Insights AR-AP
AR and AP Ageing Report Format UAE: The Layout Banks Actually Accept for Credit
The AR and AP ageing report format UAE banks accept for credit: bucket structure, top-10 concentration, dispute disclosure and IFRS 9 ECL.
Key takeaways
- The standard UAE bank-acceptable ageing bucket structure is 0-30 / 31-60 / 61-90 / 91-180 / 180+ days, with each bucket broken down by customer or supplier name
- Top 10 debtor / creditor concentration is the single most important disclosure — lenders watch reliance on any one counterparty and cap it to a limited share of the borrowing base
- Disputed and doubtful balances must be flagged separately — hide them inside the 91-180 bucket and your credibility goes when the auditor reconciles
- The reconciliation back to the trial balance should appear on the cover of the ageing report — banks need to confirm the AR / AP totals tie to the latest audited or management financials
- Net AR after expected credit loss (ECL) provision is what most UAE banks discount as borrowing-base eligible — a 100% face-value AR is not 100% lendable
- Group consolidation matters — a debtor that appears small individually but is actually a related group needs to be aggregated to show real concentration
AR and AP ageing reports are the two schedules UAE banks read most carefully on any credit application. They are also the two schedules most SMEs submit in a format that costs them rate, limit or approval. The owner hands the accountant a one-page ageing summary on the morning of the bank meeting. The credit officer reads it in 30 seconds, makes assumptions about the gaps, and the working-capital line comes back smaller than asked.
This article is for owners, finance managers and CFOs of UAE SMEs preparing ageing reports for bank credit applications, facility renewals, invoice financing or supplier credit. It covers the bank-acceptable bucket structure, concentration analysis, dispute disclosure, ECL provisioning, and the presentation that gets a working-capital request approved in one round. If you want the reports built and the numbers reconciled for you before the bank meeting, that sits within our accounts receivable and payable management services in the UAE. The ageing schedule works alongside a well-structured statement of account template, the document you send each customer to confirm exactly which invoices make up the balance.
What an ageing report actually is
An ageing report (sometimes “aged debtors”, “aged creditors” or “aged trial balance”) lists every open AR or AP balance — accounts receivable being what customers owe you, accounts payable what you owe suppliers — categorised by how long the balance has been outstanding. The bucket structure compresses thousands of transactions into a one-page view of collection or payment health.
What it tells a UAE bank
| Signal | What the bank reads from it |
|---|---|
| Total AR / AP | Does it tie back to the audited or management balance sheet |
| Distribution across buckets | Is the book current or tail-heavy |
| Concentration by counterparty | Single-name risk, group risk, sector risk |
| Disputed and doubtful balances | What is genuinely collectable / payable |
| DSO and DPO implied | Working-capital efficiency consistent with the business model |
| Month-on-month trend | Improving, stable or deteriorating |
The DSO the bank reads off the report is the standard accounts receivable days formula — trade AR ÷ revenue × 365 — and its inverse, the accounts receivable turnover ratio, tells the same story from the other direction.
A clean ageing supports a higher borrowing base, better facility pricing and faster approval. A messy one, or one that’s hiding something, triggers more questions, smaller limits, more security, or a flat decline. The credit officer isn’t being difficult. They’re reading the same signals they read every week, and they’ve learned what an evasive report looks like.
The bucket structure UAE banks expect
UAE lenders do not publish their credit-application templates, so nobody outside a bank can tell you exactly which buckets a given institution uses. What is safe to say is that the five-bucket structure below is the convention across UAE and wider GCC finance functions, and it is the structure an auditor and a credit officer in Dubai, Abu Dhabi or Sharjah will read without needing to remap anything. Ask your relationship manager whether the bank has its own template before you build one — if it does, use theirs.
| Bucket | Days outstanding | How a credit officer reads it |
|---|---|---|
| Current (not yet due) | Within stated terms | Healthy — carries the highest borrowing-base value |
| 0-30 days past due | 1-30 days past invoice or due date | Normal slippage in the UAE market |
| 31-60 days past due | 31-60 days | Escalating — collections discipline is being tested |
| 61-90 days past due | 61-90 days | Concerning — expect questions on each name |
| 91-180 days past due | 91-180 days | Problem territory — heavily discounted or excluded |
| 180+ days past due | Over 180 days | Doubtful — usually excluded from the base entirely |
We have deliberately not put a haircut percentage against each bucket. No UAE bank publishes its borrowing-base grid, the grids differ between institutions and between facility types, and a number invented for a table is a number a business will plan around. Ask your relationship manager for the applicable advance rates in writing at the term-sheet stage. What you can control is the ageing itself: banks generally separate “not yet due” from “0-30 past due” and treat them differently, so build both and state your basis on the cover sheet.
AR and AP aging report format: ageing or aging, one schedule
You will see this report spelled two ways, and the AR and AP aging report format a UAE bank accepts is the same either way. “Ageing” is the British spelling used across the UAE, the wider GCC and the UK. “Aging” is the American spelling, and it is the label most accounting software prints by default — QuickBooks calls it the A/R Aging Summary, Xero an Aged Receivables report, Zoho Books an AR Aging, and Tally an ageing analysis. The buckets, the totals and the reconciliation behave identically whichever letter your software drops.
So do not lose time over which spelling to submit. A Dubai credit officer reading a working-capital application is not marking you down for “aging” over “ageing”; they are checking whether the total ties to the balance sheet, whether concentration is disclosed, and whether disputed and doubtful balances are out in the open. The structure underneath the heading is what earns the borrowing base, not the heading itself.
Where the spelling does matter is when you are matching documents. If your software exports an “aging summary” and the bank’s pack asks for an “ageing schedule”, they are the same thing under two names. Remap the software’s four-bucket default onto the five-bucket bank format, keep the reconciliation on the cover, and the label difference stops meaning anything.
The seven sections a bank-ready report includes
A bank-acceptable AR ageing report has the following structure:
Section 1: Cover and reconciliation
- Company name, trade licence number, TRN
- Report date (typically last day of the most recent month)
- Total AR (gross, before ECL) — must tie to the trial balance / balance sheet
- ECL provision
- Net AR (net of ECL)
- Currency (AED) with foreign-currency exposure noted separately
- Ageing basis (due-date or invoice-date) — pick one and disclose
- Preparer name and date
Section 2: Bucket summary
| Bucket | AED outstanding | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| Not yet due | 4,250,000 | 47% |
| 0-30 past due | 2,100,000 | 23% |
| 31-60 past due | 980,000 | 11% |
| 61-90 past due | 540,000 | 6% |
| 91-180 past due | 720,000 | 8% |
| 180+ past due | 410,000 | 5% |
| Total gross AR | 9,000,000 | 100% |
| ECL provision | (510,000) | |
| Net AR | 8,490,000 |
Section 3: Customer-level detail
For each open customer, columns showing:
| Customer | TRN | Stated terms | Total AED | Not due | 0-30 | 31-60 | 61-90 | 91-180 | 180+ | Disputed |
|---|
Sort by total AED descending. The top 10-20 customers are what the credit officer reads.
Section 4: Top 10 concentration analysis
| Rank | Customer (or group) | AED outstanding | % of total AR | Oldest balance | Status |
|---|
This is the section that drives credit officer’s view of single-name and group risk.
Section 5: Disputed and doubtful balances
| Customer | AED | Dispute reason | Date raised | Recovery action | Status |
|---|
Disclosed separately, not buried inside the regular ageing.
Section 6: GRE and government exposure
Separate listing of receivables from government-related entities (ADNOC, Etisalat, DEWA, Dubai Holding, Aldar, etc.) with stated terms, actual DSO and active facility usage. Banks treat these as a separate risk category — lower default risk, longer payment cycle.
Section 7: 12-month trend
A small table or chart showing month-end AR totals and bucket distribution for the prior 12 months. Demonstrates improvement, stability or deterioration over time.
A worked example: a Dubai trader applying for AED 6m
The figures below are an illustration built to show the arithmetic, not a client file. The business is a mainland Dubai trading company with AED 60m revenue and more than 200 active customers, preparing an invoice-financing facility renewal of AED 6m. Counterparties are described by type rather than named, because naming a real UAE company alongside a disputed balance would be an allegation we cannot evidence.
Cover
- Total gross AR: AED 11,400,000
- ECL provision: (AED 760,000)
- Net AR: AED 10,640,000
- Ageing basis: due-date
- Date: 31 May 2026
Bucket summary
| Bucket | AED | % |
|---|---|---|
| Not yet due | 5,800,000 | 51% |
| 0-30 past due | 2,400,000 | 21% |
| 31-60 past due | 1,150,000 | 10% |
| 61-90 past due | 680,000 | 6% |
| 91-180 past due | 890,000 | 8% |
| 180+ past due | 480,000 | 4% |
| Total | 11,400,000 | 100% |
Top 5 concentration (group-aggregated)
| Group | AED | % AR |
|---|---|---|
| Grocery retail group A (multiple entities) | 1,890,000 | 17% |
| Fuel distribution GRE | 1,420,000 | 12% |
| Grocery retail group B | 980,000 | 9% |
| Supermarket chain C | 640,000 | 6% |
| Property developer D and subsidiaries | 510,000 | 4% |
| Top 5 total | 5,440,000 | 48% |
Disputed balances disclosed
| Customer | AED | Reason | Ageing bucket | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Property developer D, subsidiary | 220,000 | Short delivery, credit note expected | 91-180 | With supplier |
| Contracting company E | 145,000 | Pricing variance on Q1 unit rate | 91-180 | Under negotiation |
| Trading company F | 60,000 | Quality hold, goods returned | 61-90 | Credit note expected |
The disputed total is AED 425,000. Note where those balances sit in the ageing, because it changes the borrowing-base arithmetic: AED 365,000 of the AED 425,000 is already inside the 91-180 bucket, which carries no eligibility in this illustration, so only the AED 60,000 sitting in the 61-90 bucket needs deducting again. Double-deducting disputed balances that have already been excluded by bucket is one of the more common self-inflicted errors in a borrowing-base schedule, and it understates the facility you could have asked for.
Borrowing-base calculation (illustrative)
| Line | AED | Eligible % | Eligible AED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not yet due | 5,800,000 | 85% | 4,930,000 |
| 0-30 past due | 2,400,000 | 80% | 1,920,000 |
| 31-60 past due | 1,150,000 | 65% | 747,500 |
| 61-90 past due | 680,000 | 40% | 272,000 |
| 91-180 past due | 890,000 | 0% | 0 |
| 180+ past due | 480,000 | 0% | 0 |
| Sub-total before adjustments | 11,400,000 | 7,869,500 | |
| Less disputed balance inside the 61-90 bucket, at that bucket’s 40% | (60,000) | 40% | (24,000) |
| Less top-name concentration excess (see below) | (180,000) | ||
| Borrowing base | 7,665,500 |
The concentration line is worth showing rather than asserting. The largest single group in this book is AED 1,890,000, which is 16.6 per cent of gross AR of AED 11,400,000. Against a 15 per cent single-name cap, 15 per cent of AED 11,400,000 is AED 1,710,000, so the excess is AED 1,890,000 minus AED 1,710,000, which is AED 180,000. That is the figure deducted above. A cap applied to the eligible base rather than to gross AR would produce a much larger deduction, which is precisely why you should ask the bank which base its cap applies to before you model anything.
At an 80 per cent advance rate the borrowing base of AED 7,665,500 supports a facility of AED 6,132,400, so the AED 6m renewal is comfortably covered — with AED 132,400 of headroom rather than the wafer-thin margin the earlier version of this arithmetic implied.
Every eligibility percentage, the 15 per cent cap and the 80 per cent advance rate above are illustrative inputs chosen to demonstrate the method. No UAE bank publishes its borrowing-base grid or its advance rates. Confirm the applicable formula with your relationship manager rather than assuming any fixed schedule, and rerun the arithmetic with the bank’s own inputs before you commit to a facility size.
48%
of this trader's AR is concentrated in the top 5 customer groups — a material concentration that needs to be surfaced upfront, not discovered by the bank
Booking it under IFRS 9
Under IFRS 9, trade receivables carry an expected-credit-loss provision based on historical default experience, current conditions and forward-looking information. UAE banks expect to see ECL applied on the ageing.
A simplified provision matrix for UAE SMEs
| Bucket | Provision % | Adjustment for sector / customer |
|---|---|---|
| Not yet due | 0.5-1.0% | Plus specific identified concerns |
| 0-30 past due | 1.0-2.0% | Stable customers may stay at 1% |
| 31-60 past due | 3.0-7.0% | Higher for new or smaller customers |
| 61-90 past due | 10-20% | Plus specific provision on identified problems |
| 91-180 past due | 25-50% | Generally fully specific by this point |
| 180+ past due | 50-100% | Document recovery actions to justify under 100% |
This matrix is illustrative — the actual provision should reflect the SME’s historical loss experience, sector and customer base, and the IFRS 9 methodology applied by the external auditor.
A separate specific provision
Specific provisions on identified problem debts — customer in financial difficulty, dispute likely to result in write-off, recovery action stalled — sit alongside the general matrix and are usually 50-100% of the specific balance.
The total ECL = general matrix provision + specific provisions, deducted from gross AR to reach the net AR shown on the balance sheet.
Where AP ageing reads differently
The AP ageing report applies the same bucket structure to supplier balances. The interpretation differs:
| Signal | What the bank reads from AP ageing |
|---|---|
| Concentration in single supplier | Supply-chain dependency, leverage available to that supplier |
| Volume in 60-90 day bucket | Either negotiated long terms (good — DPO discipline) or stretching suppliers (bad — cash stress) |
| Volume past 90 days | Either disputed (needs explanation) or cash-pressured payments deferred |
| GRNI separately disclosed | Genuine accruals vs missed invoices |
| Mix of import vs local suppliers | LC and trade-finance utilisation context |
Key distinction: aged AP and DPO consistency
The implied DPO from the AP ageing should be consistent with the DPO stated in the credit application narrative. If the SME claims 45-day DPO but the AP ageing shows 40% of creditor balance past 90 days, the credit officer will question whether the SME is paying suppliers as fast as it implies, or whether the 90+ bucket is disputed balances rather than late payments.
GRNI on the AP ageing
GRNI (goods received not invoiced) should be shown separately from supplier-invoice payables. GRNI is an accrual; supplier-invoice payable is a real obligation matched to an issued invoice. Mixing them inflates the apparent supplier payable and distorts DPO.
See our supplier reconciliation guide for the GRNI register that feeds into the AP ageing.
Inside the credit officer’s head, step by step
When a UAE bank credit officer receives an AR / AP ageing report as part of a working-capital facility application, the typical flow is:
Step 1: 30-second triage (visual scan)
- Does the total reconcile to the balance sheet on file?
- Is the format recognisable? (Bank-template-style, or improvised?)
- Is there obvious tail (90+ days a high proportion)?
- Is concentration visible? (Top 10 disclosed?)
Step 2: 10-minute reasonableness check
- Do the implied DSO / DPO match the business model?
- Are GREs and government receivables identified?
- Are disputes flagged separately?
- Is ECL applied?
Step 3: Borrowing-base calculation
- Apply the bank’s standard haircuts by bucket
- Exclude or discount disputed balances
- Apply the facility’s concentration caps to single names and to the top five, on the base the facility document specifies
- Discount GRE / government exposure separately (often a fixed % regardless of ageing)
- Net to eligible AR / AP and apply advance rate
Step 4: Question rounds
- Why is X% of AR in the 91-180 bucket?
- What is the recovery plan on the top 3 problem balances?
- What does the dispute log show on the Damac balance?
- Has the customer been formally notified that the SME considers the balance in dispute?
- Is the concentration in customer Y the same legal entity or related group?
A well-prepared report addresses these upfront. A poorly-prepared one means three rounds of email, two weeks of delay and a smaller approved limit.
Lender presentation tips
Lead with the reconciliation
The first thing the credit officer wants to confirm is that the ageing total matches the trial balance and the last audited or management financials. Put the reconciliation on the cover. Anyone trying to hide a mismatch loses credibility immediately.
Show concentration upfront, don’t hide it
If your top 5 customers are 50% of AR, say so. The credit officer will work it out regardless, so there’s no upside in being coy. Saying it first lets you frame the relationship on your terms — how long the customer has been on the book, the stated terms against the actual average collection period, and the loss history — with the supporting data behind each claim. Far better than having the same fact surface later as a concern you did not volunteer.
Disclose disputes honestly
The dispute log surfaces eventually — through the auditor’s confirmation letters, or through the customer’s own response when the bank contacts them directly. Disclosing every disputed balance with its reason, its ageing bucket and the recovery action is strictly better than being caught omitting one. Honesty about disputes buys credibility on everything else in the report, and credibility is what a credit officer is actually pricing.
Provide the 12-month trend
A single month-end snapshot tells the bank nothing about direction. A 12-month trend showing AR total, key buckets and concentration over time tells the bank whether the working-capital position is improving or deteriorating. Improving trends support better facility terms.
Pre-discount the GRE balances
Government-related entity receivables have specific characteristics — long stated terms (60-90 days), often longer actual collection cycles, low default risk, slow but reliable collection. Present these in their own table with average collection cycles, ageing buckets and any factored portion. Banks have separate haircut rules for GREs and will apply them more favourably if the data is presented as a clean segment.
Match the bank’s template
Most major UAE banks have a credit-application template with specific schedules. Use the bank’s template format wherever it exists. Submitting a beautifully designed report in your own format that the credit officer then has to remap is a friction point that delays approval.
Where the report kills your facility
Total doesn’t reconcile to balance sheet
The ageing shows AED 9.2m, the trial balance shows AED 9.5m, the management accounts show AED 9.4m. Three different numbers from one source of truth means none of them is trusted. Fix the underlying ledger before sending anything.
Hidden disputes
Disputed balances buried inside the 91-180 bucket without a note. The bank finds them through external confirmation and discounts the credibility of the whole report.
Group entities not aggregated
Six subsidiaries of the same group, each showing AED 800k individually, no aggregation. The credit officer eventually works out the group exposure is AED 4.8m and assumes you were hiding it.
No ECL applied
Gross AR presented as if it were 100% collectable. The bank will impose its own ECL anyway — usually more conservative than yours would have been — and the apparent borrowing base shrinks accordingly.
Stale data
Ageing report dated 60-90 days before the application. The bank asks for a fresh one and your application sits in queue until you produce it.
Different ageing basis between AR and AP
AR on due-date basis, AP on invoice-date basis. Working-capital ratios become uninterpretable. Pick one basis and apply it consistently.
GRNI mixed into AP
GRNI sitting inside supplier-invoice payable lines inflates the apparent creditor balance and breaks the DPO calculation.
UAE credit officers tend to approve facilities at the level of the most pessimistic reasonable view of the borrowing base. If your ageing report leaves room for a pessimistic interpretation, that’s the interpretation the credit officer is paid to take. Pre-empt every concern by disclosing it cleanly, and the facility comes back at the level the actual receivable book supports.
Exporting the aging report format from your accounting software
Most UAE SMEs do not build the ageing by hand — it comes out of the accounting system, and the AR and AP aging report format each system exports needs a little reshaping before a bank will read it comfortably. QuickBooks, Xero, Zoho Books, Tally and Sage all produce an aged receivables and aged payables report as standard, usually with configurable buckets. The catch is that the default export rarely matches what a credit officer wants.
Three gaps show up almost every time. First, the buckets: software often defaults to a 30 / 60 / 90 / 90+ four-bucket ageing, while UAE banks expect the five-bucket 0-30 / 31-60 / 61-90 / 91-180 / 180+ split. Reset the ageing periods in the report settings before exporting. Second, concentration: no off-the-shelf report ranks your top 10 debtors by group, so that table is built in Excel from the customer-detail export. Third, ECL and disputes: the IFRS 9 provision column and the dispute log are not in the accounting system’s report at all — they are added alongside.
The practical route is to export the customer or supplier detail to Excel, remap the buckets, then layer the concentration, ECL and dispute sections on top. Our accounts receivable and payable management work rebuilds this inside the system so the export lands in bank format each month without the manual rework.
Excel or PDF — which file format banks prefer
When a UAE bank asks for the ageing “in the right format”, it usually means two things at once: the layout, and the file. On the file question, most credit teams want a working Excel workbook rather than a flat image. Excel lets the officer re-sort by bucket, filter the top names, check that the column totals add up, and confirm the figures are live formulas rather than typed-over numbers. A scanned or photographed report tells them nothing they can test, and it slows the review down.
The usual submission is a native Excel export from your accounting system — not retyped, so the audit trail holds — paired with a signed PDF cover sheet carrying the reconciliation to the trial balance, the preparer’s name and the report date. That cover is the part that benefits from a locked PDF; the schedules underneath are more useful live. Keep the AED figures unrounded on the working sheet and round only for the summary view.
Two habits save a round of questions. Leave the software’s cell formulas intact so the bucket totals visibly foot to the grand total, and name the file with the company and month-end date so it is obvious which period it covers. Small things, but they signal a finance function that reconciles rather than reconstructs — which is exactly the read you want the credit officer to take.
When to bring in outside help
The right time to engage external accounting or CFO support on ageing report preparation is when:
- A bank facility application or renewal is approaching and the current ageing report does not reconcile to the management accounts
- The dispute log is not integrated into the ageing
- ECL provisioning has not been applied or is not auditor-acceptable
- The 12-month trend has not been built and the bank is asking for it
- A previous facility request was declined or significantly haircut and the underlying analysis was a contributing factor
Typical engagement scope includes ageing structure rebuild, ECL methodology design and provisioning, dispute log integration, GRE / government segmentation, 12-month trend pack, and walk-through support with the bank credit team. See our CFO advisory and accounting and bookkeeping services for engagement scope, and the sibling guides on the 90-day DSO improvement plan and the UAE SME credit control policy template for the collection discipline that keeps the ageing clean in the first place.
How Velmont Crest helps
The ageing reports are the working-capital story your accounting system tells about your business. UAE credit officers see hundreds of them a year, and they know the polished-and-misleading version on sight just as well as they know the real-and-credible one. The credible version — clean reconciliation, honest concentration, transparent disputes, IFRS 9 ECL, a 12-month trend — supports the facility you actually need. The other version costs you rate, limit, or the deal itself.
So lead with the reconciliation, show the concentration upfront, keep disputes and GRE balances in their own sections, and put the 12-month trend on the page. That’s the difference between a one-round approval and six weeks of back-and-forth that ends in a 30% smaller limit.
Frequently asked questions
- What is an AR ageing report and why do UAE banks ask for it?
- It lists every open customer balance and sorts it by how long the money has been sitting there past the invoice or due date. You'll also hear it called a debtor ageing or aged receivables analysis. The standard UAE layout runs 0-30, 31-60, 61-90, 91-180 and 180+ day buckets, and the total has to tie back to the trade debtor figure on the balance sheet. Banks want it on every working-capital application because it's the clearest read on the real quality of your receivable book — how disciplined collections are, how concentrated the customers are, how much is in dispute, how much might never come in. Clean ageing gets you a bigger borrowing base; a tail-heavy one shrinks what they'll lend against.
- What is the standard ageing bucket structure UAE banks accept?
- 0-30 days (current and just past due), 31-60 (early past due), 61-90 (escalating), 91-180 (problem territory), and 180+ (doubtful, or you're actively chasing it). Some banks also want a separate 'not yet due' bucket split out from 0-30 past due. ADCB, FAB, Emirates NBD, HSBC, Mashreq, Dubai Islamic Bank, Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank and Commercial Bank of Dubai all run variations of this in their credit-application templates. If your system spits out 60-90 / 90-120 buckets or fortnightly ones, remap before you submit — don't make the credit officer do it.
- How should debtor concentration be shown on a UAE ageing report?
- Two layers. The first is your top 10 individual debtors by AED outstanding — name, total, percentage of AR, oldest balance, dispute status. The second is the same picture aggregated by related group, so subsidiaries of one parent count as a single exposure. That second view is the one that catches people out; concentration that looks fine entity by entity can be alarming once you roll the group up. Banks watch single-name concentration closely, and most facility documents cap how much of the base any one counterparty can represent. The level of that cap, and whether it applies to gross receivables or to the eligible base, is set by the lender and is not published — ask for it in writing at term-sheet stage.
- What is the difference between accounts payable and accounts receivable?
- Accounts receivable is money owed to you — customer invoices issued but not yet collected, an asset on your balance sheet. Accounts payable is money you owe — supplier invoices received but not yet paid, a liability. Both get their own ageing report, on the same bucket structure, and a UAE bank reads them together: the AR ageing shows the quality of what it might lend against, the AP ageing shows whether you are paying suppliers on terms or stretching them to fund the gap.
- What is the expected credit loss (ECL) provision and how does it affect the ageing report?
- Under IFRS 9, ECL is a forward-looking provision across the receivable book reflecting the probability of default and the loss if it happens, bucket by bucket. Banks expect it applied to the ageing as its own column. The standard does not prescribe percentages: it requires the provision to be built from your own historical loss experience adjusted for current and forward-looking conditions, so any published rate card is somebody else's business. Build the matrix from your own collection history and agree it with your auditor. Net AR after ECL anchors the borrowing base. See our [working capital management UAE playbook](/insights/working-capital-management-uae-sme-playbook/).
- How should disputed receivables be disclosed in an ageing report?
- Pull them out into their own column or section — never bury them in the regular ageing. Show the customer name, the AED amount, why it's in dispute (short delivery, pricing variance, quality hold, credit note expected, payment contested), when you raised it, and what you're doing to recover it. Expect a disputed balance to be discounted heavily or excluded from the borrowing base altogether — banks do not publish the discount they apply, and it will depend on the nature of the dispute, so ask rather than assume. The reason honesty pays here: hide a dispute in the 91-180 bucket and the bank finds it anyway through the dispute log or the auditor's confirmation letters, and at that point the whole report stops being believed.
- How does an AP ageing report differ from an AR ageing report?
- Same bucket structure, applied to what you owe suppliers rather than what customers owe you — 0-30 / 31-60 / 61-90 / 91-180 / 180+ past the supplier invoice or due date. What the bank reads from it is different, though. It's looking at whether you're paying suppliers on terms or stringing them out (a stretched AP ageing signals cash stress), whether your implied DPO matches the working-capital story in the application, and how dependent you are on any one supplier. Like the AR version, it has to reconcile to trade creditors on the balance sheet, with GRNI shown separately as an accrual.
- What does a UAE bank credit officer actually look for in an ageing report?
- Reconciliation first, always: does the AR or AP total tie to the trial balance and the last audited or management accounts? Then concentration — what's sitting in the top 10 names, and does it fit the customer base they'd expect for your model? How much is past 90 days, and is the trend improving or slipping month on month? Are the disputed and doubtful balances out in the open, with a realistic ECL? And are GRE and government receivables flagged separately, since those behave differently on working capital? Put all of that on the page and most of the questions never get asked.
- How frequently should a UAE SME prepare ageing reports?
- Monthly, at minimum — it should be a fixture in the board pack and management accounts, not something you build the night before a bank meeting. Under cash stress or active dunning, weekly is sensible. Your internal version can be simpler than the bank-submission format; the underlying data is identical either way. For a facility application or renewal the bank wants the most recent month-end ageing, often with a 12-month trend of month-end balances by bucket alongside. Anything more than about 60 days stale at submission tends to get discounted by the credit officer.
- What is the difference between invoice-date ageing and due-date ageing?
- Invoice-date counts from when the invoice was issued; due-date counts from the contractual payment date. The gap matters — a 30-day-old invoice on Net 60 terms is current on a due-date basis but already 'past 30 days' on invoice-date. Banks take either, as long as you pick one, say which, and stick to it. Due-date is the more useful basis because it isolates what's genuinely overdue.
- Does Velmont Crest help UAE SMEs prepare ageing reports for bank submission?
- Yes — ageing report preparation, ECL provisioning, dispute-log integration and bank-submission packs all sit within our [accounting and bookkeeping](/services/accounting-bookkeeping/) and [CFO advisory](/services/cfo-advisory/) work. A typical engagement rebuilds the AR or AP ageing inside your accounting system so it matches the bank-acceptable format, sets up the ECL methodology, folds the dispute log into the presentation, builds the 12-month trend pack, and walks you through the credit officer's question rounds. It's preparation and presentation support — the credit decision and facility terms stay between you and the regulated lender.
Filed under: AR ageing report, AP ageing report, debtor ageing UAE, bank credit application, working capital facility, lender presentation, DSO disclosure
Published · Updated
