Wednesday, March 02, 2011


In 2005 I wrote:

"Eric Anstee is reportedly so incensed, by what he calls "spoiling tactics", that he has threatened to "realign" the ICAEW's funding of CCAB; he may even withdraw ICAEW from CCAB."

Yet, by 2008, the ICAEW had somewhat changed its views wrt CCAB:

"..It seems that the ICAEW, either via accident or design, has managed to stir up another major row with some other accounting bodies.

Accountancy Age reports that "private papers" (intended for council only) were "accidentally" published on the ICAEW website last week.

The papers disclose a plan to rank accountants in terms of a hierarchy. The Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies would be the top, and book-keepers at the bottom.

The plan is part of the ICAEW's desire to formally recognise the term "accountant", and will be submitted to the Privy Council.

The ranking will be as follows:

- financial accountants
- accounting technicians
- book-keepers

Given that the plan then was to make CCAB numero uno, the decision by CIMA to leave CCAB is a tad odd, is it not?

What is the reason for this decision?

Could the reason be that CCAB appears to have died (no press releases since 2009), and CIMA wants to leave before the ship sinks and drowns all those left on board?


  1. The ranking by ICAEW is incorrect. It should be:

    1. ICAEW
    2. Long gap
    3. ICAS/ICAI
    5. CIMA
    6. - financial accountants
    7. - accounting technicians
    8. - book-keepers..."

    That is why there should never be any mergers.

  2. You appear to have listed the bodies in the order they will cease to exist by staying entrenched in their ancient opinions and arrogance.

    Anon ACMA