Revenue disaggregation disclosure across fee types

Fintechs typically earn revenue from several economically different sources (processing/MDR fees, interchange, subscription tools, financing income on BNPL) that must be disaggregated so users can understand how revenue is affected by economic factors specific to each stream, rather than presented as a single blended revenue line; a single 'platform revenue' figure hides which streams are growing, which are margin-accretive, and which carry credit risk.

Do the different revenue streams (transaction fees, subscription/SaaS fees, financing income) have meaningfully different risk, timing, and margin profiles that warrant separate disclosure? Is BNPL financing income kept separately identifiable from IFRS 15 fee revenue, given it typically falls under IFRS 9 rather than IFRS 15? Can a reader reconcile the disaggregated categories both to total revenue and to segment disclosures, if applicable?

1) Inventory every distinct revenue stream and identify the standard governing each (IFRS 15 for fee-based revenue; IFRS 9 effective interest income for BNPL financing). 2) Select disaggregation categories that are meaningful to the business, by product line, by timing of transfer (point in time versus over time), or by geography, matching how the CODM actually assesses performance. 3) Ensure IFRS 9 financing income is identified and presented separately from IFRS 15 fee revenue, even within a single blended customer invoice. 4) Reconcile the disaggregated categories to the single total revenue line in the primary statements. 5) Cross-check consistency with segment disclosures (IFRS 8) if applicable, so the two notes tell a coherent story. 6) Revisit the disaggregation categories periodically as the product mix evolves (e.g., a new value-added service line reaching materiality).

Categorize disaggregation using dimensions meaningful to the business (e.g., by product line, by timing of transfer, by geography) rather than a generic split that does not reflect how management actually views performance; measure each disaggregated category using the recognition basis applicable to it (transaction price allocation for IFRS 15 streams, effective interest method for IFRS 9 financing income) rather than an arbitrary allocation.

Present a disaggregation of revenue into categories that depict how the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue are affected by economic factors, reconciled to the total revenue line and, where applicable, to segment revenue; disclose separately the portion of total revenue-like income that is IFRS 9 financing income (technically not IFRS 15 revenue) to avoid conflating the two.

• Presenting a single blended '
• platform revenue'
• line without disaggregation
• disaggregating on a basis that does not align with how the CODM or investors actually assess the business
• combining IFRS 9 financing income with IFRS 15 fee revenue without separate identification
• choosing disaggregation categories that are technically compliant but uninformative (e.g., splitting by legal entity rather than by economic driver)
• failing to update disaggregation categories as new product lines (e.g., embedded finance) become material.