We use cookies to understand which pages and tools are useful, nothing more — no ad tracking across other sites. You can change this later from the footer.

Skip to content
Lekhya.in

Explainer2 min readPublished

Why provisions for expected losses get systematically understated

A provision almost always starts life as last period's number rolled forward with a small adjustment, not a fresh estimate — which is exactly the mechanism that keeps it quietly behind a deteriorating reality. How the understatement actually accumulates.

A provision for expected losses gets understated because the easiest way to set this period's figure is to take last period's and nudge it, rather than re-building the estimate from the current underlying exposure — and a rolled-forward number carries forward every optimistic assumption baked into the prior estimate, so as the real risk worsens, the provision lags behind it by construction, not by accident.

The specific habits that drive the lag

  • Fixed percentage rules applied regardless of ageing: a flat "2% of debtors" provision ignores that a specific receivable has aged well past its normal collection cycle this year.
  • Case-by-case review limited to the largest balances: smaller receivables or claims that individually look immaterial accumulate into a material aggregate shortfall.
  • Reliance on management's collection confidence rather than the actual ageing or dispute history of the balance in question.
  • No re-assessment trigger: nothing in the process forces a fresh look when a customer's financial position or a specific dispute visibly deteriorates during the year.
  • Provision reversed too readily on partial recovery, without reassessing whether the remaining balance is still realistically collectible.

A provision balance that looks remarkably stable year over year is not, by itself, evidence that the underlying risk has been stable — it's often the clearest sign the provision is being rolled forward rather than re-estimated. Stability in the number and stability in the risk are two different claims, and only one of them is being tested when the figure simply repeats.

What actually corrects the understatement

Closing the gap requires going back to the specific facts behind each significant exposure — the ageing, the dispute status, the counterparty's current financial position — rather than trusting a formula or a rolled-forward figure to have kept up. The understatement isn't usually a calculation error; it's a provision that was never recalculated against the thing it was supposed to measure.

This is practical guidance written for audit teams, not an authoritative statement of any standard or statute. Standards, forms and timelines change. Check the current text issued by the ICAI and the relevant authority before relying on anything here in an audit file.

Free tools, no signup

Each one reads a file entirely in your browser — or, for two of them, just answers a few questions — and nothing is ever uploaded.