Note: This article provides a focused explanation and extended discussion on a specific standard. If you’d like to see the full list of articles and short summaries for this standard, please visit the “Series Overview” page.
Since 2025, most standard‑related articles on this site have been available in both Chinese and English versions. If you’d like to read the Chinese explanation, please visit the 「系列總覽」 page and look for the corresponding article.
Plain‑English explainer of HKAS 26 / IAS 26 for students, junior accountants and non‑specialists who find official standards too dense to read.
This article is based on Hong Kong Accounting Standards (HKAS / HKFRS), which are fully aligned with IAS / IFRS except for minor local tweaks, so the same principles generally apply under IAS / IFRS unless noted otherwise. The goal is to unpack HKAS 26 Accounting and Reporting by Retirement Benefit Plans (equivalent to IAS 26) using plain English and practical, real‑life examples instead of technical jargon. It is written for students, junior accountants, audit juniors and finance professionals who want to understand not just “what the standard says” but how to actually read and prepare financial statements in line with it.
When you see “the company” or “the entity” below, you can think of any entity that prepares general purpose financial statements under HKFRS / IFRS.
You usually see “account balance”, not the plan’s full financial statements
If you work in accounting or audit in Hong Kong, when someone mentions retirement arrangements, you probably think of MPF first: monthly contributions into an account, an annual statement showing your balance, and digging out contribution records at tax time. What you do not often see is the full set of financial statements at the plan level – the investment portfolio, fees and charges, transfers between funds and the overall net assets of the scheme.
Day‑to‑day, most accountants and auditors focus on the employer’s financial statements, applying HKAS 19 Employee Benefits (equivalent to IAS 19) to deal with the employer’s retirement benefit expense and liability. It is easy to overlook the audited financial statements that MPF and ORSO schemes must submit to the MPFA each year, and how those statements are linked to HKAS 26. In fact, HKAS 26 provides the accounting and disclosure framework for these plan‑level financial statements, and Appendix A of HKAS 26 is a dedicated local guidance section for MPF and ORSO schemes.
What You Should Be Able To Do After Reading?
By the end, you should be able to:
- Clearly explain that MPF schemes are always defined contribution plans, while ORSO schemes may be either defined contribution or defined benefit, and understand how HKAS 26 Appendix A connects to local legal reporting requirements.
- Sketch the main structure of MPF / ORSO scheme financial statements (for example, statement of assets and liabilities, statements of movements in capital or member equity, investment reports) and recall the six‑month regulatory filing deadline.
- Distinguish between directly invested plans, insured plans and fully insured plans, and understand why, in a fully insured scenario with no further plan obligation, insurance policies can effectively “disappear” from the plan’s statement of assets and liabilities.
- Grasp the basic accounting logic for additional voluntary contributions (AVCs) and forfeited benefits, and why they often need separate disclosure.
- Understand the role of actuarial reports, contribution rates and funding adequacy disclosures in the MPF / ORSO regulatory framework, and recognise that HKAS 26 and IAS 26 share the same core text, with Appendix A adding a Hong Kong‑specific layer that is highly relevant for exams and practice.
1. Three layers to keep separate: law, regulator and HKAS 26
To understand how HKAS 26 works in Hong Kong, it helps to separate three layers in your mind:
- Legal layer:
- The Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance (MPFSO) sets out the MPF system’s operational and disclosure framework.
- The Occupational Retirement Schemes Ordinance (ORSO) provides the registration and regulatory framework for occupational retirement schemes.
- Regulatory layer:
- The MPFA (Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority) requires MPF and ORSO schemes to submit audited financial statements, annual reports and other documents each year, with detailed contents prescribed by law and related guidelines.
- Accounting standards layer:
- HKAS 26, together with Appendix A, provides the accounting and disclosure framework to make sure these financial statements are measured and presented in a way that is consistent with international standards.
Right at the start, Appendix A to HKAS 26 clarifies that:
- It gives supplementary guidance for the financial statements of MPF and ORSO schemes.
- An MPF scheme must be a defined contribution scheme.
- An ORSO scheme can be either a defined contribution scheme or a defined benefit scheme, and some arrangements are treated as defined benefit schemes because of their features.
From a learning perspective, you can remember it this way:
HKAS 26 main text = general reporting framework for retirement benefit plans (globally). HKAS 26 Appendix A = Hong Kong‑specific chapter for MPF and ORSO.
In Hong Kong exam questions or real‑life files, what you usually meet is “HKAS 26 core principles + Appendix A localisation”.
2. MPF / ORSO scheme financial statements: main structure and timing
In practice, MPF and ORSO scheme financial statements are rarely mailed to members as a standalone booklet. More commonly, they appear as part of a broader annual report package that includes the investment manager’s report, the trustee’s report and various appendices.
Common reporting structure for MPF schemes
Appendix A explains that, for MPF schemes, you will usually see:
- At scheme level:
- A revenue statement.
- A statement of movements in capital account (or similar statement showing movements in net assets / capital at scheme level).
- For each constituent fund within the scheme:
- A revenue statement.
- A statement of assets and liabilities.
- A statement of movements in the capital account, sometimes combined with the revenue statement.
The idea is that members and regulators can see both the overall scheme picture and the performance and net assets of each constituent fund where members actually invest.
Common reporting structure for ORSO schemes
For ORSO schemes, formats vary depending on whether the scheme is defined contribution or defined benefit, but typical elements include:
- A statement of assets and liabilities (or a balance sheet), showing assets available for benefits and related liabilities.
- An income and expenditure statement, showing contributions, investment income, benefit payments and administrative expenses.
- A statement of changes in net assets or members’ benefits.
In both MPF and ORSO schemes, the notes commonly include:
- A description of the scheme’s nature, type and key terms.
- Accounting policies and valuation bases.
- Asset classifications and information on significant investments.
- For defined benefit schemes, actuarial present value information and disclosures about funding policy.
Filing deadlines and “busy season”
On timing, Appendix A and MPFA guidance align on a key requirement:
- Audited financial statements for both MPF and ORSO schemes must be submitted to the MPFA within six months after the financial year‑end.
- ORSO scheme administrators must maintain proper accounting records, have them audited by an independent auditor and submit the audited financial statements together with the employer’s contribution statement from the employer’s auditor.
In many audit firms, there is a mini “peak season” driven by this six‑month deadline, with multiple MPF and ORSO schemes rushing to complete their audits and filings before the cut‑off. Good timetable management and proactive communication with trustees and administrators are essential in this work.
3. Directly invested, insured and fully insured plans: what is really on the plan’s balance sheet?
One technically important but often overlooked area in HKAS 26 is how to deal with retirement schemes where an insurance company is the main vehicle holding assets. Appendix A carries this thinking into the MPF / ORSO environment and distinguishes three common types of arrangements:
- Directly invested plans: The scheme’s assets are primarily invested directly by the trustee in funds, shares, bonds and other investments; the insurance company is not the main asset‑holding platform.
- Insured plans: The scheme holds insurance policies as part of its assets, but the scheme itself still carries the obligation to provide benefits to members.
- Fully insured plans: The scheme effectively locks all benefit obligations into insurance policies, so that the insurer, not the scheme, bears the substantive risk and obligation to members.
Ordinary insured plans: the policy is an asset
If insurance policies are simply used as part of the scheme’s investment or funding strategy, and the scheme remains responsible for paying benefits to members, then:
- The scheme recognises the value of the policy (for example, surrender value or fair value) as an asset in its statement of assets and liabilities.
- The scheme still needs actuarial valuation and comparisons between net assets and the actuarial present value of promised benefits where it is a defined benefit scheme.
In economic terms, the insurer is acting as an investment vehicle, not as a substitute for the scheme’s responsibility to members.
Fully insured plans: the policy cost equals the cost of extinguishing obligations
By contrast, if a plan is fully insured, and:
- Under the scheme terms, the scheme has no further substantive obligation to members – all risk is passed to the insurance company.
- The scheme’s role is essentially to pay premiums to the insurer, and members’ benefits are paid directly by the insurer.
Then HKAS 26 allows the cost of purchasing the policy to be treated as the cost of settling the retirement obligation, and the policy itself need not appear as an asset of the scheme. In this scenario, the scheme’s financial statements may only show simple cash flows and minimal balances, rather than a large investment portfolio.
In practice, this means the centre of gravity shifts from “big pool of plan assets” to the terms of the insurance contract. Understanding this helps you answer a key question when you read exam scenarios or real documents:
“Does this policy represent a plan asset, or does it represent that the plan has transferred all its obligations to the insurer?”
4. Additional voluntary contributions (AVCs) and forfeited benefits: why the separation matters
In MPF and ORSO practice, additional voluntary contributions (AVCs) and forfeited benefits are common exam and work topics. Appendix A provides specific guidance on how these items should be handled in scheme financial statements.
AVCs: are they inside the main plan or truly separate?
The accounting for AVCs depends on whether they are used to buy extra benefits under the main plan or are essentially separate investment accounts.
- Scenario 1 – AVCs used to buy extra benefits under main plan terms For example, members use AVCs to buy extra years of service credit or to top up their retirement annuity under the same plan rules.
- These AVCs are treated as part of member contributions, often shown as a separate line such as “additional member contributions” in the statement of movements in capital or members’ benefits.
- The related investments are included in the plan’s statement of assets and liabilities with other plan assets.
- Scenario 2 – AVCs structured as separate investment accounts In some schemes, AVCs are legally and operationally separate – benefits depend solely on the performance of specific funds, similar to an independent investment account.
- HKAS 26 suggests that such AVCs should be disclosed separately from the main plan, and sometimes treated as a separate section, to avoid giving the impression that these assets are available to support other members’ benefits.
In practice, if you see terms like “AVC sub‑fund” or clearly segregated AVC arrangements in plan documents, you should consider whether separate column or note disclosure is needed in the financial statements.
Forfeited benefits: unspecified use equals a plan liability
Appendix A also addresses the treatment of forfeited employer contributions – for example, when a member leaves before vesting and employer contributions allocated to them are forfeited.
- If the forfeited amounts have a specified use under the scheme rules by the year‑end (for instance, to reduce future employer contributions or to be allocated to remaining members), they are dealt with according to that use in the statement of changes in members’ benefits.
- However, forfeited amounts and related investment earnings that, by year‑end, do not yet have a specified use and have not been returned to the employer should be treated as a liability of the plan.
The logic is straightforward:
As long as the money is still inside the plan and has not legitimately “left the building” (by being returned to the employer or allocated to members), it should not just be treated as surplus; it represents an obligation of the plan whose eventual use is not yet determined.
For exams and work, this is a classic point: unspecified forfeited balances are not free “profit”; they are still part of the plan’s resources with an associated obligation.
5. Funding adequacy, actuarial reports and regulatory focus
Earlier articles on HKAS 26 covered the relationship between the actuarial present value of promised benefits and net assets in defined benefit plans. In the Hong Kong MPF / ORSO framework, these actuarial numbers are tightly linked to regulatory requirements.
ORSO defined benefit schemes: actuarial review and reporting
For ORSO defined benefit schemes, MPFA guidance requires:
- Regular actuarial reviews of the funding position, typically at least once every three years.
- More frequent (often annual) actuarial reviews if the actuary finds the scheme underfunded.
- Actuarial certificates to be submitted to the MPFA within six months of the year‑end, together with the financial statements, forming part of the regulatory evidence.
HKAS 26 and Appendix A require that if assets are not sufficient to cover the defined obligations, the financial statements or notes should disclose:
- The actuary’s recommended contribution rates and periods (for example, the number of years over which deficits are expected to be eliminated).
- Any actions taken or planned, such as increasing contributions, reducing benefits or changing investment strategy.
For members and regulators, a single “funding shortfall” number is not enough; they care about:
“How was this shortfall measured? What is the plan to close the gap, and does that plan seem realistic?”
MPF schemes: reducing actuarial pressure through system design
By contrast, MPF schemes are, by design, defined contribution arrangements.
- The scheme itself does not carry a defined benefit obligation at plan level, so there is no “scheme‑wide underfunding” in the same way ORSO defined benefit schemes face.
- Regulatory focus is on whether investment restrictions are met, risk is properly diversified, fees and performance are transparently disclosed and reports are submitted on time.
For your own understanding, this difference is crucial:
- If the scenario involves funding adequacy, actuarial reports and funding shortfall disclosures, you are almost certainly dealing with an ORSO defined benefit context.
- MPF schemes mainly apply HKAS 26’s general net asset and investment disclosure requirements, without the “actuarial present value vs assets” line.
6. HKAS 26 vs IAS 26: same core, Hong Kong‑specific appendix
From an international perspective, HKAS 26 and IAS 26 share essentially the same main text:
- Both set out how retirement benefit plan financial statements should be structured.
- Both require defined benefit plans to disclose the actuarial present value of promised retirement benefits and key assumptions.
- Both emphasise fair value measurement of plan assets and transparent disclosure of major investments and investments in the sponsoring employer.
The unique Hong Kong flavour comes from Appendix A:
- It translates the general principles into the concrete frameworks of MPF and ORSO.
- It adds MPFA‑driven requirements around timing, document packages and extra disclosures (for example, specific treatment of AVCs and forfeited contributions).
- It gives HKAS 26 a very clear “home base” in Hong Kong exams and practice, rather than being a purely theoretical standard.
Common exam and training questions include:
- Classifying an MPF or ORSO scheme as defined contribution or defined benefit, and explaining which HKAS 26 reporting requirements apply.
- Explaining how to treat insurance arrangements: is the policy a plan asset (insured plan) or does it represent a fully insured arrangement where the plan has effectively settled its obligations?
- Describing how AVCs and forfeited contributions should be presented and whether separate disclosure is needed.
- Outlining the main contents of MPF scheme financial statements and the deadline for submitting them to the MPFA.
If you are preparing for exams or internal training, you can map those question types back to each section of this article and use that as a compact checklist.
Key takeaways for students and junior accountants
- Whenever you see MPF or ORSO annual financial statements, immediately connect them with HKAS 26 (plus Appendix A) – this is where the standard “lives” in Hong Kong practice.
- For ORSO defined benefit schemes, always think in terms of actuarial reports, funding recommendations and underfunding disclosures, and how these link to HKAS 26 requirements about actuarial present values and funding policies.
- When you encounter insurance arrangements, AVCs or forfeited contributions, ask: “Is this a plan asset, a member benefit or an obligation whose use is not yet decided?”, and reflect that answer clearly in the statement of assets and liabilities and in the notes.
- In working papers and explanations, add one or two context sentences, for example: “This is an ORSO defined benefit scheme with projected salary actuarial valuation and an X‑year funding plan to reduce the deficit.”
- Use Appendix A as your bridge between global HKAS 26 / IAS 26 principles and local MPF / ORSO practice, so that you are not just memorising the wording of the standard but actually applying it to Hong Kong’s retirement system.
If you’d like to ask me questions or chat about your learning, you can follow me on Threads / IG and send me a DM — I’ll reply as far as I can.
And if you feel these resources have helped you, you can also buy me a coffee to support me in writing more.
罔相心室: https://chinese.iamdelusionman.com/
Zero-to-Acct Substack: https://zerotoacct.substack.com/
Thread: https://www.threads.com/@yickki_mong
IG: https://www.instagram.com/yickki_mong/
