Factoring Receivables: Can They Be Removed from the Balance Sheet Under MPERS 2025?

October 5, 2026
6

Share the Post:

A company may sell its trade receivables to a bank or factoring company and receive cash immediately. But does that automatically mean the receivables can be removed from the balance sheet?

Not necessarily.

Under MPERS 2025 Section 2, the accounting assessment must look beyond the wording of the agreement. The key questions are:

Has control of the receivables been transferred?

Have the risks and rewards associated with the receivables genuinely been transferred?

Does the company still retain significant exposure to the receivables?

This reflects the principle of substance over form.

Financial Statements Are More Than Compliance Documents

MPERS 2025 Section 2 explains the objective of financial statements. Financial statements should provide useful information about an entity’s:

Financial position;

Financial performance; and

Cash flows.

This information is intended for owners, lenders and other users who rely on it to make economic decisions.

Financial statements are not merely an annual compliance exercise or a document prepared only for the auditor’s signature. They should help users understand what has actually happened in the business.

Relevance and Faithful Representation

Two important qualitative characteristics are:

Relevance; and

Faithful representation.

Information is relevant when it can influence users’ decisions through:

Predictive value; or

Confirmatory value.

However, useful information must also faithfully represent the economic phenomenon it describes. Financial statements should not merely present attractive numbers. They should provide a fair and accurate representation of the underlying economic reality.

For example, an unquoted investment could be measured using:

A cost model, which may be easier to verify but less relevant; or

A Level 3 fair value measurement, which may be more relevant but involves greater estimation uncertainty.

Accounting judgement is therefore not simply about choosing the easiest number to calculate or the most sophisticated measurement available. It requires an appropriate balance between relevance and faithful representation.

Other Qualitative Characteristics

In addition to relevance and faithful representation, MPERS 2025 Section 2 identifies the following enhancing qualitative characteristics:

Comparability;

Verifiability;

Timeliness; and

Understandability.

Financial statements are not necessarily better merely because they are more complex. Information that users cannot understand may not provide meaningful value.

Recognition and Derecognition

Recognition addresses the question:

When should an item be included in the financial statements?

Derecognition addresses the opposite question:

When should an item be removed from the financial statements?

When considering recognition, the entity assesses matters such as whether future economic benefits are probable and whether the cost or value can be measured reliably.

However, an item cannot be removed from the balance sheet simply because an agreement describes the transaction as a sale. The derecognition analysis must consider whether the relevant rights, control and risks have genuinely been transferred.

Example: RM1 Million of Receivables Factored to a Bank

Assume Company A has RM1 million of trade receivables.

The customers will only pay after three months, but Company A needs cash immediately. It enters into a factoring arrangement with a bank, which advances RM900,000.

Management may conclude:

“We have received cash, so the RM1 million receivable should be removed from the balance sheet.”

However, the accounting assessment must go further. It should consider whether the transaction is genuinely a transfer of receivables or, in substance, a secured borrowing.

With Recourse: The Receivables May Remain Recognised

Suppose the agreement states that:

If the customer fails to pay, Company A must compensate the factor; and

Company A continues to manage the collection process.

In this situation, Company A may still bear the customer’s default risk.

Although the agreement may be titled “Sale of Receivables”, the economic substance may be a secured loan.

For example:

Trade receivables: RM1 million;

Amount advanced by the factor: RM900,000; and

Company A continues to bear the default risk.

The accounting treatment may be:

Continue to recognise the RM1 million trade receivable; and

Recognise RM900,000 as a loan liability.

The agreement may say “sale”, but the risks may show that the company has not genuinely transferred the receivables.

Without Recourse: Derecognition May Be Appropriate

Now consider a different arrangement.

Company B has RM1 million of trade receivables. The factor pays Company B RM950,000, and the agreement clearly states:

There is no recourse for bad debts;

The factor assumes all credit risk; and

Company B has no further involvement with the receivables.

If a customer fails to pay, the factor bears the loss. Company B does not have to reimburse the factor or continue to bear the default risk.

In this situation:

The default risk has been transferred;

Company B can no longer control the receivables; and

Company B has no significant continuing involvement.

Derecognition of the receivables may therefore be appropriate, subject to the detailed requirements and facts of the arrangement.

Partial Transfer of Risk

Some arrangements are less straightforward.

For example, the agreement may state that Company C guarantees the first 10% of losses, while the factor bears the remaining 90%.

It would not be appropriate to conclude automatically that:

The receivables must remain recognised simply because some recourse exists; or

Derecognition is automatically appropriate because most of the risk has been transferred.

The entity must assess whether substantially all of the risks and rewards have been transferred. This requires professional judgement based on the specific contractual terms and economic circumstances.

What Should Be Reviewed in a Factoring Arrangement?

When reviewing a factoring agreement, do not rely only on its title. Consider the following questions:

Who bears the credit risk?

Who bears the risk of late payment?

Is there a buy-back obligation?

Who is responsible for bad debts?

Can the factor freely sell or pledge the receivables?

Does the company retain significant exposure to the receivables?

Does the company retain any ongoing control or involvement?

The central question is:

Where does the risk actually remain?

Why the Classification Matters

Factoring is not merely an accounting entry. The treatment may affect:

Liquidity ratios;

Trade receivable balances;

Gearing ratios;

Working capital;

Reported liabilities; and

Financial statement users’ understanding of the company’s financial position.

If receivables are incorrectly derecognised, the financial statements may show:

Lower receivables;

Lower liabilities;

A stronger current ratio; or

Lower gearing.

The reported financial position may therefore appear healthier than it really is.

Materiality Is Not Only About Amount

MPERS 2025 Section 2 also highlights that materiality is not purely quantitative.

An item may be material because of its nature, even if the amount is not large.

Examples include:

Related-party transactions;

Directors’ remuneration;

Breaches of loan covenants; and

Changes in accounting policies.

The assessment of materiality should therefore consider both the amount and the nature of the information.

A small amount can still represent a significant issue if it is sensitive or relevant to users’ decisions.

Practical Summary

Five key points are worth remembering:

Financial information must be relevant and faithfully represented.

Derecognition is just as important as recognition.

Factoring does not automatically mean that trade receivables disappear.

The legal form of a “sale” may differ from its economic substance as a loan.

Materiality depends not only on the amount, but also on the nature and context of the transaction.

Accounting should not reflect only what the agreement calls a transaction. It should reflect what the transaction actually is.

Before factoring receivables, business owners should involve their accountants, as well as their company secretary and legal advisers, when reviewing the arrangement.

A company may believe it is raising cash by selling receivables, but the financial statements may still need to present the transaction as borrowing if the company retains the relevant risks and obligations.

CCS | Beyond Numbers

应收账款卖给银行后，就可以从资产负债表消失吗？MPERS 2025：先看风险到底跟谁

企业把应收账款卖给银行或保理公司，并立即收到现金，是否就代表这笔应收账款可以从资产负债表中移除？

未必。

根据 MPERS 2025 第 2 节，会计处理不能只看协议表面写了什么。关键问题包括：

应收账款的控制权是否已经转移？

与应收账款相关的风险及回报是否真正转移？

企业是否仍然承担重大风险或保留重大风险敞口？

这体现了**实质重于形式（Substance over Form）**的原则。

财务报表不只是合规文件

MPERS 2025 第 2 节说明了财务报表的目标。财务报表应提供有关企业以下方面的有用信息：

财务状况；

经营表现；以及

现金流量。

这些资料是提供给企业所有者、贷款人及其他需要作出经济决策的使用者。

财务报表不是每年为了取得审计签名而完成的“功课”，而是应该帮助使用者了解企业实际上发生了什么。

其他财务信息质量特征

除了相关性及如实反映，MPERS 2025 第 2 节也提到以下增强性质量特征：

可比性；

可验证性；

及时性；以及

可理解性。

财务报表并不是越复杂就越专业。如果使用者根本看不懂其中的内容，这些资料未必能够发挥应有的价值。

确认与终止确认

确认回答的是：

什么时候应该把一个项目放进财务报表？

终止确认回答的则是：

什么时候可以把一个项目从财务报表中移除？

在考虑是否确认一个项目时，企业需要评估例如未来经济利益是否很可能流入，以及该项目的成本或价值是否可以可靠计量。

不过，企业不能因为协议把交易称为“出售”，就直接把相关资产从资产负债表中移除。终止确认的判断必须进一步考虑相关权利、控制权及风险是否真正已经转移。

例子：RM1 million 应收账款卖给银行

假设 A 公司拥有 RM1 million 的应收账款。

客户要到三个月后才付款，但 A 公司现在需要现金。因此，A 公司与银行订立保理安排，银行先提供 RM900,000。

管理层可能会说：

“现金已经收到了，所以 RM1 million 的应收账款可以从资产负债表移除。”

不过，会计处理还需要进一步判断：这项交易到底是真正出售应收账款，还是实质上属于有抵押的借款。

有追索权：应收账款可能仍然需要保留

假设协议规定：

如果客户无法付款，A 公司必须赔偿保理方；以及

A 公司继续负责收款工作。

在这种情况下，A 公司可能仍然承担客户违约的风险。

虽然协议名称可能是“出售应收账款”，但交易的经济实质可能是一项有抵押贷款（Secured Loan）。

例如：

应收账款：RM1 million；

保理方提供的款项：RM900,000；以及

A 公司继续承担客户违约风险。

会计处理可能是：

继续确认 RM1 million 的应收账款；以及

确认 RM900,000 的贷款负债。

协议写的是“出售”，但风险显示企业可能并没有真正转移应收账款。

无追索权：应收账款可能可以终止确认

现在考虑另一种安排。

B 公司拥有 RM1 million 的应收账款。保理方支付 B 公司 RM950,000，并且协议清楚说明：

坏账没有追索权；

保理方承担全部信用风险；以及

B 公司不再继续参与应收账款的管理或收款。

如果客户无法付款，损失由保理方承担。B 公司不需要补偿保理方，也不再承担客户违约风险。

在这种情况下：

违约风险已经转移；

B 公司不再控制应收账款；以及

B 公司没有重大持续参与。

因此，在符合具体准则要求及相关事实的前提下，终止确认应收账款可能是适当的处理方式。

风险只转移一部分怎么办？

有些安排并不会这么简单。

例如，协议规定 C 公司承担首 10% 的损失，而保理方承担其余 90%。

这时，企业不能因为仍然存在部分追索权，就自动认定应收账款一定不能终止确认；也不能因为大部分风险已经转移，就自动认定一定可以终止确认。

企业必须评估绝大部分风险及回报是否真正已经转移。这需要根据具体合同条款及经济情况作出专业判断。

审阅保理安排时，应该看什么？

审阅保理协议时，不要只看协议标题，也要考虑以下问题：

谁承担信用风险？

谁承担延迟付款风险？

是否存在回购义务？

坏账由谁负责补偿？

保理方是否可以自由出售或抵押这些应收账款？

企业是否仍然保留重大风险敞口？

企业是否仍然保留持续控制权或持续参与？

核心问题是：

这项风险实际上还留在谁那里？

为什么会计分类很重要？

保理并不只是一个会计分录问题。不同的会计处理可能影响：

流动性比率；

应收账款余额；

负债权益比率；

营运资本；

报告负债；以及

财务报表使用者对企业财务状况的理解。

如果企业错误地终止确认应收账款，财务报表可能显示：

应收账款减少；

负债减少；

流动比率变得更好；或

负债权益比率下降。

这样可能会让企业的财务状况看起来比实际情况更健康。

重要性不只是看金额

MPERS 2025 第 2 节也强调，重要性并不只是一个数量问题。

即使金额不大，一项事项也可能因为其性质而具有重要性。

例子包括：

关联方交易；

董事薪酬；

违反贷款契约；以及

会计政策变更。

因此，判断重要性时，既要考虑金额，也要考虑信息的性质及背景。

如果一项金额虽小，却涉及敏感事项或可能影响使用者的决策，它仍然可能是一个重大问题。

简单总结

以下五点值得记住：

财务信息必须具备相关性，并如实反映经济实质。

终止确认与确认同样重要。

应收账款进行保理，并不代表它一定可以从资产负债表中消失。

法律上称为“出售”的交易，在经济实质上可能仍然是一项借款。

重要性不只是看金额，也要看交易的性质及背景。

会计不应只反映协议把交易称为什么，也应该反映这项交易实际上是什么。

企业在进行应收账款保理前，应让 Accountant、Company Secretary 及法律顾问共同参与审阅相关安排。

企业可能以为自己是通过出售应收账款来筹集现金，但如果仍然保留相关风险及义务，财务报表可能仍然需要将这项交易列为借款。