Singularity Future Technology Ltd. New Standards Disclosure
(r) Recent Accounting Pronouncements
The Company considers the applicability and impact of all ASUs. Management periodically reviews new accounting standards that are issued.
In November 2024, the FASB issued ASU 2024-03, Expense Disaggregation Disclosures (Subtopic 220-40): Disaggregation of Income Statement Expenses, which requires that public business entities disclose additional information about specific expense categories in the notes to financial statements at interim and annual reporting periods. This ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2026, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2027. This ASU may be applied either on a prospective or retrospective basis. We are currently evaluating the impact of this standard on our disclosures.
In November 2024, the FASB issued ASU 2024-04, Debt – Debt with Conversion and Other Options (Subtopic 470-20): Induced Conversions of Convertible Debt Instruments, which clarifies the requirements for determining whether certain settlements of convertible debt instruments should be accounted for as an induced conversion. This ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2025 and interim reporting periods within those annual reporting periods, with early adoption permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact of this standard on our disclosures.
In January 2025, the FASB issued ASU 2025-01, Income Statement – Reporting Comprehensive Income – Expense Disaggregation Disclosures (Subtopic 220-40),which clarifies that all public business entities are required to adopt the guidance in annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2026, and interim periods within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2027. Early adoption of Update 2024-03 is permitted.
In May 2025, the FASB issued ASU 2025-03, Business Combinations (Topic 805) and Consolidation (Topic 810), Determining the Accounting Acquirer in the Acquisition of a Variable Interest Entity, which revised current guidance for determining the accounting acquirer for a transaction effected primarily by exchanging equity interests in which the legal acquiree is a VIE that meets the definition of a business. The amendments require that an entity consider the same factors that are currently required for determining which entity is the accounting acquirer in other acquisition transactions. The amendments in this Update require an entity involved in an acquisition transaction effected primarily by exchanging equity interests when the legal acquiree is a VIE that meets the definition of a business to consider the factors in paragraphs 805-10-55-12 through 55-15 to determine which entity is the accounting acquirer. The amendments in this Update are effective for all entities for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2026, and interim reporting periods within those annual reporting periods. The amendments in this Update require that an entity apply the new guidance prospectively to any acquisition transaction that occurs after the initial application date. Early adoption is permitted as of the beginning of an interim or annual reporting period.
In May 2025, the FASB issued ASU 2025-04, Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718) and Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), Clarifications to Share-Based Consideration Payable to a Customer, which revised the Master Glossary definition of the term performance condition for share-based consideration payable to a customer. The revised definition incorporates conditions (such as vesting conditions) that are based on the volume or monetary amount of a customer’s purchases (or potential purchases) of goods or services from the grantor (including over a specified period of time). The revised definition also incorporates performance targets based on purchases made by other parties that purchase the grantor’s goods or services from the grantor’s customers. The revised definition of the term performance condition cannot be applied by analogy to awards granted to employees and nonemployees in exchange for goods or services to be used or consumed in the grantor’s own operations. Although it is expected that entities will conclude that fewer awards contain service conditions, for those that are determined to have service conditions, the amendments in this Update eliminate the policy election permitting a grantor to account for forfeitures as they occur. Therefore, when measuring share-based consideration payable to a customer that has a service condition, the grantor is required to estimate the number of forfeitures expected to occur. Separate policy elections for forfeitures remain available for share-based payment awards with service conditions granted to employees and nonemployees in exchange for goods or services to be used or consumed in the grantor’s own operations. The amendments in this Update clarify that share-based consideration encompasses the same instruments as share-based payment arrangements, but the grantee does not need to be a supplier of goods or services to the grantor. Finally, the amendments in this Update clarify that a grantor should not apply the guidance in Topic 606 on constraining estimates of variable consideration to share-based consideration payable to a customer. Therefore, a grantor is required to assess the probability that an award will vest using only the guidance in Topic 718. Collectively, these changes improve the decision usefulness of a grantor’s financial statements, improve the operability of the guidance, and reduce diversity in practice for accounting for share-based consideration payable to a customer. Under the amendments in this Update, revenue recognition will no longer be delayed when an entity grants awards that are not expected to vest. This is expected to result in estimates of the transaction price that better reflect the amount of consideration to which an entity expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring promised goods or services to a customer and, therefore, more decision-useful financial reporting.
The amendments in this Update are effective for all entities for annual reporting periods (including interim reporting periods within annual reporting periods) beginning after December 15, 2026. Early adoption is permitted for all entities. The amendments in this Update permit a grantor to apply the new guidance on either a modified retrospective or a retrospective basis. When applying the amendments in this Update on a modified retrospective basis, a grantor should recognize a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings (or other appropriate components of 4 equity or net assets in the statement of financial position) as of the beginning of the period of adoption and should not recast any financial statement information before the period of adoption. A grantor should apply the amendments as of the date of initial application to all share-based consideration payable to a customer. When applying the amendments in this Update on a retrospective basis, a grantor should recast comparative periods and recognize a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings (or other appropriate components of equity or net assets in the statement of financial position) as of the beginning of the earliest period presented. Additionally, an entity that elects to apply the guidance retrospectively should use the actual outcome, if known, of a performance condition or service condition as of the beginning of the annual reporting period of adoption for all prior-period estimates. If actual outcomes are unknown as of the beginning of the annual reporting period of adoption, an entity should use its estimate of the probability of achieving a service condition or performance condition as of the beginning of the annual reporting period of adoption for all prior-period estimates.
In July 2025, the FASB issued ASU 2025-05, “Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses for Accounts Receivable and Contract Assets (ASU 2025-05)”, simplifies credit loss calculations by introducing a practical expedient (available to all entities) that allows entities to assume current conditions won’t change over an asset’s life, removing the need for complex macroeconomic forecasts. Additionally, a new accounting policy election (for non-public business entities) allows these entities to consider post-balance sheet collection activity to estimate expected credit losses. ASU 2025-05 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2025. Early adoptions is permitted. The Company’s management does not believe the adoption of ASU 2025-05 will have a material impact on its financial statements and disclosures.
The Company does not believe other recently issued but not yet effective accounting standards, if currently adopted, would have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, statements of operations, cash flows, and disclosures.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Oct 14, 2025 | Showing above |
| 2023 | Sep 29, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Sep 29, 2021 | |
| 2018 | Sep 28, 2018 | |
About New Standards Disclosures
New accounting standards disclosures describe recently adopted pronouncements and those not yet effective, along with management's assessment of their expected impact. This section provides an early warning system for upcoming changes to how a company reports its financial results, often years before the new rules take effect.
Key signals: when management describes a not-yet-adopted standard's impact as "material" or "still being evaluated," it signals potential significant changes to reported metrics upon adoption. Watch for standards that affect a company's core operations — for example, revenue recognition changes for software companies or lease accounting changes for retailers with large store footprints. The transition method chosen (full retrospective versus modified retrospective) affects comparability with prior periods. Companies that delay adoption to the latest permitted date may be struggling with implementation complexity. Compare the disclosed impact assessments against peers in the same industry to gauge whether management's expectations are reasonable.