
7
How the matter was addressed in our audit
Our procedures, performed, where applicable, with the assistance from our own credit risk and
information technology (IT) audit specialists, included, among others:
We critically assessed the Company‘s loan impairment policies, methods and models, and the
processes related to estimating ECLs. As part of the procedure, we assessed the process of
determination of internal ratings of borrowers and identifying indicators of default and significant increase
in credit risk, and allocating of Loans, Commitements and Guarantees to Stages. We also inspected and
assessed the development and validation documentation for internal rating and ECL models, including
the Company’s retrospective testing of major model inputs.
We tested the design, implementation and operating effectiveness of selected IT-based and manual
controls over the disbursement of loans and the receipt of borrowers’ repayments and their matching to
scheduled loan instalments. We also tested design and implementation of selected controls over the
ECL measurement.
We assessed whether the definition of default and staging criteria were applied consistently and in line
with the requirements of the financial reporting standards.
For a sample of exposures, we critically assessed, by reference to the underlying loan files and inquires
of loan officers and credit risk personnel, the existence of any triggers for classification to Stage 2 or
Stage 3.
For a sample of Stage 1 secured exposures, we challenged the realizable value of collateral, by
reference to the underlying collateral agreements (for non-cash collateral) or evidence supporting
balances of cash serving as collateral. For a sample of Stage 1 unsecured exposures, we challenged
the EAD parameter, the expected loss ratio and upscale factor assigned to these exposures, also
considering the FLI, which we independently evaluated.
For impairment allowances calculated individually (Stage 2 and Stage 3), for a risk-based sample of
loans, we challenged the Company’s cash flow projections and key assumptions used therein, by
reference to the respective loan files and inquiries of the Company’s credit risk personnel. We also
evaluated the collateral values by reference to underlying terms of collateral agreements or evidence
supporting balances of cash collateral.
We examined whether the Company’s loan impairment and credit risk-related disclosures in the financial
statements appropriately address the relevant quantitative and qualitative information required by the
applicable financial reporting framework.
Other Information
In accordance with Section 2(b) of the Act on Auditors, other information is defined as information
included in the annual financial report (“the annual report”) other than the financial statements and our
auditor’s report. The statutory body is responsible for the other information.
Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information. In connection with our audit
of the financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing so, consider
whether the other information is materially inconsistent with the financial statements or our knowledge
obtained in the audit, or otherwise appears to be materially misstated. In addition, we assess whether the
other information has been prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations, in particular, whether the other information complies with laws and regulations in terms of
formal requirements and the procedure for preparing the other information in the context of materiality,
i.e. whether any non-compliance with those requirements could influence judgments made on the basis
of the other information.
Based on the procedures performed, to the extent we are able to assess it, we report that:
the other information describing matters that are also presented in the financial statements is, in all
material respects, consistent with the financial statements; and
the other information has been prepared in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
In addition, our responsibility is to report, based on the knowledge and understanding of the Company
obtained in the audit, on whether the other information contains any material misstatement. Based on the
procedures we have performed on the other information obtained, we have not identified any material
misstatement.
Responsibilities of the Statutory Body, Supervisory Board and Audit Committee for the Financial
Statements
The statutory body is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in
accordance with IFRS Accounting Standards as adopted by the European Union, and for such internal
control as the statutory body determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements
that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
In preparing the financial statements, the statutory body is responsible for assessing the Company’s
ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and
using the going concern basis of accounting unless the statutory body either intends to liquidate the
Company or to cease operations, or has no realistic alternative but to do so.
The Supervisory Board is responsible for overseeing the Company’s financial reporting process. The
Audit Committee is responsible for monitoring the Company’s financial reporting process.
Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole
are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that
includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an
audit conducted in accordance with the above regulations will always detect a material misstatement
when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or
in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken
on the basis of these financial statements.
As part of an audit in accordance with the above regulations, we exercise professional judgment and
maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. We also:
Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to
fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and obtain audit
evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. The risk of not
detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as
fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of
internal control.
Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures
that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of the Company’s internal control.
Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting
estimates and related disclosures made by the statutory body.
Conclude on the appropriateness of the statutory body’s use of the going concern basis of
accounting and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty exists related
to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the Company’s ability to continue as a
going concern. If we conclude that a material uncertainty exists, we are required to draw attention in
our auditor’s report to the related disclosures in the financial statements or, if such disclosures are
inadequate, to modify our opinion. Our conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to
the date of our auditor’s report. However, future events or conditions may cause the Company to