Need your input-did a flood audit last year (examiners are here now), noticed that one loan was underinsured prior to refinancing but the loan had flood insurance adequately increased as part of the refi process. Did NOT note this as an exception because it had been corrected by the time I got to the audit and discussed with the loan officer we were all on the same page (on that loan at least!). I normally reference loans that have exceptions cleared DURING the audit as "corrected during the audit" but didn't on this one because I felt it was a moot point to address something that was corrected before I got there. I think now (after discussion with examiner) that any exception I observe, corrected before,during,after the audit or not, will be noted in the audit report. I have been acused (as all of us auditors/COs have been) of being nitpicky as it is, but now it appears that I do not nit or pick enough if I need to be including in final reports items like these. I know flood is kind of like spilled milk and all you can do is clean up the mess as best as you can, but I guess I was thinking that if it was fixed by the time I got there, what was the point in beating the officer up even more, but lo and behold maybe I should have a new attitude-document everything in the report, not just your workpapers, so that your audit committee's eyes can glaze over even more than they usually do! Here is another kicker-on a loan that was renewed and due to a conversion glitch discovered after conversion to a new system, it was determined that the flood disclosure did not generate at renewal. This WAS noted in the workpapers and in the final report. THIS exception is being included in the significant violations page. What is the point of performing audits, monitoring, training, and educating yourself (and everyone around you) and believing the premise that "if I find it first, they can't get me for it"? I truly believed that if I found an exception/violation and corrected it (okay, so you can't technically completely cure a flood defect, we covered that one already)and then the examiners came by that if I found it first, they coulnd't cite a violation I had already noted and addresses/trained/etc. Am I losing my mind, or is the rest of the compliance community under this same misnomer? Okay, I feel better-just needed to rant a little. Thanks for hearing me out!

If it makes you feel any better, the examiners came in and used internal audit results for some of their report findings during a past audit and it did not go over well with the rest of the bank because they were getting hit twice on the same exact problem.

If something is fixed prior to the finding by audit, I make note in the workpapers and do not include it in the final audit report. What is the point if it is corrected, I may increase my sample to make sure there aren't any more that are similar that have not been fixed.

Can you discuss this with the examiners? Maybe if you talked with them they would see that you noted it in your workpapers and explain why it wasn't discussed in the final report. I know I have had to show past IT examiners where in my reports information was documented so that we wouldn't get hit with a finding because it wasn't in a spot where they thought it should be. Good luck to you!

Good point-I am going through my workpapers to see if there is something they missed that pointed this out or if something is in my file that was left unclipped to the workpapers. Thanks for the input and thanks for the good wishes.

Original Anon here, they knocked off the violation that I noted in the audit report from their report (yea!) and have softened the report a bit-guilty conscience prevailed or field supervisor hinted that the EIC was kind of tuff, who knows? Who cares? Thanks!

Feel better now? I enjoyed reading your stream of consciousness because so often we only have ourselves to talk to. Sometimes these boards are substitutes for expensive therapy.