MFRS 18: Understanding Which Operating Profit You Are Reporting

The most important conclusion is this:

MFRS 18 was not introduced because of a single fraud case such as Enron, WorldCom or Wirecard.

According to the IASB’s project history, the standard was developed to address a problem that had accumulated over many years: companies using IFRS could present their statements of profit or loss differently, calculate operating profit differently and use numerous self-defined performance measures such as “Adjusted”, “Core” or “Normalised” profit.

In other words, the problem was not necessarily that everyone was presenting false information. It was that different companies could be telling the truth in different “dialects”.

This created significant difficulties for users trying to analyse and compare financial statements.

When Operating Profit Did Not Mean the Same Thing

In the past, the IFRS framework relied mainly on IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements. In Malaysia, the corresponding standard was MFRS 101.

MFRS 101 established basic requirements for the statement of financial position and statement of profit or loss, but allowed companies considerable flexibility in deciding how many items in the statement of profit or loss should be classified.

For example, two companies might both report:

Operating Profit = RM10 million

It may appear that the figures are directly comparable. However, this may not be the case.

Company A might classify the following items within operating profit:

Company B might present all of these items below operating profit.

The result would be:

Although the numbers appear identical, the underlying measures may represent very different things.

The IASB subsequently noted that existing IFRS did not prescribe a single structure for the statement of profit or loss. Although companies commonly used the term “operating profit”, the methods used to calculate it were not consistent, reducing comparability.

The Rise of Adjusted Performance Measures

Management-defined performance measures also became increasingly common.

When statutory profit did not appear to reflect the performance management wanted to highlight, companies began presenting measures such as:

These measures are not necessarily wrong. Investors often find them useful because they may provide additional insight into a company’s operations.

The issue is how they are calculated.

For example, management may report:

Normalised Profit = RM30 million
Statutory Profit = RM18 million

This raises an obvious question:

Where did the RM12 million difference go?

Management may explain that the difference relates to “exceptional items”. However, if exceptional items appear every year, users may reasonably question whether they are genuinely unusual.

The IASB has also highlighted that non-GAAP measures often remove expenses described as unusual, while unusual income is less frequently removed. This is one reason investors have remained cautious about self-defined performance measures.

MFRS 18 is not an anti-fraud standard. It primarily addresses transparency, comparability and discipline in financial statement presentation.

A company may still present its “Adjusted Profit”, but it should not provide only the final figure without explaining how it was calculated.

The Development and Effective Date of MFRS 18

The IASB’s Primary Financial Statements project had a long development period:

MFRS 18 applies to annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2027, with early application permitted.

For a company with a 31 December year end, FY2027 will be the first year of mandatory application. However, implementation should not be postponed until 2027 because MFRS 18 requires retrospective application.

The FY2027 financial statements will include FY2026 comparative figures presented in accordance with MFRS 18. In practical terms, 2026 becomes the company’s “shadow MFRS 18 year”.

What Does MFRS 18 Actually Change?

MFRS 18 is not a new revenue recognition standard or a measurement standard. It will not normally change a reported profit merely because the standard has been adopted.

For example, it does not automatically change:

Profit of RM8 million → Profit of RM6 million

The main changes relate to:

A simple way to describe MFRS 18 is:

MFRS 18 does not recook the meal. It mainly determines which bowl should contain the rice, vegetables and soup.

However, changing the presentation can affect operating profit, EBITDA, margins, cash flow presentation and investor analysis.

The Statement of Profit or Loss Gets Defined Categories

MFRS 18 requires income and expenses in the statement of profit or loss to be classified into five categories:

The most significant change relates to the operating, investing and financing categories.

However, an important point must be understood:

The operating category is largely a residual category. Items that are not classified as investing, financing, income taxes or discontinued operations will generally be included in operating.

Therefore, a significant restructuring loss cannot simply be removed from operating profit because management considers it unusual.

This is why defining operating profit simply as “core recurring operations” can be misleading.

Two Important Required Subtotals

MFRS 18 requires the presentation of at least two important subtotals:

This should provide users with a more consistent starting point for comparison.

Example: A Malaysian Manufacturing Company

Assume a manufacturing company, rather than a bank, investment entity or financing business, reports the following:

The statement of profit or loss may be presented broadly as follows:

ItemAmount
RevenueRM10.0 million
Cost of sales(RM6.0 million)
Administrative and selling expenses(RM1.5 million)
Operating profitRM2.5 million
Interest income from cash or fixed deposits and share of profit from an associateRM0.5 million
Profit before financing and income taxesRM3.0 million
Finance costs(RM0.4 million)
Profit before taxRM2.6 million
Tax(RM0.6 million)
Profit after taxRM2.0 million

Under previous presentation practices, the RM0.2 million interest income and RM0.3 million share of profit from the associate might have been classified differently. MFRS 18 provides clearer requirements for these classifications.

This example should not be applied mechanically to banks, financing companies or investment entities. If investing in assets or providing financing to customers is part of an entity’s main business activity, MFRS 18 contains specific classification requirements.

For example, the interest income of a bank should not automatically be treated in the same way as fixed deposit interest earned by a manufacturing company.

As at 2026, the IFRS Interpretations Committee is still considering implementation matters relating to cash and cash equivalents, financing businesses and other issues. These classifications therefore require careful analysis rather than reliance on a simple flowchart.

Management-Defined Performance Measures Enter the Notes

One of the most significant aspects of MFRS 18 is the introduction of requirements for management-defined performance measures, or MPMs.

Suppose a company repeatedly tells the market through its annual report, press releases or investor presentations that:

Adjusted Operating Profit = RM35 million

Meanwhile, operating profit under MFRS 18 is:

RM27 million

Under previous practice, the auditor might have focused primarily on the RM27 million reported in the financial statements. The RM35 million adjusted figure might have appeared elsewhere in a glossy annual report.

Under MFRS 18, if the measure meets the definition of an MPM, it must be disclosed in a single note. The disclosure must explain:

For example:

ReconciliationAmount
MFRS operating profitRM27 million
Add: Restructuring costsRM4 million
Add: Impairment lossRM3 million
Add: Legal settlementRM1 million
Adjusted operating profitRM35 million

The questions will no longer be limited to the final figure:

Because these disclosures form part of the financial statements, they will be subject to financial reporting and audit discipline. The IASB has specifically stated that the new requirements will make these management-defined measures subject to audit.

“Other Expenses” Cannot Become a General Storage Box

Another important principle under MFRS 18 is aggregation and disaggregation.

Financial statements have often included broad captions such as:

The related note may then describe the balance simply as “miscellaneous”.

MFRS 18 strengthens the principles governing grouping, labelling, aggregation and disaggregation. The objective is to avoid two opposite problems:

The aim is to make the forest visible without hiding the important trees.

Companies Presenting Expenses by Function Have Additional Work

Many Malaysian companies present expenses by function, for example:

MFRS 18 introduces additional note disclosure requirements for entities presenting expenses by function.

The entity must disclose specified expenses by nature, including:

It must also explain which function line items contain those expenses.

This may have a significant effect on accounting systems. Previously, a system might have recorded:

Salary → Administrative expense

Under MFRS 18, the reporting team may need to identify:

Although MFRS 18 is primarily a presentation standard, its operational impact may extend directly to the chart of accounts and the underlying accounting systems.

Consequential Changes to the Statement of Cash Flows

MFRS 18 also makes consequential amendments to MFRS 107 and IAS 7.

When the indirect method is used, the starting point for the operating cash flow reconciliation becomes:

Operating profit

For entities without specified main business activities, the general classifications include:

This removes certain classification choices that previously existed.

However, the operating, investing and financing categories in the statement of profit or loss under MFRS 18 are not identical to the operating, investing and financing categories in the statement of cash flows under MFRS 107.

The names are the same, but the conceptual objectives are not fully aligned. Therefore, a system should not automatically map every item classified as “financing” in the statement of profit or loss to “financing” in the statement of cash flows.

The IASB has made it clear that the categories in the two statements were not designed to align completely.

MFRS 18 and MPERS 2025 Are Not the Same

Malaysia issued the revised MPERS 2025 in October 2025, aligned with the IASB’s 2025 third edition of the IFRS for SMEs. It also becomes effective on 1 January 2027.

Although MFRS 18 and MPERS 2025 both take effect in 2027, they should not be confused.

MFRS 18 introduces significant presentation reforms, while MPERS 2025 does not simply adopt the MFRS 18 requirements.

For example:

Overall, MFRS 18 is more complex, while MPERS 2025 is comparatively simpler.

It would therefore be incorrect to say:

“MFRS 18 takes effect in 2027, so every Sdn. Bhd. must change its statement of profit or loss.”

A company applying MPERS 2025 does not automatically apply MFRS 18. MPERS is a separate reporting framework, and later changes to full MFRS do not automatically become part of MPERS.

The Group Reporting Challenge

There may nevertheless be an important group-level issue.

Assume that:

The subsidiary may continue preparing its separate statutory financial statements under MPERS. However, when the parent prepares its MFRS consolidated financial statements, the group reporting package must still provide the classification information required under MFRS 18.

In other words, the subsidiary may say:

“We do not apply MFRS 18.”

The group accountant may respond:

“You do not, but the group does. The reporting template has been sent to you.”

Large groups should therefore avoid configuring their systems so that an account is permanently assigned to one category, such as:

Account 8000 = Operating forever

Instead, the system should have a reporting-framework mapping layer.

What Should an MFRS 18-Ready System Do?

The real implementation challenge in 2026 and 2027 is not simply changing a few headings in the statement of profit or loss.

An MFRS 18-ready system should at least be able to:

Maintain Classification Attributes

The general ledger and chart of accounts should include classification attributes such as:

The system should also allow different mappings for different reporting entities and consolidation levels.

Capture Both Nature and Function

The system should retain both the nature and function of expenses.

For example, salaries may be included in cost of sales, but the system must still retain the nature of the expense as employee benefits. Depreciation should also be traceable to the relevant function.

Support MPM Reconciliations

The system should include an MPM reporting or reconciliation layer.

If an annual report, press release or investor presentation uses “Adjusted Operating Profit”, the system should be able to reconcile it automatically to the statutory figures rather than requiring the finance team to prepare a last-minute spreadsheet.

Update the Cash Flow Engine

The indirect method should begin with operating profit, and interest and dividend mappings should comply with the revised MFRS 107 requirements.

The cash flow mapping should not simply copy the statement of profit or loss categories.

Support Retrospective Comparatives

A calendar-year company should be able to generate both:

Support Consolidation-Level Mapping

The system should support separate mappings for subsidiaries and the consolidated reporting entity because their assessments of main business activities may not be the same.

Capture Disclosure Data

The system should capture information about the allocation of the following expenses to each function:

Maintain an Audit Trail

The system should record:

Upgrade Financial Statement and XBRL Mapping

The financial statement generator and XBRL mapping may also require updates.

The IFRS Foundation has updated the IFRS Accounting Taxonomy for IFRS 18, including categories, MPM disclosures and specified expense tagging.

This is why professional bodies have warned that, although MFRS 18 generally does not change recognition and measurement, its operational impact on systems, charts of accounts, mappings, disclosures and reconciliations should not be underestimated.

Where Should Accountants and Auditors Begin?

Implementation should not begin with redesigning the financial statements. A more practical starting point is the trial balance.

Using the company’s 2025 or 2026 trial balance, each statement of profit or loss account should be reviewed by asking:

The next step is to prepare an inventory of the company’s public communications, including:

The review should identify whether management has used measures such as:

In the future, the audit focus will not be limited to the figures appearing in the financial statements. It will also be important to understand which figures management has communicated to investors elsewhere.

The Core Message of MFRS 18

The old approach might have been:

“As long as the bottom line is correct, that should be enough.”

MFRS 18’s answer is:

“That is not enough.”

Profit of RM20 million is important. However, investors also need to understand:

MFRS 18 does not fundamentally change the question:

“How much profit did you make?”

It strengthens the question:

“Explain clearly where that profit came from.”

A Practical MFRS 18 Timeline for Malaysian Companies

2026: Gap Analysis and System Design

Companies should use the current trial balance to simulate an MFRS 18 statement of profit or loss and identify:

1 January 2027: Mandatory Application Begins

For calendar-year entities, FY2027 will be the first mandatory reporting period under MFRS 18.

The FY2027 financial statements will present:

MFRS 18 also introduces new presentation and reconciliation requirements for interim financial statements in the first year of application. Listed groups should therefore begin preparing well before December 2027.

MFRS 18：老板说这是 Operating Profit，会计师却问——是哪一种 Operating Profit？

最重要的结论是：

MFRS 18 并不是因为某一宗 Enron、WorldCom 或 Wirecard 式的欺诈案件而诞生。

根据 IASB 的项目历史，MFRS 18 真正要解决的是一个累积多年的问题：不同公司虽然都采用 IFRS，却可以用不同方式排列损益表、计算 Operating Profit，并大量使用自己定义的 “Adjusted”、“Core” 或 “Normalised” 业绩指标。

换句话说，问题不一定是大家在做假账，而是大家可能都在讲真话，却使用不同的“方言”。

对于需要分析和比较财务报表的使用者来说，这同样会造成很大的困难。

过去的 Operating Profit，未必代表同一种东西

过去，IFRS 主要依靠 IAS 1《财务报表的列报》。马来西亚对应的准则是 MFRS 101。

MFRS 101 对资产负债表及损益表设定了基本要求，但在损益表中许多项目应该如何分类方面，仍然给予企业相当大的空间。

例如，两家公司都报告：

Operating Profit = RM10 million

表面上看起来，这两个数字似乎可以直接比较。但实际未必如此。

A 公司可能将以下项目列入 Operating Profit：

B 公司则可能将这些项目全部列在 Operating Profit 之后。

结果就是：

虽然数字看起来一样，但两家公司所呈现的 Operating Profit，可能根本不是同一种东西。

IASB 后来明确指出，现有 IFRS 并没有规定统一的损益表结构。虽然企业普遍使用 “Operating Profit” 这个名称，但各家公司计算该数字的方法并不一致，因此降低了可比性。

Adjusted Performance Measures 越来越多

管理层自定义的业绩指标也逐渐变得普遍。

当法定利润看起来不够符合管理层想要强调的表现时，公司可能会提出：

这些指标不一定是错误的。投资者有时确实可以通过这些指标，更好地理解企业的经营情况。

真正的问题是：

这些指标是怎样计算出来的？

例如，管理层说：

Normalised Profit = RM30 million
Statutory Profit = RM18 million

投资者自然会问：

RM12 million 到哪里去了？

管理层可能解释说，这些属于 “exceptional items”。

但如果每年都有 exceptional items，投资者自然会进一步怀疑：这些项目到底还算不算真正的“特殊项目”？

IASB 也特别指出，non-GAAP measures 经常会将所谓“不寻常”的费用调整掉，但却较少调整不寻常的收入。这也是投资者对自定义业绩指标保持谨慎的原因之一。

MFRS 18 并不是反欺诈准则。它主要处理的是：

企业仍然可以向投资者提供自己的 “Adjusted Profit”，但不能只给出最终答案，却不提供计算过程。

MFRS 18 的发展过程与生效日期

IASB 的 Primary Financial Statements project 经历了较长的发展过程：

MFRS 18 从 2027 年 1 月 1 日或以后开始的年度期间生效，并允许提前采用。

对于 12 月 31 日结账的公司来说，FY2027 是强制采用 MFRS 18 的第一年。

不过，企业不能等到 2027 年才开始准备，因为 MFRS 18 要求追溯应用。

FY2027 的财务报表需要按照 MFRS 18 的呈列方式重新呈现 FY2026 的比较数字。

因此，从实际操作角度来看，2026 年已经是企业的“影子 MFRS 18 年”。

MFRS 18 到底改变了什么？

最容易误会的一点是：

MFRS 18 不是新的收入确认准则，也不是计量准则。

企业通常不会因为采用 MFRS 18，就突然出现以下变化：

Profit RM8 million → Profit RM6 million

MFRS 18 主要改变的是：

可以简单地说：

MFRS 18 没有重新煮这锅饭，主要是重新规定饭、菜和汤应该放在哪一个碗里。

但不要小看“换碗”。因为 Operating Profit、EBITDA、利润率、现金流量表的呈列方式以及投资者分析，都可能因此受到影响。

损益表开始有“指定座位”

MFRS 18 要求损益表中的收入和费用分为五个类别：

其中，最大的变化与 Operating、Investing 和 Financing 三个类别有关。

不过，有一个非常重要的提醒：

Operating 在很大程度上属于一个剩余类别（Residual Category）。

也就是说，不属于 Investing、Financing、Income Taxes 或 Discontinued Operations 的项目，一般就会进入 Operating。

因此，一笔金额很大的重组损失，不能因为老板说：

“这个很不寻常，不要破坏我的 Operating Profit。”

就直接将它排除在 Operating 之外。

这也是为什么把 Operating 简单定义为“核心、经常性的日常经营活动”，可能会产生误解。

至少要看到两个指定小计

MFRS 18 强制要求呈列两个重要的小计：

这项改变很重要，因为过去不同公司的 Operating Profit 可能像是拿苹果和榴莲作比较。

MFRS 18 生效后，投资者至少可以从较为统一的起点开始比较。

普通马来西亚制造公司的例子

假设这是一家普通制造公司，而不是银行、投资公司或融资业务公司。公司拥有以下项目：

损益表大致可以这样呈列：

项目金额
RevenueRM10.0 million
Cost of sales(RM6.0 million)
Administrative and selling expenses(RM1.5 million)
Operating ProfitRM2.5 million
现金或定期存款利息收入及联营公司利润份额RM0.5 million
Profit Before Financing and Income TaxesRM3.0 million
Finance cost(RM0.4 million)
Profit Before TaxRM2.6 million
Tax(RM0.6 million)
Profit After TaxRM2.0 million

过去，RM0.2 million 的利息收入及 RM0.3 million 的联营公司利润份额，可能因不同的呈列方式而被放在不同位置。

MFRS 18 对这些项目的分类提供了更明确的要求。

不过，银行、融资公司和投资公司不能机械地套用这个例子。如果投资资产或向客户提供融资本来就是企业的主要业务活动，MFRS 18 会有特别的分类规定。

因此，Public Bank 的利息收入，与普通制造公司从定期存款获得的利息收入，不能用同一个逻辑处理。

截至 2026 年，IFRIC 仍在处理与 cash and cash equivalents、financing businesses 等有关的实施问题。这说明相关分类不能只依靠一张简单的流程图。

老板最喜欢的 Adjusted Profit，要进入附注和审计范围

MFRS 18 最有意思的地方之一，是关于**管理层定义的业绩指标（Management-Defined Performance Measures，简称 MPMs）**的规定。

假设公司一直通过以下渠道告诉市场：

公司对外公布：

Adjusted Operating Profit = RM35 million

但根据 MFRS 18 计算的 Operating Profit 是：

RM27 million

过去，审计师可能主要审计财务报表中的 RM27 million，而 RM35 million 可能只出现在年报前面几十页的宣传性内容中。

MFRS 18 生效后，如果该指标符合 MPM 的定义，就必须在同一个附注中披露，包括：

例如：

调节项目金额
MFRS Operating ProfitRM27 million
加：RestructuringRM4 million
加：ImpairmentRM3 million
加：Legal SettlementRM1 million
Adjusted Operating ProfitRM35 million

以后，问题不会只停留在：

因为这些披露将成为财务报表的一部分，并受到财务报告和审计纪律的约束。IASB 也明确指出，新制度会使这些管理层定义的业绩指标受到审计。

“Other Expenses RM18 million”不能再什么都塞

MFRS 18 的另一个重点是汇总与拆分（Aggregation and Disaggregation）。

过去的财务报表中经常可以看到：

然后附注中只写：

Miscellaneous

MFRS 18 强化了 grouping、labelling、aggregation 和 disaggregation 的原则，目的是避免两种相反的问题：

目标就是：

整体情况看得见，重要的大树也不能被藏起来。

按功能呈列费用的公司，需要做更多准备

许多马来西亚公司按照功能呈列费用，例如：

对于按照功能呈列费用的企业，MFRS 18 增加了重要的附注披露要求。

企业需要披露特定的费用性质，包括：

同时，企业还需要说明这些费用性质分别包含在哪些功能项目中。

这对会计系统的影响可能相当大。

过去系统可能只记录：

Salary → Administrative Expense

以后，报告团队还必须知道：

因此，MFRS 18 表面上是一个呈列准则，实际上可能一直影响到企业的 Chart of Accounts 和基础会计系统。

Cash Flow Statement 也会受到影响

MFRS 18 也对 MFRS 107／IAS 7 作出相应修订。

使用间接法时，经营活动现金流量调节表的统一起点改为：

Operating Profit

对于没有指定主要业务活动的普通企业，一般分类包括：

这会取消过去部分可选择的分类方式。

不过必须特别注意：

MFRS 18 损益表中的 Operating／Investing／Financing，
不等于 MFRS 107 现金流量表中的 Operating／Investing／Financing。

两者名称相同，但概念目标并不完全一致。

因此，不能简单告诉程序员：

“看到损益表是 Financing，就自动映射到现金流量表 Financing。”

这样很可能会产生错误。

IASB 已明确表示，两张财务报表中的三大类别并不是为了完全对齐而设计的。

MFRS 18 与 MPERS 2025 不是同一回事

马来西亚在 2025 年 10 月发布了修订后的 MPERS 2025，与 IASB 2025 年发布的第三版 IFRS for SMEs 对齐，并同样从 2027 年 1 月 1 日起生效。

虽然 MFRS 18 和 MPERS 2025 都在 2027 年生效，但两者不能混为一谈。

在 2027 年的财务报表呈列改革方面，MFRS 18 全面引入相关变化，但 MPERS 2025 并没有照搬 MFRS 18。

例如：

整体来说，MFRS 18 的复杂程度较高，而 MPERS 2025 相对简单。

因此，以下说法并不准确：

“MFRS 18 在 2027 年生效，所以所有 Sdn. Bhd. 都要改变损益表。”

如果公司采用 MPERS 2025，并不是自动适用 MFRS 18。MPERS 是一个独立的财务报告框架，Full MFRS 后来的变化也不会自动进入 MPERS。

集团层面的实施陷阱

不过，集团层面可能出现另一个问题。

假设：

私人子公司本身的法定财务报表可以继续按照 MPERS 编制。

但是，母公司在编制 MFRS 合并财务报表时，集团报告资料仍然必须提供 MFRS 18 所需要的分类信息。

因此，子公司可能会说：

“我们没有采用 MFRS 18。”

集团会计师则可能回答：

“你没有采用，但集团要采用。报告模板已经发给你了。”

大型集团的会计系统不应简单地设定：

Account 8000 = Operating forever

而应该建立一个 reporting-framework mapping layer。

一个 MFRS 18-ready 的系统至少要做到什么？

2026 至 2027 年真正的实施工程，并不是简单地修改损益表上的几个标题。

一个真正适用于 MFRS 18 的系统，至少应当具备以下能力。

保存分类属性

GL／Chart of Accounts 应增加 MFRS 18 的分类属性，例如：

系统也应允许不同 reporting entity 或 consolidation level 使用不同的映射方式。

同时保留 Nature 与 Function

系统需要同时保存费用的性质和功能。

例如，工资可能进入 Cost of Sales，但系统仍必须保留其性质为 Employee Benefits。折旧也应能够追踪其进入了哪一个功能项目。

建立 MPM 调节模块

系统应建立 MPM reporting module 或 reconciliation layer。

如果 Annual Report、Press Release 或 Investor Deck 使用 Adjusted Operating Profit，系统应能够从 statutory figures 自动进行调节，而不是每年年尾才要求会计师打开一份名为 “FINAL FINAL MPM v18.xlsx” 的 Excel 文件。

更新 Cash Flow Engine

间接法应以 Operating Profit 开始，Interest 和 Dividend 的映射也必须符合新的 MFRS 107 要求。

现金流量表的映射不能简单地复制损益表中的分类。

支持追溯比较数字

对于 calendar-year company，系统最迟应能够同时生成：

支持合并层面的映射

系统应具有独立的 consolidation mapping。

因为子公司的独立财务报表与集团合并报告实体，对主要业务活动的判断可能并不相同。

记录附注披露资料

系统应记录以下费用分别分配到哪些功能项目：

保留审计轨迹

系统必须能够追踪：

升级财务报表及 XBRL 映射

Financial Statement Generator 和 XBRL mapping 也可能需要升级。

IFRS Foundation 已因应 IFRS 18 更新 IFRS Accounting Taxonomy，包括类别、MPM 披露及指定费用标签。

这也是为什么专业机构特别提醒：虽然 MFRS 18 通常不会改变确认和计量，但其对系统、Chart of Accounts、mapping、披露及调节工作的实际影响不应被低估。

会计师和审计师应该从哪里开始？

实施工作不一定要从“重新设计财务报表”开始。更实际的做法，是先从 Trial Balance 开始。

可以使用公司 2025 或 2026 年的 Trial Balance，对每一个损益表账户提出五个问题：

然后，再进行第二层检查：建立 Public Communications Inventory，找出以下资料：

接着要问：

未来，审计师关注的不只是财务报表中已经出现的数字，也需要了解管理层在其他公开渠道向投资者传达了哪些数字。

MFRS 18 的核心信息

过去的世界可能是：

“Bottom Line 对了，应该就可以了吧？”

MFRS 18 的答案是：

“不够。”

Profit RM20 million 当然重要，但投资者还需要知道：

MFRS 18 真正改变的，不只是：

“你赚了多少利润？”

而是进一步要求：

“请清楚说明这项利润是怎样产生的。”

马来西亚企业的 MFRS 18 实施时间表

2026 年：差距分析与系统设计

企业应先使用现有 Trial Balance，模拟 MFRS 18 下的损益表，并识别：

2027 年 1 月 1 日：强制采用期开始

对于 calendar-year entity，FY2027 是第一次强制采用 MFRS 18 的年度。

FY2027 财务报表将呈列：

MFRS 18 在首次采用年度的中期财务报表中，也涉及新的呈列及调节要求。因此，上市集团更不能等到 2027 年 12 月才开始准备。