Accountancy Age reports that Alan Livesey, an ex ICAEW Scottish council member, is none too happy with the ICAEW over rules "fudging" at the recent elections.
The ICAEW is trying to ditch its "boring Blighty" connections/brand, by growing internationally (coming soon a motion to change the name). As such council composition has been changed, and the number of reps from UK constituencies cut (eg Scotland lost one of its two council members - can you guess who?).
Note: does anyone not see the irony that the "English" Institute has Scottish councillors, given that the "English" Institute once rejected a merger with its Scottish brethren and vice versa?
Anyhoo, it seems that "technical errors" meant that the required period between voting and Tuesday's AGM (constitutionally set at 14 days) was breached, forcing an emergency suspension of election rules.
This was approved by the majority of council members. However, Livesey argues:
"There appears to be one set of rules for the masses and another, seemingly unchangeable set of rules for the institute."
All very "anal" maybe, but it rather misses the point.
As long as the ICAEW claims to be the "English" Institute, it should not bring in non institute members to council without first clarifying to its main membership why international growth is to the benefit (as opposed cost) of its members and brand value of its qualification.
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Global Ambitions Chinese Whispers
The dangers of the ICAEW's global ambitions are revealed by a question posed at the ICAEW council meeting by Alan Livesey.
Accountancy Age report that he raised the problem of students in China (where the ICAEW has recently opened a new office, to great fanfare) passing their exams without ever having paid their membership.
The institute's board was taken aback by the suggestion, and promised to investigate.
Accountancy Age report that he raised the problem of students in China (where the ICAEW has recently opened a new office, to great fanfare) passing their exams without ever having paid their membership.
The institute's board was taken aback by the suggestion, and promised to investigate.
Monday, April 04, 2011
Global Ambitions - The ICAEW Looks East
The ICAEW's ambitions know no bounds (internatioanlly at least).
Accountancy Age reports that the ICAEW has opened a new office in Beijing, in order to extend its reach in China and Hong Kong.
I wonder how much this office and its staff will cost the membership?
Come to think of it, why does the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England Wales need an office in China?
Whilst people ponder those two questions, Accountancy Age goes on to report that Douglas Lau (regional director of the ICAEW in greater China) will head up the new office.
Factoid: The ICAEW has 200 members in mainland China and around 3,000 in Hong Kong.
As part of the ambition to grow its membership (its attempt to do so by merging with CIPFA et al was thwarted in the UK) the ICAEW will work with the Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants, with which it has signed memorandums of understanding.
There's irony for you!
It would seem that the article I wrote in October 2010, about ICAEW's ambitins in Sri Lanka, is also applicable to the Chinese venture:
"Global ambitions are all well and good. However, care needs to be paid by the ICAEW to ensure:
1 That any inter institute membership, if it occurs, will be structured in such a way as to ensure that the brand value of the ICAEW qualification will not be diluted.
2 That, given the recession and high cost of subscriptions, UK members' subscriptions are not frittered away on global ambitions that have little relevance to the UK membership."
Accountancy Age reports that the ICAEW has opened a new office in Beijing, in order to extend its reach in China and Hong Kong.
I wonder how much this office and its staff will cost the membership?
Come to think of it, why does the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England Wales need an office in China?
Whilst people ponder those two questions, Accountancy Age goes on to report that Douglas Lau (regional director of the ICAEW in greater China) will head up the new office.
Factoid: The ICAEW has 200 members in mainland China and around 3,000 in Hong Kong.
As part of the ambition to grow its membership (its attempt to do so by merging with CIPFA et al was thwarted in the UK) the ICAEW will work with the Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants, with which it has signed memorandums of understanding.
There's irony for you!
It would seem that the article I wrote in October 2010, about ICAEW's ambitins in Sri Lanka, is also applicable to the Chinese venture:
"Global ambitions are all well and good. However, care needs to be paid by the ICAEW to ensure:
1 That any inter institute membership, if it occurs, will be structured in such a way as to ensure that the brand value of the ICAEW qualification will not be diluted.
2 That, given the recession and high cost of subscriptions, UK members' subscriptions are not frittered away on global ambitions that have little relevance to the UK membership."
Monday, January 14, 2008
Look East
The ICAEW is looking Eastwards as it attempts to increase its size. It has announced a deal with the Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants (CICPA) to award credits to each other's examinations.
An agreement will mean that CICPA members, who have passed all five subjects of the CPA Uniform Exams, will be awarded credits in the professional stage of the ICAEW's ACA qualification.
Richard Dyson, ICAEW president, said the agreement between the two parties is "one more step forward in helping to create a global accountancy profession".
Size of course is not everything, quality is the key issue.
Dyson, as if anticipating the above comment, went on to say:
"By providing mutual credits for prior learning, we are making it simpler for members of both the ICAEW and CICPA to achieve qualifications which will enable them to work in each other’s territories."
So long as this does not dilute the ICAEW brand, or expose the ICAEW to ethical problems, then in theory this agreement should cause the ICAEW no problems.
The devil is in the detail.
An agreement will mean that CICPA members, who have passed all five subjects of the CPA Uniform Exams, will be awarded credits in the professional stage of the ICAEW's ACA qualification.
Richard Dyson, ICAEW president, said the agreement between the two parties is "one more step forward in helping to create a global accountancy profession".
Size of course is not everything, quality is the key issue.
Dyson, as if anticipating the above comment, went on to say:
"By providing mutual credits for prior learning, we are making it simpler for members of both the ICAEW and CICPA to achieve qualifications which will enable them to work in each other’s territories."
So long as this does not dilute the ICAEW brand, or expose the ICAEW to ethical problems, then in theory this agreement should cause the ICAEW no problems.
The devil is in the detail.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Misrepresentation and Shabbiness
Today's Independent reports that the qualifications of the president-elect of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Graham Durgan, were misrepresented on his company's website.
Seemingly Durgan was being passed off, on the Emile Woolf International College website (a company which he owns 60% of), as having both LLB and FCA qualifications.
The only trouble is, according the The Independent, he is neither a bachelor of law nor a fellow of the ICAEW. He is in fact a bachelor of sciences, and an associate of the ICAEW.
I recall Durgan teaching me at BPP, back in the 1980's (he was very good), and do not understand why he is not an FCA; given that if you keep up your CPD etc, you become one after a defined period of time should you choose to apply.
This news comes hot on the heels of the report in yesterday's Independent that revealed that Durgan's company has been named as the "recommended supplier" of training, for the newly won ICAEW contracts to provide training to Russia and China.
It is reported that this could generate contracts worth £200,000 a year to EWI.
Not surprisingly the Independent notes that Durgan's senior role within the institute and EWI has fuelled concerns over potential conflict of interest.
The Independent quotes one member of the profession as saying:
"It's a bit shabby that he was allowed to pitch. If you want to be a commercial business, then don't be president...It's a bit grubby."
Durgan's spokesman is quoted as saying:
"During his deputy presidency, Graham has stepped away from any commercial decisions by the institute that could benefit his firms. During his presidency, he will play no active executive role in his businesses."
An ICAEW spokesman is quoted:
"Throughout the process, the deputy president declared a financial interest in EWI which had been approached to do the work. He was not involved in any way in the evaluation process."
They don't get it do they?
It is not just a question of being independent, it is a question of being seen to be independent.
That is drummed into you from day one of your training contract, it is lamentable that the ICAEW who spend so much time lecturing others about ethics and independence cannot practice what they preach.
The story gets worse, the ICAEW are reported to have described the agreements with EWI as "non-exclusive". Yet this is contradicted by CEO Eric Anstee, who is quoted in the Independent as saying:
"We do not envisage working with further training firms until the volume of students in each location builds".
Indeed, as if to rub further salt into the wounds, ATC International told the Independent that it was not asked by the ICAEW to pitch for its contract for Russia.
Correct me if I am wrong, but based on my experience running fraud investigations, audit departments and companies, open tendering is the bedrock of an ethical and well run business. This is another area that the ICAEW is fond to lecture the world on, yet fails to practice what it preaches.
It now seems that the ICAEW has realised that is has got itself embroiled in yet another mess, that could have been so easily avoided. They have told the media that no agreements with EWI have been signed, and that a committee of past presidents will look into the selection process and will report in the next few days.
The phrase "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted", springs to mind.
I assume that, depending on the level of outcry and damage to the brand that this sorry little tale produces, there will be some form of political fudge; ie Durgan will step aside, or the contract will be awarded to another supplier.
Too little, too late.
The damage has been done.
We should never have been placed in this position in the first place. The ICAEW claims that it is run by professionals, with industry and business experience. However, the leadership have succeeded yet again in damaging the brand value of our qualification.
This dismal story is another addition to the sorry tally of evidence, that has been building up over the past few months, that shows that the executive and council of the ICAEW are unfit to lead the ICAEW viz:
I ask the following of the membership:
I don't want to see that happen, neither do the rest of the membership. The time for the membership to take control of the ICAEW is now.
I have voted against all of the proposals put forward by the ICAEW for the forthcoming AGM, as a protest about the way the ICAEW is being led.
I would recommend that, in order to send a clear signal to the leadership that we want change, others do the same.
If you cannot bring yourself to vote against all of the resolutions, then at least vote against the subscription rise (since it will only be wasted on yet another merger campaign next year), and the awarding of honourary FCA's (we are not a university).
The time for action is now.
Seemingly Durgan was being passed off, on the Emile Woolf International College website (a company which he owns 60% of), as having both LLB and FCA qualifications.
The only trouble is, according the The Independent, he is neither a bachelor of law nor a fellow of the ICAEW. He is in fact a bachelor of sciences, and an associate of the ICAEW.
I recall Durgan teaching me at BPP, back in the 1980's (he was very good), and do not understand why he is not an FCA; given that if you keep up your CPD etc, you become one after a defined period of time should you choose to apply.
This news comes hot on the heels of the report in yesterday's Independent that revealed that Durgan's company has been named as the "recommended supplier" of training, for the newly won ICAEW contracts to provide training to Russia and China.
It is reported that this could generate contracts worth £200,000 a year to EWI.
Not surprisingly the Independent notes that Durgan's senior role within the institute and EWI has fuelled concerns over potential conflict of interest.
The Independent quotes one member of the profession as saying:
"It's a bit shabby that he was allowed to pitch. If you want to be a commercial business, then don't be president...It's a bit grubby."
Durgan's spokesman is quoted as saying:
"During his deputy presidency, Graham has stepped away from any commercial decisions by the institute that could benefit his firms. During his presidency, he will play no active executive role in his businesses."
An ICAEW spokesman is quoted:
"Throughout the process, the deputy president declared a financial interest in EWI which had been approached to do the work. He was not involved in any way in the evaluation process."
They don't get it do they?
It is not just a question of being independent, it is a question of being seen to be independent.
That is drummed into you from day one of your training contract, it is lamentable that the ICAEW who spend so much time lecturing others about ethics and independence cannot practice what they preach.
The story gets worse, the ICAEW are reported to have described the agreements with EWI as "non-exclusive". Yet this is contradicted by CEO Eric Anstee, who is quoted in the Independent as saying:
"We do not envisage working with further training firms until the volume of students in each location builds".
Indeed, as if to rub further salt into the wounds, ATC International told the Independent that it was not asked by the ICAEW to pitch for its contract for Russia.
Correct me if I am wrong, but based on my experience running fraud investigations, audit departments and companies, open tendering is the bedrock of an ethical and well run business. This is another area that the ICAEW is fond to lecture the world on, yet fails to practice what it preaches.
It now seems that the ICAEW has realised that is has got itself embroiled in yet another mess, that could have been so easily avoided. They have told the media that no agreements with EWI have been signed, and that a committee of past presidents will look into the selection process and will report in the next few days.
The phrase "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted", springs to mind.
I assume that, depending on the level of outcry and damage to the brand that this sorry little tale produces, there will be some form of political fudge; ie Durgan will step aside, or the contract will be awarded to another supplier.
Too little, too late.
The damage has been done.
We should never have been placed in this position in the first place. The ICAEW claims that it is run by professionals, with industry and business experience. However, the leadership have succeeded yet again in damaging the brand value of our qualification.
This dismal story is another addition to the sorry tally of evidence, that has been building up over the past few months, that shows that the executive and council of the ICAEW are unfit to lead the ICAEW viz:
- The leadership of the ICAEW were trounced for trying to bully us into merging with CIPFA.
- Using the services of Media Strategy, a PR company that breached the Code of Practice of the Association of Professional Political Consultants which resigned its membership of that body rather than face an investigation.
- Damaging the ICAEW's reputation by delaying the introduction of the new syllabus, and most importantly the ethics module, for 2006.
- Wasting our money on a futile MORI poll asking us why we voted against the merger, don't they read or listen?
- Angering and alienating accountants around the world by trying to push through a name change, that ended up being blocked by the Privy Council.
I ask the following of the membership:
- When will we be rid of this shambolic leadership?
- When will the ICAEW learn that it is here to serve the interests of the membership, not the other way around?
- When will that Victorian anachronistic structure known as Council be removed from office?
I don't want to see that happen, neither do the rest of the membership. The time for the membership to take control of the ICAEW is now.
I have voted against all of the proposals put forward by the ICAEW for the forthcoming AGM, as a protest about the way the ICAEW is being led.
I would recommend that, in order to send a clear signal to the leadership that we want change, others do the same.
If you cannot bring yourself to vote against all of the resolutions, then at least vote against the subscription rise (since it will only be wasted on yet another merger campaign next year), and the awarding of honourary FCA's (we are not a university).
The time for action is now.
Monday, June 27, 2005
ACCA Believe Merger Plans Flawed
Allen Blewitt, chief executive of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) the world’s largest accountancy organisation outside China, has criticised the ICAEW merger plans.
He is quoted in today's Times as saying:
"The model for merging accountancy bodies is probably flawed..We educated accountants to be sceptical and conservative, yet you are asking people to forget years of entrenched mindsets."
He believes that institutes should collaborate first, then worry about whether or not to merge.
He is quoted in today's Times as saying:
"The model for merging accountancy bodies is probably flawed..We educated accountants to be sceptical and conservative, yet you are asking people to forget years of entrenched mindsets."
He believes that institutes should collaborate first, then worry about whether or not to merge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)