The Confirming Call
You are auditing a regional credit union's loan loss provisions. The CFO, under time pressure before a board meeting, tells you that a large borrower (representing 12% of the commercial loan portfolio) has 'verbally confirmed' they will cure a delinquency within 30 days. The CFO says this cures the loan for provisioning purposes and asks you to reflect it as current. There is no written confirmation, no payment plan, and the borrower has missed two prior verbal commitments in the last six months. The loan file shows the borrower's operating cash flow has declined 40% year-over-year. Your sample testing otherwise supports the CFO's provisioning methodology. You have a draft management letter due in three days.
1. Evaluate the reliability of the CFO's assertion as audit evidence and determine what additional evidence you need.
Read the worked answer
The assertion is low-reliability evidence on multiple counts:
- Source and form: a verbal statement relayed second-hand by an interested party (management, who has an incentive to minimize provisions). Audit evidence is more reliable when it is written, originates from an independent source, and is obtained directly by the auditor.
- Track record: two prior verbal commitments were missed. This is direct evidence that the borrower's verbal assurances have predictive value near zero.
- Corroboration absent: no payment plan, no written confirmation, no partial payment.
- Contradicting evidence: 40% YoY operating cash flow decline makes near-term cure economically implausible.
Additional evidence needed: (1) direct written confirmation from the borrower obtained by the auditor, not relayed through the CFO; (2) evidence of any partial payment or executed forbearance agreement; (3) updated financial statements or cash flow projections from the borrower; (4) review of the loan's contractual terms for cure provisions. Until then, treat the loan as delinquent for provisioning purposes.
2. The CFO pushes back, citing the board deadline. How do you respond, and what is the correct treatment in your draft?
Read the worked answer
The board deadline is a management-imposed time pressure, not an audit consideration. Time pressure never justifies accepting weaker evidence.
Response to the CFO: acknowledge the deadline, restate the evidence standard neutrally, and offer a path: 'If written confirmation or a partial payment arrives before the draft, I will reassess. Absent that, my draft will reflect the loan as delinquent.' Do not negotiate the standard; negotiate only the timing of evidence delivery.
Draft treatment: reflect the loan as delinquent. Document the disagreement, the evidence relied on, and the CFO's assertion in the working papers. If management insists on the current classification in the final financial statements, this becomes a disagreement with management that may need escalation to the audit committee or inclusion as a qualification/emphasis depending on materiality (12% of the commercial portfolio is likely material).
Key principle: the auditor's conclusion is driven by evidence, not by who is asking or how soon. A deadline changes the schedule, not the standard.
3. What should the management letter say about this item, and what follow-up is warranted?
Read the worked answer
The management letter should:
- State the fact pattern objectively: a 12%-of-portfolio commercial loan was proposed as current based on verbal assurance; no written confirmation or payment plan existed; the borrower has a history of missed commitments; operating cash flow declined 40%.
- Identify the control weakness: reliance on unverified management representations for provisioning decisions, and absence of a documented cure/forbearance process.
- Recommend a policy fix: require written confirmation or executed payment plan before a delinquent loan is reclassified, with defined evidence standards.
- Avoid attributing motive. Describe the condition, criteria, cause, and effect.
Follow-up: schedule a re-test at the next reporting cycle to confirm (a) the loan's actual status and (b) whether the recommended policy was adopted. Track it on the follow-up log with an owner and due date. If the loan deteriorates further, that validates the finding and should be noted in the follow-up review.