I am auditing files for compliance with Reg C - HMDA. If, when I am reviewing these files, I see other things wrong - like no flood determination, for example, do I cite that or correct it or hope I pick it up when I do the flood audit?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

I usually make a mental or written note to myself to come back and do an audit on the unearthed violation(s). Otherwise I send up spending too much time nitpicking thorugh a file. Staying focused on the topic at hand is the only way to get through audits in a reasonable time frame. Of course if the items unearthed are of a serious nature I also inform managmeent right away that procedures need to be visited and that I will be coming around in a few weeks, months, etc to review and hopefully issues will be corrected by then.

Thanks! That is an excellent suggestion!

This may or may not work, depending on how closely the reg that is being audited vs. the reg violation noted, but if they are closely related, I go ahead and make a reference in the audit report for the designated reg if I know that next area is not set to be audited until later in the year. That way if the examiners get there before I get that next audit done, I can prove we were aware of the issue and had it documented. Of course that issue should be corrected by then and the theory is that when you get to that 2nd audit, it should be cleaner if you had corrected a system error. Killing 2 birds with one stone is worth a try. I agree that it is difficult to stay focused on doing one audit and then being distracted by multiple errors on another area. If the issues are that bad and you have some flexibility in setting your audit schedule, you might even want to go ahead and do that second audit while you still have those files checked out or can recycle the workpapers from the first audit as a starting point on the 2nd one. Just my thoughts.