can quickly identify unusual patterns or transactions that might indicate errors in credit loss calculations or potential fraud.

Example: When auditing an extensive portfolio of loans, an AI system could flag individual loans or groups with risk characteristics that don’t align with their assigned risk ratings. This could help auditors focus on areas where the credit loss estimates might need to be more accurate.

5. Automation of routine tasks. AI can automate many routine aspects of auditing credit losses, such as data gathering, reconciliations, and basic calculations. This allows auditors to focus more on complex judgments and risk assessments.

Example: An AI system could automatically gather loan data, calculate expected loss rates based on historical performance, and compare these to the client’s estimates. The auditor could then focus on evaluating the reasonableness of any differences and assessing the qualitative factors that might justify them.

6. Enhanced scenario analysis. AI can rapidly run multiple complex economic scenarios to stress-test credit loss models, providing auditors with a more comprehensive view of potential risks.

Example: When auditing a bank’s loan loss provisions, an AI system could quickly generate and analyze hundreds of potential economic scenarios, considering factors like interest rates, unemployment and GDP growth. This could help the auditor assess whether the bank’s scenario analysis is sufficiently robust and comprehensive.

While AI offers significant benefits, it’s important to note that it also introduces new challenges for auditors. These include ensuring the reliability and appropriateness of AI models, understanding the “black box” nature of some AI algorithms, and maintaining professional skepticism when working with AI-generated insights. Auditors must develop new skills to effectively leverage AI tools while still applying their professional judgment to the audit process.

Auditors should stay informed about these trends and consider how they might impact their audit approaches and methodologies.

Final word

Auditing credit losses remains a complex and challenging task. By staying informed, applying best practices, and leveraging emerging technologies, auditors can enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of their work, ultimately contributing to the reliability and transparency of financial reporting.

Continue Reading

Accounting

IAASB tweaks standards on working with outside experts

Published

on

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board is proposing to tailor some of its standards to align with recent additions to the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants’ International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants when it comes to using the work of an external expert.

The proposed narrow-scope amendments involve minor changes to several IAASB standards:

  • ISA 620, Using the Work of an Auditor’s Expert;
  • ISRE 2400 (Revised), Engagements to Review Historical Financial Statements;
  • ISAE 3000 (Revised), Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information;
  • ISRS 4400 (Revised), Agreed-upon Procedures Engagements.

The IAASB is asking for comments via a digital response template that can be found on the IAASB website by July 24, 2025.

In December 2023, the IESBA approved an exposure draft for proposed revisions to the IESBA’s Code of Ethics related to using the work of an external expert. The proposals included three new sections to the Code of Ethics, including provisions for professional accountants in public practice; professional accountants in business and sustainability assurance practitioners. The IESBA approved the provisions on using the work of an external expert at its December 2024 meeting, establishing an ethical framework to guide accountants and sustainability assurance practitioners in evaluating whether an external expert has the necessary competence, capabilities and objectivity to use their work, as well as provisions on applying the Ethics Code’s conceptual framework when using the work of an outside expert.  

Continue Reading

Accounting

Tariffs will hit low-income Americans harder than richest, report says

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s tariffs would effectively cause a tax increase for low-income families that is more than three times higher than what wealthier Americans would pay, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The report from the progressive think tank outlined the outcomes for Americans of all backgrounds if the tariffs currently in effect remain in place next year. Those making $28,600 or less would have to spend 6.2% more of their income due to higher prices, while the richest Americans with income of at least $914,900 are expected to spend 1.7% more. Middle-income families making between $55,100 and $94,100 would pay 5% more of their earnings. 

Trump has imposed the steepest U.S. duties in more than a century, including a 145% tariff on many products from China, a 25% rate on most imports from Canada and Mexico, duties on some sectors such as steel and aluminum and a baseline 10% tariff on the rest of the country’s trading partners. He suspended higher, customized tariffs on most countries for 90 days.

Economists have warned that costs from tariff increases would ultimately be passed on to U.S. consumers. And while prices will rise for everyone, lower-income families are expected to lose a larger portion of their budgets because they tend to spend more of their earnings on goods, including food and other necessities, compared to wealthier individuals.

Food prices could rise by 2.6% in the short run due to tariffs, according to an estimate from the Yale Budget Lab. Among all goods impacted, consumers are expected to face the steepest price hikes for clothing at 64%, the report showed. 

The Yale Budget Lab projected that the tariffs would result in a loss of $4,700 a year on average for American households.

Continue Reading

Accounting

At Schellman, AI reshapes a firm’s staffing needs

Published

on

Artificial intelligence is just getting started in the accounting world, but it is already helping firms like technology specialist Schellman do more things with fewer people, allowing the firm to scale back hiring and reduce headcount in certain areas through natural attrition. 

Schellman CEO Avani Desai said there have definitely been some shifts in headcount at the Top 100 Firm, though she stressed it was nothing dramatic, as it mostly reflects natural attrition combined with being more selective with hiring. She said the firm has already made an internal decision to not reduce headcount in force, as that just indicates they didn’t hire properly the first time. 

“It hasn’t been about reducing roles but evolving how we do work, so there wasn’t one specific date where we ‘started’ the reduction. It’s been more case by case. We’ve held back on refilling certain roles when we saw opportunities to streamline, especially with the use of new technologies like AI,” she said. 

One area where the firm has found such opportunities has been in the testing of certain cybersecurity controls, particularly within the SOC framework. The firm examined all the controls it tests on the service side and asked which ones require human judgment or deep expertise. The answer was a lot of them. But for the ones that don’t, AI algorithms have been able to significantly lighten the load. 

“[If] we don’t refill a role, it’s because the need actually has changed, or the process has improved so significantly [that] the workload is lighter or shared across the smarter system. So that’s what’s happening,” said Desai. 

Outside of client services like SOC control testing and reporting, the firm has found efficiencies in administrative functions as well as certain internal operational processes. On the latter point, Desai noted that Schellman’s engineers, including the chief information officer, have been using AI to help develop code, which means they’re not relying as much on outside expertise on the internal service delivery side of things. There are still people in the development process, but their roles are changing: They’re writing less code, and doing more reviewing of code before it gets pushed into production, saving time and creating efficiencies. 

“The best way for me to say this is, to us, this has been intentional. We paused hiring in a few areas where we saw overlaps, where technology was really working,” said Desai.

However, even in an age awash with AI, Schellman acknowledges there are certain jobs that need a human, at least for now. For example, the firm does assessments for the FedRAMP program, which is needed for cloud service providers to contract with certain government agencies. These assessments, even in the most stable of times, can be long and complex engagements, to say nothing of the less predictable nature of the current government. As such, it does not make as much sense to reduce human staff in this area. 

“The way it is right now for us to do FedRAMP engagements, it’s a very manual process. There’s a lot of back and forth between us and a third party, the government, and we don’t see a lot of overall application or technology help… We’re in the federal space and you can imagine, [with] what’s going on right now, there’s a big changing market condition for clients and their pricing pressure,” said Desai. 

As Schellman reduces staff levels in some places, it is increasing them in others. Desai said the firm is actively hiring in certain areas. In particular, it’s adding staff in technical cybersecurity (e.g., penetration testers), the aforementioned FedRAMP engagements, AI assessment (in line with recently becoming an ISO 42001 certification body) and in some client-facing roles like marketing and sales. 

“So, to me, this isn’t about doing more with less … It’s about doing more of the right things with the right people,” said Desai. 

While these moves have resulted in savings, she said that was never really the point, so whatever the firm has saved from staffing efficiencies it has reinvested in its tech stack to build its service line further. When asked for an example, she said the firm would like to focus more on penetration testing by building a SaaS tool for it. While Schellman has a proof of concept developed, she noted it would take a lot of money and time to deploy a full solution — both of which the firm now has more of because of its efficiency moves. 

“What is the ‘why’ behind these decisions? The ‘why’ for us isn’t what I think you traditionally see, which is ‘We need to get profitability high. We need to have less people do more things.’ That’s not what it is like,” said Desai. “I want to be able to focus on quality. And the only way I think I can focus on quality is if my people are not focusing on things that don’t matter … I feel like I’m in a much better place because the smart people that I’ve hired are working on the riskiest and most complicated things.”

Continue Reading

Trending