A private company with ordinary trade receivables has two practical ways to build a CECL allowance: a loss-rate method applied to a pool, or an aging-schedule method applied bucket by bucket. Since ASU 2025-05, the choice also interacts with a practical expedient and, for non-public entities, a policy election on post-balance-sheet collections. The framework is covered in CECL for private companies and the aging report basics in accounts receivable aging and the allowance. This post works through the mechanics and shows where each method breaks.
Effective dates in one place
- ASC 326 (CECL) for private companies: fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022, the date set when ASU 2019-10 deferred the standard for private companies and nonprofits from January 2021 to January 2023. Calendar-year private companies have reported under CECL since 2023.
- ASU 2025-05: annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2025, and interim periods within those years. For a calendar-year entity that is the 2026 financial statements. Early adoption is permitted in interim and annual periods whose financial statements have not been issued or made available for issuance (an entity adopting in an interim period applies the amendments as of the beginning of that annual period), and adoption is prospective for estimates of expected credit losses.
What ASU 2025-05 covers
The ASU applies to current accounts receivable and current contract assets arising from transactions accounted for under Topic 606. "Current" follows a one-year period unless the operating cycle is longer than 12 months. The scope includes assets acquired in a business combination and assets acquired through consolidation of a variable interest entity that is not a business. Assets outside this description are outside the ASU.
The practical expedient, available to all entities. The entity assumes that conditions at the balance sheet date do not change for the remaining life of the asset. Historical loss experience is adjusted for current conditions and for asset-specific differences, with no forward-looking forecast layered on top. Grant Thornton's example: if unemployment averaged 5% in the historical period and stands at 8% at the balance sheet date, adjust historical losses for the higher rate and assume 8% holds for the remaining life of the receivable. The expedient is applied consistently to all eligible current assets.
The policy election, for entities other than public business entities. An entity that elects the expedient can also elect to consider cash collected after the balance sheet date. The cutoff is any date after the balance sheet date and before the financial statements are available to be issued. Balances collected by that date carry a zero allowance. Remaining uncollected balances are evaluated as of that date. An entity that uses an aging schedule can, but is not required to, update its loss rates for those post-balance-sheet collections. Moving the cutoff date from one period to the next is not a change in accounting principle. The entity discloses the expedient, the policy election, and the date through which collections were considered.
A non-public entity that adopts the expedient or the election after the effective date does not need a preferability assessment.
Method 1: the loss-rate method
The loss-rate method estimates the share of a receivable pool that will not be collected, from the entity's own history.
Mechanics:
- Define the pool. Group receivables with similar risk characteristics, such as customer type or product line. Receivables with different risk profiles go in different pools or are evaluated individually.
- Compute the historical loss rate for the pool: credit losses on the pool over a defined period divided by the receivables exposed in that period.
- Adjust for current conditions and, for entities not using the expedient, reasonable and supportable forecasts.
- Apply the adjusted rate to the pool balance.
Illustration. A distributor looks at its last three year-end receivable balances, which total $7.0 million. Of those balances, $140,000 was later written off as uncollectible. The historical loss rate on the pool is 2.0% ($140,000 divided by $7.0 million). Management adds 0.2 percentage points after a customer-concentration review, giving 2.2%. Applied to year-end receivables of $2.4 million, the allowance is $52,800. Measure the rate on balances, not on sales: a rate computed on annual credit sales and applied to a year-end balance misstates the allowance by the ratio of sales to receivables, which is a common error in simple loss-rate files.
Strengths: one calculation, a small number of inputs, and an easy rollforward. Weakness: the method assumes the age mix of the pool resembles history. A pool with a surge of 90-day-old balances gets the same rate as a current pool.
Method 2: the aging-schedule method
The aging-schedule method assigns a loss rate to each delinquency bucket and sums the results.
Mechanics:
- Age the receivables by days past due at the balance sheet date and tie the aging total to the general ledger control account.
- For each bucket, compute the historical loss rate: the share of balances in that bucket at a past measurement date that were ultimately written off.
- Adjust each rate for current conditions.
- Multiply each bucket balance by its rate and sum.
Illustration.
| Bucket | Balance | Loss rate | Allowance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | $1,500,000 | 0.5% | $7,500 |
| 1-30 days past due | $500,000 | 2% | $10,000 |
| 31-60 days past due | $250,000 | 5% | $12,500 |
| 61-90 days past due | $100,000 | 15% | $15,000 |
| Over 90 days | $50,000 | 40% | $20,000 |
| Total | $2,400,000 | $65,000 |
The aging method responds to a change in the age mix. If $200,000 migrates from current to the 61-90 bucket, the allowance rises by $29,000 ($200,000 times the 14.5-point difference between 15% and 0.5%) with no change in the historical inputs. Run that sensitivity on any file; it is a fast analytical test of the schedule.
Derivation of bucket rates is where the work sits. Historical rates need a measurement date, a bucket definition, and a write-off tracking window long enough for balances to resolve. A bucket rate computed from one year of data with a handful of write-offs has no stability, so firms combine years or merge adjacent buckets.
Choosing between the two
| Factor | Loss-rate method | Aging method |
|---|---|---|
| Inputs required | Pool losses and exposure | Bucket-level history and the aging |
| Sensitivity to age mix | Low | High |
| Effort per period | Low | Moderate |
| Fits a client with | Stable, homogeneous customers | Mixed payment behavior, slow-pay segments |
| Audit evidence | Rate derivation and pool definition | Aging accuracy, bucket rates and subsequent receipts |
Use the aging method when the client's collection pattern varies by delinquency, and the loss-rate method when the pool is uniform and the aging adds no information. Either method is acceptable under ASC 326 when the estimate reflects expected credit losses on the pool. Pick the one the client can support with its own data.
How the 2025-05 election changes each method
With the expedient and the subsequent-collections election, the year-end work shifts toward cash receipts:
- Aging method: remove balances collected by the chosen cutoff date from the bucket totals before applying rates, or apply a zero allowance to them. Apply the bucket loss rates to the remaining balances; an entity can update those rates for the collections experience.
- Loss-rate method: compute the rate on the balances still uncollected at the cutoff date, and apply it to that residual.
In both methods the cutoff date drives the result. Fix it in the policy memo, test it against the date the financial statements are available to be issued, and keep the receipts listing that supports the zero-allowance balances. Cash received after year-end on new sales is not a collection of the year-end balance, so the listing must match receipts to invoices.
What the auditor tests
- Aging accuracy: tie the aging to the ledger, recompute the buckets for a sample, and test invoice and due dates.
- Pool definition: confirm the pools group receivables with similar risk and that a significant individual exposure is evaluated on its own.
- Rate derivation: recompute the historical rates from write-off records and test completeness of the write-off data.
- Adjustment support: read the current-conditions memo and compare it against subsequent events and customer-specific information.
- Election support: trace zero-allowance balances to cash receipts and confirm the disclosure of the expedient, election and cutoff date.
Test the estimate under AU-C 540. The audit procedures by account guide places receivables testing in the full cycle.
Sources
- Crowe: FASB simplifies credit losses for accounts receivable and contract assets
- KPMG: FASB issues ASU on simplified credit loss guidance
- RSM: Amended guidance for measuring credit losses on short-term receivables
- Grant Thornton: Measuring credit losses (ASU 2025-05)
- Accounting Today: FASB makes deferral official for leases, CECL, hedging and insurance standards
- FASB ASU 2025-05 paragraph references: ASC 326-20-30-10A through 30-10H (measurement) and 326-20-50-12A through 50-12B (disclosure), per BDO: Measurement of Credit Losses for Accounts Receivable and Contract Assets
CORAA prepares ready-to-review audit files for US CPA firms from QuickBooks books; you review and sign. See /us.
Part of CORAA University · US GAAP for private companies: related guides, calculators and templates.
AU-C references are to AICPA Professional Standards, paraphrased here; read the standard itself before relying on a requirement. This page is guidance, not professional advice. Report an error