Independent auditor’s report
To the Shareholders of Lombard Bank Malta p.l.c.
Report on the audit of the financial statements
Our opinion
In our opinion:
· The Group financial statements and the Parent Company financial statements (the “financial statements”) of Lombard Bank Malta p.l.c. (“the Bank”) give a true and fair view of the Group and the Bank’s financial position as at 31 December 2022, and of their financial performance and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (‘IFRSs’) as adopted by the EU; and
· The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Maltese Banking Act (Cap. 371) and the Maltese Companies Act (Cap. 386).
Lombard Bank Malta p.l.c.’s financial statements comprise:
· the Consolidated and Parent Company statements of financial position as at 31 December 2022;
· the Consolidated and Parent Company income statements and statements of comprehensive income for the year then ended;
· the Consolidated and Parent Company statements of changes in equity for the year then ended;
· the Consolidated and Parent Company statements of cash flows for the year then ended; and
· the notes to the financial statements, which include significant accounting policies and other explanatory information.
Basis for opinion
We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISAs). Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion.
We are independent of the Group and the Bank in accordance with the International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including International Independence Standards) issued by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA Code) together with the ethical requirements of the Accountancy Profession (Code of Ethics for Warrant Holders) Directive issued in terms of the Accountancy Profession Act (Cap. 281) that are relevant to our audit of the financial statements in Malta. We have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these Codes.
To the best of our knowledge and belief, we declare that non-audit services that we have provided to the Bank and its subsidiaries are in accordance with the applicable law and regulations in Malta and that we have not provided non-audit services that are prohibited under Article 18A of the Accountancy Profession Act (Cap. 281).
The non-audit services that we have provided to the Bank and its subsidiaries, in the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022, are disclosed in note 33 to the financial statements.
Our audit approach
|
· Overall group materiality: €640,000, which represents approximately 5% of the past 3-years average consolidated profit before tax adjusted for non-recurring items. |
· The audit procedures carried out covered all the components within the Group namely Lombard Bank Malta p.l.c. (the Parent Company) and its subsidiaries Redbox Limited, Lombard Capital Asset Management Limited and Lombard Select SICAV p.l.c.. The Group also includes Maltapost p.l.c. which is a subsidiary of Redbox Limited (which is fully owned by Lombard Bank Malta p.l.c.) and Tanseana Limited, Ciantar Brothers Limited and PostaInsure Agency Limited, by virtue of Maltapost p.l.c.’s controlling shareholding in these three entities.
The Parent Company and its subsidiaries are based in Malta.
|
|
· Credit loss allowances in respect of loans and advances to customers of Lombard Bank Malta p.l.c.
|
As part of designing our audit, we determined materiality and assessed the risks of material misstatement in the consolidated financial statements. In particular, we considered where the directors made subjective judgements; for example, in respect of significant accounting estimates that involved making assumptions and considering future events that are inherently uncertain. As in all of our audits, we also addressed the risk of management override of internal controls, including among other matters consideration of whether there was evidence of bias that represented a risk of material misstatement due to fraud.
The scope of our audit was influenced by our application of materiality. An audit is designed to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. Misstatements may arise due to fraud or error. They are considered material if individually or in aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the consolidated financial statements.
Based on our professional judgement, we determined certain quantitative thresholds for materiality, including the overall group materiality for the consolidated financial statements as a whole as set out in the table below. These, together with qualitative considerations, helped us to determine the scope of our audit and the nature, timing and extent of our audit procedures and to evaluate the effect of misstatements, both individually and in aggregate on the financial statements as a whole.
Overall group materiality |
€640,000 |
How we determined it |
Approximately 5% of the last 3-years average consolidated profit before tax adjusted for non-recurring items
|
Rationale for the materiality benchmark applied |
We chose profit before tax as the benchmark because, in our view, it is the benchmark against which the performance of the Group is most commonly measured by users, and is a generally accepted benchmark. We chose an average of the past 3 years, adjusted for non-recurring items, as it was determined more appropriate in view of the fluctuations in results. We chose 5% which is within the range of quantitative materiality thresholds that we consider acceptable. |
We agreed with the Audit andRisk Committee that we would report to them misstatements identified during our audit above €64,000 as well as misstatements below that amount that, in our view, warranted reporting for qualitative reasons.
Key audit matters are those matters that, in our professional judgement, were of most significance in our audit of the financial statements of the current period. These matters were addressed in the context of our audit of the financial statements as a whole, and in forming our opinion thereon, and we do not provide a separate opinion on these matters.
Key audit matter |
How our audit addressed the Key audit matter |
Credit loss allowances in respect of loans and advances to customers of Lombard Bank Malta p.l.c. Credit loss allowances in respect of loans and advances to customers represent management’s best estimate of Expected Credit Losses (‘ECLs’) within the loan portfolios at the balance sheet date. The development of the models designed to estimate ECLs on loans measured at amortised cost in accordance with the requirements of IFRS 9 requires a considerable level of judgement since the determination of ECLs is subject to a high degree of estimation uncertainty. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by the ensuing global macro-economic uncertainties driven by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, have resulted in supply chain disruptions and significant inflationary pressures. These realities have exacerbated the level of uncertainty around the calculation of ECLs, giving rise to heightened subjectivity in the determination of model assumptions used to estimate key model risk parameters and hence necessitating a higher level of expert judgement. Credit loss allowances relating to all loans and advances in the Bank’s portfolios are determined at an instrument level. In general, the Bank calculates ECLs by multiplying three main components: probability of default (PD), loss given default (LGD) and exposure at default (EAD): i. Probability of default (“PD”): the likelihood of a borrower defaulting on its financial obligation either over the next 12 months or over the remaining lifetime of the obligation. ii. Loss given default (“LGD”): the expected losses taking into account, among other attributes, the mitigating effect of collateral value (if any) at the time it is expected to be realised and the time value of money. The LGD modelling methodology utilises historical experience, which might result in limitations in its reliability to appropriately estimate ECLs especially during periods characterised by unprecedented economic conditions such as those currently experienced as a result of the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing supply chain disruptions and global inflationary pressures. iii. Exposure at default (“EAD”): the expected exposure in the event of a default (including any expected drawdowns of committed facilities). When applicable, the Bank also applies overlays based on expert judgement where management’s view is that the calculated ECLs based on these key inputs do not fully capture the risks within the Bank’s loan portfolios. For non-defaulted (Stage 1 and 2) loans and a number of defaulted (Stage 3) loans which are not individually significant, the Bank uses internally developed statistical models. For non-defaulted (Stages 1 and 2) exposures, PDs are estimated using historical model development data based on the Bank’s own experience as available at the reporting date. For exposures secured by immovable properties, LGDs are driven by the adjusted loan-to-value ratio of the individual facilities and takes into account other assumptions, including market value haircut (which includes costs to sell), time to sell and the impact of discounting the collateral from the date of realisation back to the date of default. The maximum period considered when measuring ECLs is the maximum contractual period over which the Bank is exposed to credit risk. For individually significant defaulted (Stage 3) exposures, discounted cash flow models are utilised in order to estimate ECLs. Internal credit risk management practices are used to determine when a default has occurred, considering quantitative and qualitative factors where appropriate. Judgement is required to determine when a default has occurred and then to estimate the expected future cash flows related to the loan, which are dependent on parameters or assumptions such as the valuation of collateral (including forced sale discounts and assumed realisation period) or forecasted operating cash flows. The Bank is required to assess multiple scenarios in this respect, which scenarios will have probabilities attached. The impact of supply chain disruptions and inflationary pressures experienced in the local economy has increased the level of uncertainty around judgements made in determining the timing of defaults and in respect of staging. In this respect, these economic conditions might be reasonably expected to impact the affordability of repayments due to the higher cost of living experienced locally together with the potential impact of changes in market interest rates. Such inflationary pressures appear to be partially mitigated by Government support measures. Under IFRS 9, the Bank is required to formulate and incorporate multiple forward-looking economic conditions, reflecting management’s view of potential future economic variables and environments, into the ECL estimates. A number of macro-economic scenarios based on the selected macro-economic variables are considered to capture non-linearity across credit portfolios. The complexity attributable to this factor requires management to develop multiple macro-economic scenarios involving the use of significant judgements. The outbreak of COVID-19 and the ensuing macro-economic uncertainty induced by the Russia-Ukraine conflict and related supply chain disruptions have significantly impacted macro-economic factors, increasing the uncertainty around judgements made in determining the severity and likelihood of macro-economic forecasts across the different economic scenarios used in ECL models. Overly sensitive ECL modelled outcomes can be observed when conditions fall outside the range of historical experience. Data used in the impairment calculation is sourced from a number of systems, including systems that are not necessarily used for the preparation of accounting records. The ECL models are based on a general-purpose application which requires extensive manual handling of data. This increases risk around the accuracy and completeness of data used to determine assumptions and to operate the ECL models. In some cases, data is unavailable and reasonable alternatives have been applied to allow calculations to be performed. Since the estimation of ECLs is subjective in nature and inherently judgmental, the Bank’s application of the IFRS 9 impairment requirements is deemed to be an area of focus, especially in the context of the unprecedented macro-economic conditions currently experienced, which have significantly increased the level of estimation uncertainty in respect of the calculation of credit loss allowances. We focused on credit loss allowances due to the subjective nature of specific data inputs into the calculation and the subjective judgements involved in both timing of recognition of impairment and the estimation of the size of any such impairment.
Accordingly, summarising the key areas relevant to the Bank’s measurement of ECLs would include:
· Allocation of assets to stage 1, 2, or 3 using criteria in accordance with IFRS 9;
· Accounting interpretations and modelling assumptions used to build the models that calculate the ECL;
· Completeness and accuracy of data used to calculate the ECL;
· Inputs and assumptions used to estimate the impact of multiple macro-economic scenarios; and
· Measurement of individually assessed provisions including the assessment of multiple scenarios.
Relevant references in the Annual Report and Financial Statements:
• Accounting policy: note 1.7
• Credit risk management: note 2.3;
• Accounting estimates and judgements: note 3.2;
• Note on Credit impairment losses: note 32; and
• Note on Loans and advances to customers: note 8.
|
During our audit of the financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2022, we continued to focus on the key drivers of the estimation of ECL. Apart from assessing the continuing appropriateness of management assumptions, updates to key parameters and model enhancements, were evaluated and tested. Discussions with the Audit andRisk Committee and management were held on: · inputs, assumptions and adjustments to ECL, in particular changes to risk factors and other inputs within the Bank’s models, in respect of which we provided updates on the results of our testing procedures; · the application of forward economic scenarios, including the severity and magnitude of modelled downside scenarios, particularly in the context of the impact of macro-economic developments characterising the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the escalation of the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine; · considerations in respect of post model adjustments; and · individually significant loan impairments. With respect to the ECL models utilised by the Bank, the continued appropriateness of the modelling policies and methodologies used was independently assessed by reference to the requirements of IFRS 9.
ECL calculation for non-defaulted loan exposures and a number of defaulted loans which are not individually significant We understood and critically assessed the models used for ECL estimation for the Bank’s loan portfolio. Since modelling assumptions and parameters are based on historic data, we assessed whether historic experience was representative of current circumstances and of the recent losses incurred within the portfolios. The appropriateness of management’s judgements was also independently considered in respect of calculation methodologies, calibration of PDs and LGDs, segmentation and selection of macro-economic variables. Model calculations were also tested independently. Substantive procedures were performed as follows: · Performed an overall assessment of the ECL provision levels by stage to determine if they were reasonable considering the Bank’s portfolio, risk profile, credit risk management practices and the macro-economic environment.
· Tested a sample of loans to independently review the borrower’s financial performance and ability to meet loan repayments and assess the appropriateness of the credit rating assigned by management, taking into consideration the estimated impacts of the prevailing macro-economic environment on repayment capabilities of the sampled borrowers.
· Challenged the criteria used to allocate an asset to stage 1, 2 or 3 in accordance with IFRS 9 and tested a sample of assets in stage 1, 2 and 3 to verify that they were allocated to the appropriate stage.
· Tested the completeness and accuracy of the critical data extracted from the underlying systems, that is utilised within the models for the purposes of the year end ECL calculation.
· Risk based testing of models, including a review of the continuing appropriateness of model assumptions. We tested the assumptions, inputs and formulas used in ECL models on a sample basis. This included assessing the appropriateness of model design and formulas used, and recalculating PDs, LGDs and EADs on a sample basis, through the involvement of subject matter experts.
· We assessed the reasonableness of modelled PDs through a comparison of historically predicted and observed default rates, taking into consideration the potential postponement in timing of defaults due to government support programmes and measures, and the reasonableness of modelled LGDs taking cognisance the potential impacts of the current macro-economic environment.
· We also assessed the reasonableness of market value haircuts and time to sell assumptions used as inputs in the light of the current economic climate.
· Tested the multiple macro-economic scenarios and variables using our experts to assess their reasonableness. We assessed the reasonableness of changes effected to factor the impact of current economic conditions, including the recalibration of probability weights. We assessed whether the severity of the forecasted macro-economic variables was appropriate. We challenged the correlation and impact of the macro-economic factors on the ECL. Our testing of models and model assumptions did not highlight material differences.
Based on the evidence obtained, we found the model assumptions, data used within the models and overlays to be reasonable.
ECL calculation for defaulted individually significant loan exposures For defaulted exposures within the loan portfolio, the appropriateness of the methodology and policy used to calculate ECLs was independently assessed. We understood and evaluated the processes for identifying default events within loan portfolios, as well as the impairment assessment process. Substantive procedures were performed in respect of identification of defaults as follows: · Assessed critically the criteria used by management for identifying borrowers whose financial performance is expected to be particularly susceptible to the potential impact of the inflationary pressures being experienced and for determining whether a UTP/default event had occurred by testing a sample of loans with characteristics that might imply a default event had occurred (for example a customer experiencing financial difficulty or material sector disruption) to challenge whether default events had actually occurred and to assess whether default events had been identified by management in a timely manner. · Selected a sample of performing loans, including from those sectors that we consider to be particularly affected by the current macro-economic environment, which had not been identified by management as potentially defaulted, to form our own judgement as to whether that was appropriate and to further challenge whether all relevant events had been identified by management. Substantive procedures were performed on defaulted exposures in respect of the estimation of the amounts of the respective ECL provisions, as follows: · Reviewed the credit files of a selected sample of loans to understand the latest developments at the level of the borrower and the basis of measuring the ECL provisions and considered whether key judgements were appropriate. · Challenged the severity of scenarios being applied for these exposures, together with their respective probability weights by forming an independent view of the recoverability of the selected loan exposures under different scenarios, assigning probabilities independently and comparing the outcomes to that of the Bank. · Tested key inputs to and reperformed the impairment calculation used to derive expected cash flows under different scenarios. · Assessed the appropriateness of a sample of property valuations securing impaired loans through the use of experts.
In the case of some impairment provisions, we formed a different view from that of management, but in our view the differences were within a reasonable range of outcomes. |
How we tailored our group audit scope
The Group is composed of eight components: Lombard Bank Malta p.l.c. (the parent company), and its subsidiaries Redbox Limited, Lombard Select SICAV p.l.c. and Lombard Capital Asset Management Limited. The Group also includes Maltapost p.l.c. which is a subsidiary of Redbox Limited (which is fully owned by Lombard Bank Malta p.l.c.) and Tanseana Limited, Ciantar Brothers Limited and PostaInsure Agency Limited, by virtue of Maltapost p.l.c.’s controlling shareholding in these three entities.
MaltaPost p.l.c. has been determined to be a financially significant entity.
We tailored the scope of our audit in order to perform sufficient work on all components to enable us to provide an opinion on the consolidated financial statements as a whole, taking into account the structure of the Group, the accounting processes and controls, and the industry in which the Group operates, and local statutory requirements.
The Group audit team performed all of this work by applying the Group overall materiality, together with additional procedures performed on the consolidation. This gave us sufficient appropriate audit evidence for our opinion on the Group financial statements as a whole.
Other information
The directors are responsible for the other information. The other information comprises all of the information in the Annual Report and Financial Statements 2022 (but does not include the financial statements and our auditor’s report thereon).
Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and we do not express any form of assurance conclusion thereon except as explicitly stated within the Report on other legal and regulatory requirements.
In connection with our audit of the financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information identified above 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.
If, based on the work we have, we conclude that there is a material misstatement of this other information, we are required to report that fact. We have nothing to report in this regard.
The directors are responsible for the preparation of financial statements that give a true and fair view in accordance with IFRSs as adopted by the EU and the requirements of the Maltese Banking Act (Cap. 371) and the Maltese Companies Act (Cap. 386), and for such internal control as the directors determine 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 directors are responsible for assessing the Group’s and the Bank’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 directors either intend to liquidate the Group or the Bank or to cease operations, or have no realistic alternative but to do so.
Those charged with governance are responsible for overseeing the Group’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 ISAs 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 ISAs, we exercise professional judgement and maintain professional scepticism 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 Group’s and the Bank’s internal control.
· Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates and related disclosures made by the directors.
· Conclude on the appropriateness of the directors’ 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 Group’s or the Bank’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 Group or the Bank to cease to continue as a going concern.
· Evaluate the overall presentation, structure and content of the financial statements, including the disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves fair presentation.
· Obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the financial information of the entities or business activities within the Group to express an opinion on the consolidated financial statements. We are responsible for the direction, supervision and performance of the group audit. We remain solely responsible for our audit opinion.
We communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in internal control that we identify during our audit.
We also provide those charged with governance with a statement that we have complied with relevant ethical requirements regarding independence, and to communicate with them all relationships and other matters that may reasonably be thought to bear on our independence, and where applicable, actions taken to eliminate threats or safeguards applied.
From the matters communicated with those charged with governance, we determine those matters that were of most significance in the audit of the financial statements of the current period and are therefore the key audit matters. We describe these matters in our auditor’s report unless law or regulation precludes public disclosure about the matter or when, in extremely rare circumstances, we determine that a matter should not be communicated in our report because the adverse consequences of doing so would reasonably be expected to outweigh the public interest benefits of such communication.
Report on other legal and regulatory requirements
Report on compliance with the requirements of the European Single Electronic Format Regulatory Technical Standard (the “ESEF RTS”), by reference to Capital Markets Rule 5.55.6
We have undertaken a reasonable assurance engagement in accordance with the requirements of Directive 6 issued by the Accountancy Board in terms of the Accountancy Profession Act (Cap. 281) - the Accountancy Profession (European Single Electronic Format) Assurance Directive (the “ESEF Directive 6”) on the Annual Financial Report of Lombard Bank Malta p.l.c. for the year ended 31 December 2022, entirely prepared in a single electronic reporting format.
Responsibilities of the directors
The directors are responsible for the preparation of the Annual Financial Report, including the consolidated financial statements and the relevant mark-up requirements therein, by reference to Capital Markets Rule 5.56A, in accordance with the requirements of the ESEF RTS.
Our responsibilities
Our responsibility is to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Annual Financial Report, including the consolidated financial statements and the relevant electronic tagging therein, complies in all material respects with the ESEF RTS based on the evidence we have obtained. We conducted our reasonable assurance engagement in accordance with the requirements of ESEF Directive 6.
Our procedures included:
· Obtaining an understanding of the entity's financial reporting process, including the preparation of the Annual Financial Report, in accordance with the requirements of the ESEF RTS.
· Obtaining the Annual Financial Report and performing validations to determine whether the Annual Financial Report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the technical specifications of the ESEF RTS.
· Examining the information in the Annual Financial Report to determine whether all the required taggings therein have been applied and whether, in all material respects, they are in accordance with the requirements of the ESEF RTS.
We believe that the evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion.
Opinion
In our opinion, the Annual Financial Report for the year ended 31 December 2022 has been prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the requirements of the ESEF RTS.
Other reporting requirements
The Annual Report and Financial Statements 2022 contains other areas required by legislation or regulation on which we are required to report. The Directors are responsible for these other areas.
The table below sets out these areas presented within the Annual Financial Report, our related responsibilities and reporting, in addition to our responsibilities and reporting reflected in the Other information section of our report. Except as outlined in the table, we have not provided an audit opinion or any form of assurance.
Area of the Annual Report and Financial Statements 2022 and the related Directors’ responsibilities |
Our responsibilities |
Our reporting |
Directors’ report The Maltese Companies Act (Cap. 386) requires the directors to prepare a Directors’ report, which includes the contents required by Article 177 of the Act and the Sixth Schedule to the Act. |
We are required to consider whether the information given in the Directors’ report for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent with the financial statements.
We are also required to express an opinion as to whether the Directors’ report has been prepared in accordance with the applicable legal requirements.
In addition, we are required to state whether, in the light of the knowledge and understanding of the Company and its environment obtained in the course of our audit, we have identified any material misstatements in the Directors’ report, and if so to give an indication of the nature of any such misstatements.
With respect to the information required by paragraphs 8 and 11 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act, our responsibility is limited to ensuring that such information has been provided.
|
In our opinion: · the information given in the Directors’ report for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent with the financial statements; and · the Directors’ report has been prepared in accordance with the Maltese Companies Act (Cap. 386).
We have nothing to report to you in respect of the other responsibilities, as explicitly stated within the Other information section.
|
Statement of Compliance with the Principles of Good Corporate Governance The Capital Markets Rules issued by the Malta Financial Services Authority require the directors to prepare and include in the Annual Financial Report a Statement of Compliance with the Code of Principles of Good Corporate Governance within Appendix 5.1 to Chapter 5 of the Capital Markets Rules. The Statement’s required minimum contents are determined by reference to Capital Markets Rule 5.97. The Statement provides explanations as to how the Company has complied with the provisions of the Code, presenting the extent to which the Company has adopted the Code and the effective measures that the Board has taken to ensure compliance throughout the accounting period with those Principles.
|
We are required to report on the Statement of Compliance by expressing an opinion as to whether, in light of the knowledge and understanding of the Company and its environment obtained in the course of the audit, we have identified any material misstatements with respect to the information referred to in Capital Markets Rules 5.97.4 and 5.97.5, giving an indication of the nature of any such misstatements.
We are also required to assess whether the Statement of Compliance includes all the other information required to be presented as per Capital Markets Rule 5.97.
We are not required to, and we do not, consider whether the Board’s statements on internal control included in the Statement of Compliance cover all risks and controls, or form an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s corporate governance procedures or its risk and control procedures. |
In our opinion, the Statement of Compliance has been properly prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Capital Markets Rules issued by the Malta Financial Services Authority.
We have nothing to report to you in respect of the other responsibilities, as explicitly stated within the Other information section. |
Remuneration report The Capital Markets Rules issued by the Malta Financial Services Authority require the directors to prepare a Remuneration report, including the contents listed in Appendix 12.1 to Chapter 12 of the Capital Markets Rules. |
We are required to consider whether the information that should be provided within the Remuneration report, as required in terms of Appendix 12.1 to Chapter 12 of the Capital Markets Rules, has been included. |
In our opinion, the Remuneration report has been properly prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Capital Markets Rules issued by the Malta Financial Services Authority. |
|
Other matters prescribed by the Maltese Banking Act (Cap. 371) In terms of the requirements of the Maltese Banking Act (Cap. 371), we are also required to report whether: · we have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our knowledge and belief were necessary for the purpose of our audit; · proper books of account have been kept by the Bank, so far as appears from our examination of those books; · the Bank’s financial statements are in agreement with the books of account; · in our opinion, and to the best of our knowledge and according to the explanations given to us, the financial statements give the information required by any law which may from time to time be in force in the manner so required.
|
In our opinion: · we have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our knowledge and belief were necessary for the purpose of our audit; · proper books of account have been kept by the bank, so far as appears from our examination of those books; · the Bank’s financial statements are in agreement with the books of account; and · to the best of our knowledge and according to the explanations given to us, the financial statements give the information required by any law in force in the manner so required.
|
|
Other matters on which we are required to report by exception We also have responsibilities under the Maltese Companies Act (Cap. 386) to report to you if, in our opinion, adequate accounting records have not been kept, or returns adequate for our audit have not been received from branches not visited by us.
We also have responsibilities under the Capital Markets Rules to review the statement made by the directors that the business is a going concern together with supporting assumptions or qualifications as necessary.
|
We have nothing to report to you in respect of these responsibilities. |
Other matter – use of this report
Our report, including the opinions, has been prepared for and only for the Bank’s shareholders as a body in accordance with Article 179 of the Maltese Companies Act (Cap. 386) and for no other purpose. We do not, in giving these opinions, accept or assume responsibility for any other purpose or to any other person to whom this report is shown or into whose hands it may come save where expressly agreed by our prior written consent.
Appointment
We were first appointed as auditors of the Bank on 10 April 2010. Our appointment has been renewed annually by shareholder resolution representing a total period of uninterrupted engagement appointment of 13 years.
PricewaterhouseCoopers
78, Mill Street
Zone 5, Central Business District
Qormi
Malta
Fabio Axisa
Partner
27 April 2023