Analysis of the Reasons for the Continuous Increase in Accounts Receivable Turnover Days and Bad Debt Risk Assessment of Meya Technology

Based on in-depth data analysis, the following is a comprehensive research report on the accounts receivable issues of Meya Technology.

---

Based on financial data analysis, the accounts receivable turnover efficiency of Meya Technology shows a significant deterioration trend [1][2]:

Indicator	2022	2023	2024	2025H1
Book Value of Accounts Receivable (CNY 100 million)	2.95	5.45	6.63	8.06
Accounts Receivable Turnover Rate (times/year)	1.63	0.83	0.65	0.24
Turnover Days (days)	224	440	562	1,521
Bad Debt Provisions (CNY 10,000)	442.54	792.49	1,335.26	1,521.41

: The accounts receivable turnover days have surged sharply from 224 days in 2022 to approximately 1,521 days in H1 2025 (annualized), meaning the average collection period exceeds 4 years. This turnover efficiency is extremely rare among A-share listed companies [1].

---

Meya Technology has accelerated its transformation to business travel management services since 2020, which mainly targets large and medium-sized enterprise and institutional customers [1][2]:

• Proportion of Business Travel Management Revenue
  : Increased from 26.94% in 2022 to 43.78% in 2024, becoming the company’s largest business segment
• Main Customer Types
  : Large central state-owned enterprises (SOEs) such as Sinopec, PowerChina, China Southern Power Grid, and CRRC
• Business Model Characteristics
  : Enterprise and institutional customers have complex procurement processes, multiple approval links, and long settlement cycles

This is the

leading to accounts receivable backlog [1][2]:

Link	Credit Period	Remarks
Sales End (Accounts Receivable)	31 days after T+1	Approximately 31-day credit period, actual collection far exceeds this period
Procurement End (Accounts Payable)	Twice a week settlement	IATA-granted credit period is approximately 7 days
Direct Procurement from Airlines	Prepayment Required	Prepayment is required for some businesses

: The average collection period on the sales end is much longer than the payment period on the procurement end, forcing the company to continuously advance funds for operations.

• Proportion of Accounts Receivable from Top 5 Customers
  : As high as 36.53%
• Largest Single Customer (Sinopec Group)
  : Accounts receivable of approximately CNY 83.23 million, accounting for 12.31%
• Bargaining Power
  : As a service provider, Meya Technology is in a relatively weak position when facing large central SOE customers, making it difficult to demand shorter credit periods [1]

The prospectus discloses that the company’s cashier, Ke, embezzled approximately CNY 19 million of corporate funds over a ten-year period, which was only discovered during IPO review [1][2]. This incident reflects:

• Management loopholes exist in accounts receivable accounting and tracking
• Aging analysis and collection mechanisms are imperfect
• The effectiveness of financial internal controls is questionable

---

Period	Bad Debt Provisions (CNY 10,000)	YoY Growth Rate	Proportion of Net Profit
2022	442.54	—	—
2023	792.49	+79.1%	—
2024	1,335.26	+68.5%	—
2025H1	1,521.41	—	41.9%

In H1 2025, the amount of bad debt impairment provisions already accounted for

of the current net profit attributable to parent company shareholders, severely eroding the company’s profitability [1][2].

According to the annual report disclosure, the company has made 100% bad debt provisions for the following customers [2]:

Customer Name	Provision Amount (CNY 10,000)	Reason for Provision
Human Horizons Holdings (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.	412.73	Expected to be uncollectible
GuiNiu Liquor Co., Ltd.	70.75	Expected to be uncollectible
Shanghai Guijiu Co., Ltd.	0.49	Expected to be uncollectible
Unrecovered Amount Embezzled by Cashier	820.00	Fully provided for and written off

Based on 2024 annual report data [2]:

Aging	Amount of Accounts Receivable (CNY 10,000)	Proportion	Bad Debt Provision Ratio
Within 1 Year	61,459.65	99.95%	1.00%
1-2 Years	30.40	0.05%	19.11%
3-4 Years	14.72	0.02%	96.44%
Over 5 Years	4.09	0.01%	100.00%

: Although , considering that the actual collection period far exceeds the agreed credit period (31 days), the aging distribution does not fully reflect the real bad debt risk.

Risk Dimension	Risk Score	Risk Level
Deterioration Speed of Turnover Efficiency	High	🔴 Severe
Growth Rate of Bad Debt Provisions	High	🔴 Severe
Customer Concentration	Medium-High	🟠 Warning
Credit Endorsement from Central SOE Customers	Medium	🟡 Relatively Controllable
Internal Control Deficiencies	High	🔴 Severe
Comprehensive Risk Level	—	🔴 High Risk

---

Period	Operating Cash Flow (CNY 10,000)	Status
2022	6,622.98	Normal
2023	-10,900	Deteriorated
2024	1,578.99	Recovered
2025H1	-4,406.86	Deteriorated Again

Operating cash flow turned negative in 2023 and H1 2025, mainly due to the following reasons [1][2]:

• The growth rate of accounts receivable continues to outpace revenue growth
• Capital occupation caused by credit period mismatch between sales and procurement
• Increased demand for advance funds due to business scale expansion

Indicator	2022	2023	2024	2025H1	Industry Average
Asset-Liability Ratio	37.95%	45.48%	44.01%	46.65%	55.74%
Current Ratio	2.66	2.19	2.25	2.13	1.38
Quick Ratio	2.42	2.05	2.14	2.03	1.13

: The current ratio and quick ratio are significantly higher than the industry average, but it should be noted that this is a “paper” solvency supported by [2].

---

:

• Business structure transformed from B2B ticket distribution to business travel management, with customers mainly being large central SOEs
• There is a
  capital mismatch gap of approximately 24 days
  between the credit periods of the sales and procurement ends
• Facing strong customers, the company has weak bargaining power and cannot shorten credit periods easily
• Internal control deficiencies exacerbate accounts receivable management chaos

:

• Short-Term Risk is Controllable
  : Main customers are central SOEs, with low probability of credit default
• Medium-Term Risk is Rising
  : The compound annual growth rate of bad debt provisions is 86%, continuously eroding profits
• Long-Term Risk Warning
  : If the business model is not optimized, accounts receivable may evolve into substantial losses

:

• Assuming collective default by the top 5 customers (accounting for 36.53%)
• Potential bad debt loss is approximately: CNY 806 million × 36.53% ≈
  CNY 294 million
• Equivalent to
  24.9% of the company’s total assets
  , which will cause significant losses

Recommendation Direction	Specific Measures
Optimize Customer Structure	Increase the proportion of small and medium-sized customers, reduce dependence on central SOEs
Strengthen Credit Period Management	Negotiate with large customers to shorten credit periods, or offer early payment discounts
Strengthen Internal Controls	Improve accounts receivable collection mechanisms, enhance aging warning management
Cash Flow Management	Accelerate accounts receivable turnover through factoring and other methods
Business Model Transformation	Explore business models with prepayment or shortened settlement cycles

• Meya Technology is currently in the stage of having passed the Beijing Stock Exchange (BSE) IPO review and has not been officially listed yet
• High accounts receivable have had a substantial impact on the company’s profitability and cash flow
• Internal control deficiencies (the case of the cashier embezzling funds for ten years without being detected) reflect hidden dangers in corporate governance
• It is recommended to focus on the accounts receivable management improvement measures after the IPO before making investment or cooperation decisions

---

[1] Sina Finance - “Meya Technology’s Accounts Receivable Surges: A Cashier Embezzled Nearly CNY 20 Million in 10 Years, Internal Controls Are Worrisome” (https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/stockzmt/2025-12-12/doc-inhanyzt5359820.shtml)

[2] Meya Technology 2024 Annual Report - Eastmoney (https://xinsanban.eastmoney.com/Article/NoticeContent?id=AN202504111654763092_1)

[3] CNFOl - “Meya Technology’s IPO Was Suspended Three Times, Cashier Embezzled CNY 19 Million in 10 Years Without Being Detected” (http://mp.cnfol.com/57997/article/1768043791-142207363.html)