Historically, Your Company Has Calculated Bad Debts Using An

Historically Your Company Has Calculated Bad Debts Using An Aging Of

In this scenario, the owner of the company is requesting a change in the method used to estimate bad debts from the traditional aging of accounts receivable to a flat 3% of receivables. This request arises due to the company's current need for liquidity, as it is in a cash crunch and wishes to use accounts receivable as collateral for a bank loan. The first step in responding to this request is to assess the implications of changing the bad debt estimation method.

Using an aging of receivables allows for a more accurate estimation of uncollectible accounts by considering the varying risk levels associated with different aging categories. Older receivables tend to be riskier, and this method provides a nuanced view of potential bad debts. Conversely, a flat rate of 3% offers simplicity but overlooks the specific risk associated with older or more overdue accounts. Given that many receivables are over 90 days past due, resulting in net receivables only 80% of total receivables, applying a flat 3% may underestimate potential bad debts, especially in such a high-risk collection environment.

From an accounting perspective, it is essential to consider whether the proposed change provides a realistic view of collectible accounts. Since the company intends to use receivables as collateral, the bank will likely scrutinize the valuation method for bad debts. An aging method gives a more precise estimate reflective of current collection risks, aligning with prudent financial reporting and lending practices. Adopting a flat rate could potentially misrepresent the true value of receivables, leading to overestimated collateral value, which might jeopardize the company's borrowing capacity or lead to compliance issues.

Therefore, the prudent course of action is to explain to the owner that while applying a flat 3% rate simplifies calculations, it does not accurately reflect the collection risk associated with the aged receivables, particularly given the high proportion of overdue accounts. It would be advisable to maintain or adjust the aging method, perhaps incorporating recent collection experience data, to provide a more accurate estimate suitable for both financial reporting and collateral valuation. Transparency in the valuation method reinforces credibility with lenders and aligns with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Paper For Above instruction

The request to change the method of estimating bad debts from an aging of receivables to a flat percentage is a significant decision that involves considerations of accuracy, regulatory compliance, and financial reporting integrity. Traditionally, many companies use the aging method because it provides a detailed analysis of receivable collectability, considering the time elapsed since invoice date. This approach aligns with the principles of conservatism in accounting, ensuring that potential losses are not understated. However, in certain circumstances, management might prefer simplified methods such as applying a flat percentage to expedite calculations or meet specific financial needs, such as obtaining a loan.

Given the company's current cash crunch and intention to use receivables as collateral, the valuation of receivables must be credible and reflective of their true collectible value. An aging analysis indicates that many receivables are over 90 days overdue, which suggests a higher risk of non-collection. Consequently, applying a flat 3% rate may be overly optimistic and could result in an overstatement of receivables’ value. This overstatement is particularly problematic when receivables are used as collateral, as it may influence the bank's lending decision based on an inflated collateral value.

Additionally, from an accounting standpoint, the use of an aging method is consistent with the objectives of financial reporting—which is to provide stakeholders with an accurate picture of the company's financial health. The aging method helps in estimating the allowance for doubtful accounts more precisely, considering historical collection trends for different aging categories. Switching to a flat rate ignores this granularity and could compromise the accuracy of the company's financial statements and misrepresent the real collectible amount.

It is important to communicate these considerations to the owner. While simplicity can be appealing, especially in urgent financial situations, accuracy and compliance should not be compromised, particularly when valuations affect contractual and legal obligations such as collateral agreements. The company could consider adjusting the aging method, possibly by increasing the percentage allowances for older receivables based on recent collection history, to better reflect current risks. This approach maintains accuracy and credibility with lenders while still providing a manageable estimation process.

In conclusion, the decision to alter the bad debt estimation method should prioritize financial accuracy and integrity. Simplification should not compromise the realistic valuation of receivables, especially given the high level of overdue accounts. Maintaining an aging-based approach, perhaps with adjustments, best supports transparent and compliant financial reporting, ensuring that the company's collateral valuation aligns with actual collection prospects and meets the lender's requirements.

References

• Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2019). Fundamentals of Financial Management (15th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• FASB Accounting Standards Codification, Subtopic 310-10: Receivables — Overall (Financial Accounting Standards Board).
• Gibson, C. H. (2017). Financial Reporting and Analysis. South-Western College Pub.
• Higgins, R. C. (2018). Analysis for Financial Management. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Harvard Business Review.
• Pratt, J. (2021). Financial Statement Analysis: A Practitioner's Guide. Wiley.
• Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R. W., & Jaffe, J. (2018). Corporate Finance (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Schroeder, R. G., Clark, M. W., & Cathey, J. M. (2019). Financial Accounting Theory. Wiley.
• Young, S., & Munter, P. (2014). Financial & Managerial Accounting. Pearson.
• Zeff, S. A. (2018). The Evolution of Financial Accounting and Reporting. The Accounting Review.