Credit loss models that stand up to auditors, regulators and boards.
End-to-end expected credit loss models for banks, corporates and conglomerates: PD, LGD and EAD estimation, staging, macroeconomic overlays and audit-ready documentation.
IFRS 9 Expected Credit Loss (ECL) Modelling
IFRS 9 replaced the incurred-loss model with a forward-looking expected credit loss framework. That change moved impairment from a mechanical calculation to a modelling exercise that requires credit data, statistical judgement and economic forecasts. Most finance teams in the Gulf were never staffed for it.
ECT builds, validates and maintains ECL models for financial institutions and for corporates with material trade receivables, contract assets, lease receivables, intercompany balances and debt investments. Our leadership has delivered ECL engagements across the GCC and works within SAMA and CBB expectations as well as the requirements of external auditors.
We deliver models in Excel or Python that your team can run each reporting period, with methodology papers, sensitivity analysis and a governance framework so the model survives staff turnover and audit scrutiny.
Data assessment
Loan tape, ageing, write-offs and recoveries are profiled for completeness; gaps are bridged with proxies that we document.
Segmentation and staging
Portfolios are segmented by shared credit characteristics and SICR triggers are calibrated to observable behaviour.
Parameter estimation
PD, LGD and EAD are estimated, then conditioned on forward-looking scenarios with probability weights.
Model, test, hand over
The model is built, back-tested, documented and handed over with training for the finance and risk teams.
- Banks, finance companies and fintech lenders
- Insurance and takaful companies (IFRS 9 alongside IFRS 17)
- Corporates and conglomerates with material receivables
- Government-related entities with loan books or receivables
- Audit committees requiring independent validation
The technicality behind IFRS 9 ECL Modelling.
Straight answers to the questions finance teams, auditors and boards ask us most often.
What is the difference between the general approach and the simplified approach?
The general approach applies three stages. Stage 1 exposures carry a 12-month ECL, Stage 2 exposures (those with a significant increase in credit risk since origination) carry a lifetime ECL, and Stage 3 exposures are credit-impaired. The simplified approach, permitted for trade receivables, contract assets and lease receivables, always recognises lifetime ECL and removes the need to track SICR. Most corporates use the simplified approach with a provision matrix; banks and lenders must apply the general approach to loans and debt instruments.
How do you define a significant increase in credit risk (SICR)?
We combine quantitative and qualitative triggers. Quantitative triggers compare the lifetime PD at reporting date with the lifetime PD at origination, typically using a relative threshold (for example a doubling or tripling of PD) together with an absolute floor. Qualitative triggers include watch-list status, forbearance, covenant breaches and adverse sector news. IFRS 9 also carries a rebuttable presumption that credit risk has increased significantly when contractual payments are more than 30 days past due, and a presumption of default at 90 days. Our calibration tests each trigger against historical migration data so that the staging is evidence-based rather than arbitrary.
How are PD, LGD and EAD estimated when we have limited default history?
Data scarcity is the norm in the GCC outside the largest banks. For PD we use transition matrices where rating or ageing histories exist, otherwise we map internal grades to external rating agency default studies or use Pluto-Tasche low-default-portfolio techniques. For LGD we use workout recoveries where available, otherwise collateral haircuts and time-to-recovery assumptions benchmarked to regional experience. For EAD we apply credit conversion factors to undrawn limits. Every proxy is documented with the rationale and a sensitivity so auditors can see the impact of the assumption.
How does the macroeconomic overlay work and which variables matter in the Gulf?
IFRS 9 requires ECL to reflect reasonable and supportable forward-looking information. We regress historical default or loss rates on macroeconomic variables, then project ECL under multiple scenarios. In Saudi Arabia and Bahrain the most explanatory variables are typically Brent crude prices, non-oil GDP growth, inflation, policy interest rates and, for real estate portfolios, transaction volumes and price indices. Scenarios are probability-weighted (commonly base 50 to 60 percent, downside 20 to 30 percent, upside 15 to 25 percent) and the weights are reviewed each period with documented rationale.
What does SAMA expect from a bank's ECL framework?
SAMA's IFRS 9 guidance expects a board-approved ECL policy, documented models with independent validation, clear SICR criteria, forward-looking scenarios with governance over the weights, management overlays that are justified and time-bound, and regular back-testing. The Central Bank of Bahrain has similar expectations. We build the governance framework alongside the model so both are examination-ready.
Can the provision matrix be simple enough for a corporate finance team to run monthly?
Yes. A well-designed provision matrix takes an ageing report as input, applies segmented historical loss rates adjusted for forward-looking factors, and produces the lifetime ECL and the journal entry. We typically deliver it in Excel with locked formulas, a control sheet and a one-page run guide. The forward-looking adjustment is refreshed annually or when conditions change materially.
Do you validate models built by others?
Yes. Independent validation covers conceptual soundness, data integrity, implementation testing, back-testing, sensitivity analysis and documentation. We issue a validation report with findings graded by severity and a remediation plan. This is often requested by audit committees, by SAMA-regulated entities, and by groups consolidating subsidiaries with different models.
How long does an ECL engagement take?
It depends on data availability and on what you need the model to do. A provision matrix for a corporate with clean ageing and write-off history is a short engagement; a general-approach model for a lender with PD, LGD and EAD components, macroeconomic overlays and validation is a longer one. We agree the plan and the milestones after the data assessment, and we tell you at that point what is realistic for your reporting deadline.
IFRS 9 ECL Modelling in practice.
How this service played out on a real engagement, with the figures the client signed off.
Often engaged alongside
IAS 19 EOSB Actuarial Valuation
Independent actuarial valuations of end-of-service and other long-term employee benefits under IAS 19, with full disclosure packs, sensitivity analysis and audit support.
Explore serviceIFRS Technical Accounting
Technical accounting advice, position papers and implementation support across IFRS 16, IFRS 15, IFRS 3, IAS 36 and complex transactions, plus accounting policies, financial statements and disclosures.
Explore service NewIFRS 18 Implementation
Implementation of IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements: restructuring the income statement into operating, investing and financing categories, inventorying and reconciling management-defined performance measures, redesigning the notes, and rebuilding the 2026 comparatives ahead of the 1 January 2027 effective date.
Explore service