GRAP 104 Requirements vs Probmatrix Add-In Coverage
Explore how the Probmatrix GRAP 104 Excel Add-In supports Expected Credit Loss estimation, modelling, validation and recurring implementation workflows for Municipalities and Public Sector Entities, delivered through implementation partners.
A transparent view of functionality and responsibilities
GRAP 104 specifies the measurement and reporting principles, not a mandatory software platform. This comparison maps those requirements against our product capabilities. The municipality or public sector entity and its professional advisers retain responsibility for accounting judgements and disclosures.
| Requirement / implementation area | What GRAP 104 requires in practice | Probmatrix GRAP 104 Add-In | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope & classification | Identify financial instruments subject to GRAP 104 and determine the relevant measurement / impairment treatment. | Modules for trade receivables, loans, long-term receivables and investments. Classification decisions remain with management. | ◐ Partial |
| ECL methodology / model development | Establish an appropriate methodology for measuring expected credit losses; the standard is principle-based and does not prescribe one model. | Ready-to-use modelling workflow rather than requiring users to construct a separate calculation workbook from scratch. | ✓ Supported |
| Provision matrix | A provision matrix may be used for receivables, applying differentiated loss rates to outstanding balances. | DPD/ageing-based calculation framework and historical loss/default analysis can support a provision-matrix approach. | ✓ Supported |
| Lifetime ECL for receivables | Receivables and lease receivables use lifetime expected credit losses under the simplified approach. | Lifetime ECL workflow for municipal receivable portfolios. | ✓ Supported |
| Historical loss / default experience | Use relevant historical information as a starting point for estimating losses. | DPD history, roll-rate / observed default-rate analysis and portfolio behavior. | ✓ Supported |
| Segmentation | Group exposures with shared credit-risk characteristics where collective assessment is used. | Customer / debtor-category and risk-based segmentation, including examples such as Business, Residential and Agriculture. | ✓ Supported |
| Default definition | Apply an entity-appropriate default definition consistent with credit-risk management, subject to GRAP guidance/backstops. | Configurable DPD/default parameters and default identification rules. | ✓ Supported |
| Current conditions | Update historical estimates for conditions existing at the reporting date. | Updated reporting-date portfolio behavior and model inputs can be incorporated in each run. | ✓ Supported |
| Forward-looking information | Reflect reasonable and supportable forecasts of future economic conditions. | Macroeconomic variable analysis, model selection and forward-looking adjustments. | ✓ Supported |
| Probability-weighted outcomes | Reflect an unbiased probability-weighted amount across possible outcomes where relevant. | Multiple macroeconomic scenarios, scenario weights and probability-weighted ECL calculation. | ✓ Supported |
| Cash shortfalls / recovery severity | Measure expected credit loss using expected cash shortfalls and recoveries. | LGD framework covering recoveries, cure behavior and recovery horizon. | ✓ Supported |
| Exposure amount | Measure the amount exposed to credit loss for relevant instruments. | EAD functionality for applicable exposure structures. | ✓ Supported |
| Time value of money | Expected credit losses are measured on a present-value basis where applicable. | Should be explicitly demonstrated and documented in the GRAP 104 workflow, particularly for loans and long-term receivables. | ✓ Supported |
| Collateral / credit enhancements | Reflect eligible cash flows from collateral or credit enhancements in accordance with GRAP 104, including public-sector considerations. | Recovery/LGD framework can incorporate collateral-related recoveries; management-intention treatment should be made explicit. | ✓ Supported |
| SICR for general approach assets | For relevant loans/investments, assess whether credit risk has increased significantly to determine 12-month vs lifetime ECL. | SICR/staging and DPD-based assessment can support relevant instruments; not required for simplified-approach receivables. | ✓ Supported |
| Model calibration | Rates and assumptions should remain aligned with observed experience and current information. | PD calibration and observed-vs-estimated performance assessment. | ✓ Supported |
| Model validation | Methodologies, assumptions and outcomes should be reviewed and assessed for continued appropriateness. | Statistical tests, calibration checks and model-performance validation tools. | ✓ Supported |
| Management overlays / adjustments | Incorporate relevant factors not adequately captured by the core model, supported by judgement and evidence. | Parameter settings / adjustments and management-overlay capability. | ✓ Supported |
| Recalculation at reporting date | Refresh the estimate using current data and assumptions at each reporting date. | Repeatable Add-In workflow using updated source data and assumptions. | ✓ Supported |
| Model documentation | Document methodology, data, assumptions, judgement, changes and governance sufficiently for review/audit. | Calculation outputs exist; a dedicated GRAP 104 methodology / model-documentation report would strengthen coverage. | ✓ Supported |
| Audit trail / reproducibility | Be able to explain and reproduce how the ECL allowance was determined. | Structured workflow improves repeatability; run-level audit logging, versioning and assumption snapshots can be strengthened. | ✓ Supported |
| Financial statement disclosures | Provide the disclosures required by GRAP 104 about financial instruments, credit risk and impairment. | The Add-In can support disclosure data, but full financial-statement disclosure preparation remains an entity responsibility. | ◐ Entity-led |
How to interpret this comparison
Supported: functionality is listed as available in the supplied product coverage assessment. The scope of a deployment still depends on its configuration and data.
Partial: classification decisions are entity-led, with supporting product modules.
Entity-led: the Add-In supports inputs and schedules, but the entity prepares and approves its statutory disclosures.
Important qualification: although the matrix marks time value of money, collateral treatment, model documentation and audit trail/reproducibility as "Supported," the accompanying descriptions call for clearer documentation or enhanced controls. A partner should confirm these features and outputs for the specific deployment. This is a product coverage mapping, not an audit opinion, regulatory endorsement or statement of universal compliance.
Source: "GRAP 104 Requirements vs Probmatrix Add-In Coverage" supplied by Probmatrix. Terminology and coverage statuses reproduced from the provided comparison.
Discuss the right GRAP 104 implementation approach
Implementation partners receive the Add-In, training, documentation and specialised backend support from Probmatrix. Partners manage municipal delivery, training and first-line support.
Request a Partner Demo →