There is a splendidly robust article in today's Herald, trumpeting the success of the Scottish Institute of Chartered Accountants (ICAS) in doubling its student membership in the last six years.
The article contrasts the success of ICAS with the failure of the ICAEW to respond to the needs of multinantionals, and its decline in student numbers.
Seemingly the majority of the rise in ICAS number is down to the fact that Ernst and Young put all of its students through the Scottish system five years ago. PWC and KPMG also followed suit with some of their students.
Des Hudson, the Scottish body's chief executive, is quoted as saying:
"The situation will continue as long as we remain of value and relevance (to the firms). But we don't expect it as a God-given right.."
Hudson then went on to say that ICAS is still waiting to hear more about the proposed merger between the ICAEW, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
Seemingly ICAS is determined to thwart the plan to call the super-institute "The Institute of Chartered Accountants".
So there you have it, the merger proposal is merely an attempt to hide the fact that the fall in membership of the ICAEW is down to its lack of flexibility.
The merger proposal is a red herring, and should be dismissed ASAP.
If people feel that the ICAEW is relevant they will join.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Thursday, February 24, 2005
CIMA Pulls Out
Now we know why CIMA have not been answering my enquiries about the delay in their council's vote on the proposed merger.
They have pulled out.
Accountancy Age reports that ICAEW and CIPFA may merge by themselves, leaving CIMA to join at a later date.
The ICAEW and CIPFA still seem happy to fudge this ill conceived proposal, by now trying to push forward with a two tier merge.
Frankly this is now verging on the farcical.
Let us be done with this nonsense, and just go ahead with a one tier merger; ie don't merge!
The pull out of CIMA was obvious in December, when they voted against the proposal.
Yet the ICAEW chose to hold their own vote, after CIMA's rejection, and press on regardless.
My questions to the ICAEW are as follows:
1 Why did you hold a vote in December, when you knew that CIMA had rejected the proposal?
2 How much of our money have you spent, to date, on trying to persuade us to support this unwanted and unloved proposal?
3 Why are you trying to continue to push this unwanted proposal forward, when it is obvious that it is holed below the water line?
4 Who will be resigning in the ICAEW over this shambles?
They have pulled out.
Accountancy Age reports that ICAEW and CIPFA may merge by themselves, leaving CIMA to join at a later date.
The ICAEW and CIPFA still seem happy to fudge this ill conceived proposal, by now trying to push forward with a two tier merge.
Frankly this is now verging on the farcical.
Let us be done with this nonsense, and just go ahead with a one tier merger; ie don't merge!
The pull out of CIMA was obvious in December, when they voted against the proposal.
Yet the ICAEW chose to hold their own vote, after CIMA's rejection, and press on regardless.
My questions to the ICAEW are as follows:
1 Why did you hold a vote in December, when you knew that CIMA had rejected the proposal?
2 How much of our money have you spent, to date, on trying to persuade us to support this unwanted and unloved proposal?
3 Why are you trying to continue to push this unwanted proposal forward, when it is obvious that it is holed below the water line?
4 Who will be resigning in the ICAEW over this shambles?
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
CIMA Sleeps
I sent the following query (see below) about the merger to CIMA some 12 days ago, they have not replied.
I sent them a reminder again today.
Message:
"..There seems to be some confusion about the timing of the CIMA council vote on the merger.
Original reports indicated that the council meeting, and vote, would take place on 4 Feb.
However, now reports state that the vote will occur on 1 March.
Please can you clarify why the date of the vote has moved?.."
Maybe I will get a response before they vote?
I sent them a reminder again today.
Message:
"..There seems to be some confusion about the timing of the CIMA council vote on the merger.
Original reports indicated that the council meeting, and vote, would take place on 4 Feb.
However, now reports state that the vote will occur on 1 March.
Please can you clarify why the date of the vote has moved?.."
Maybe I will get a response before they vote?
Straw Poll
Self Assessment are conducting a straw poll of ICAEW members, who work in Wales, of their views on the merger proposal.
Those of you who live in Wales may care to take part, visit Self Assessment for details.
Those of you who live in Wales may care to take part, visit Self Assessment for details.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
No Response
I sent the following note to CIMA on 10 February:
"..There seems to be some confusion about the timing of the CIMA council vote on the merger.
Original reports indicated that the council meeting, and vote, would take place on 4 Feb.
However, now reports state that the vote will occur on 1 March.
Please can you clarify why the date of the vote has moved?.."
However, oddly enough, I have yet to receive a response.
I know that CIMA regularly visit this site, so please can you take note of my question and come back to me on it.
Many thanks.
"..There seems to be some confusion about the timing of the CIMA council vote on the merger.
Original reports indicated that the council meeting, and vote, would take place on 4 Feb.
However, now reports state that the vote will occur on 1 March.
Please can you clarify why the date of the vote has moved?.."
However, oddly enough, I have yet to receive a response.
I know that CIMA regularly visit this site, so please can you take note of my question and come back to me on it.
Many thanks.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Shooting Itself in The Foot
Following a summit of leading international accountancy bodies in London, on Thursday, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW) urged large businesses to employ professional accountants as finance directors.
A laudable aim.
Yet is not the ICAEW shooting itself in the foot, by asking that its membership vote for a merger that undermines the very value of the qualification?
A laudable aim.
Yet is not the ICAEW shooting itself in the foot, by asking that its membership vote for a merger that undermines the very value of the qualification?
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Delayed Vote?
Last week I posted that CIMA's council were due to vote again on the proposed merger between ICAEW, CIMA and CIPFA on 4th February.
I subsequently withdrew that post, and issued an apology, as it seemed that I had been given the wrong date; the date of the vote is now being reported as the 1st of March.
However, I see from an article posted on 6th January 2005 in Accountancy Age, that a vote had indeed been planned for early February.
Quote:
"..All hope is now focused on renewed discussions to forge a replacement plan, but the leaders of the 'merger three' have only a small window of opportunity before the next council meetings scheduled for early February...".
It seems that the CIMA vote may have been postponed.
Can someone shed some light on this please?
I subsequently withdrew that post, and issued an apology, as it seemed that I had been given the wrong date; the date of the vote is now being reported as the 1st of March.
However, I see from an article posted on 6th January 2005 in Accountancy Age, that a vote had indeed been planned for early February.
Quote:
"..All hope is now focused on renewed discussions to forge a replacement plan, but the leaders of the 'merger three' have only a small window of opportunity before the next council meetings scheduled for early February...".
It seems that the CIMA vote may have been postponed.
Can someone shed some light on this please?
Monday, February 07, 2005
ICAS Unhappy
The Herald reports today that ICAS (The Scottish Institute) are unhappy at the proposed name of the "super institute".
In fact, they are so unhappy that they have voiced their concerns about the preferred name for the new body, "The Institute of Chartered Accountants", both to the Privy Council and all three merger partners.
ICAS rather pithily remark that even if they were invited to join, they wouldn't.
In fact, they are so unhappy that they have voiced their concerns about the preferred name for the new body, "The Institute of Chartered Accountants", both to the Privy Council and all three merger partners.
ICAS rather pithily remark that even if they were invited to join, they wouldn't.
Apologies
I must apologise for jumping the gun in earlier posts, in respect of saying that the CIMA merger vote was held on the 4th.
It seems that my source for this information was wrong, CIMA will in fact hold their vote on 1 March.
It seems that my source for this information was wrong, CIMA will in fact hold their vote on 1 March.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Members Still Against Merger
Accountancy Age report that members of the ICAEW, CIMA and CIPFA are still against the proposed merger.
Why am I not surprised at these findings?
Why is the ICAEW Council still wasting their time and, more importantly, our money on this dead dodo of a proposal?
Why am I not surprised at these findings?
Why is the ICAEW Council still wasting their time and, more importantly, our money on this dead dodo of a proposal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)