A lender's borrowings have no ECL and no staging — they have a deal-by-deal lifecycle, covenants, charges over pools, a modification history and a maturity profile the regulator asks for. The governance question is not ‘prove this portfolio's allowance’ but ‘prove this instrument's carrying amount’. FinIFRS takes the sanction letter in and gives Note 13, the Ind AS 107 disclosures, the ALM return, the covenant tracker and the journal out.
Term loans, NCDs, CPs, sub-debt and refinance lines sit in a workbook that treasury owns and finance re-keys. Processing fees are expensed on day one, modifications are booked as whatever the bank's letter said, and the ALM return is assembled by hand the week it is due.
Upfront and processing fees belong in the effective rate. Expensing them misstates finance cost for the whole tenor.
A reset or rescheduling is a ¶3.3.2 test — substantial or not — with a gain or loss consequence. Most books never run it.
A breached DSCR or gearing covenant reclassifies debt as current. Found at audit, it is a restatement.
One register drives measurement, compliance, funding and reporting — so each output ties to the others.
Load from the bulk template or read field by field from the sanction letter, with the classic reading traps — sanctioned vs drawn, headline vs effective spread — encoded as rules.
EIR solved per drawdown with fees, discounts and zero-coupon accretion; day counts per instrument class.
The 10% test under ¶3.3.2 and B3.3.6 run on every reset, rescheduling or benchmark change, with the accounting that follows.
Covenant tests computed from the ledger; a breach flags current / non-current presentation before the auditor does.
Which receivables secure which borrowing, cover ratios, and free pool available for the next raise.
The acceptance screen replays a filed set of accounts against the engine — the only screen designed to say ‘no’.
Every stage is a screen; every screen reads the one register.
The expensive part of borrowings is data capture — twenty sanction letters of six to eight pages each. That is where AI earns its place, against a reading guide that already exists as data.
Where each register field sits in a lender's letter, and the traps — sanctioned vs drawn, headline vs effective spread — encoded as data and tested.
Facility terms read from the PDF into the register as a proposal, checked by the 17 validation rules before a person accepts.
Board-ready commentary on covenant headroom and refinancing risk, drafted only from computed tests.
Across every FinIFRS product the rule is the same: a deterministic, tested engine computes and stores every figure first. AI reads documents, drafts sentences and answers questions over what is already stored — it never computes, posts or approves an amount.
Instrument defaults, rules, benchmarks and mappings are rows — edited by finance, approved by a checker.
Against a treasury workbook and an ERP loan module.
| Capability | ERP loan module | Treasury spreadsheet | FinIFRS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fees amortised through the EIR | Straight-line or expensed | Manual | ✓ Per drawdown |
| ¶3.3.2 modification test | — | Rarely | ✓ On every event |
| Covenant tests from the ledger | — | ✓ Computed, with breach flag | |
| NHB ALM return | — | Hand-built | ✓ From the register |
| Pools and cover ratios | — | Separate sheet | ✓ Native |
| Note 13 + Ind AS 107 | — | Manual | ✓ Generated |
Yes. The ALM return combines the borrowings register with lending-asset cash flows, so the structural liquidity statement is built from both sides of the balance sheet.
Yes — through the bulk template or from sanction letters. The 17 validation rules run on import and name the row and field of every problem.
A benchmark change proposes the reset for every linked facility. Accepted resets flow through the modification test and re-measure the carrying amount.
We load your current borrowings and produce the note, the ALM return and the covenant position for your last quarter-end.