Chartered Accountants Worldwide - Money Well Spent?

I am not alone in thinking that the newly created Chartered Accountants Worldwide overlaps with other associations, such as the Global Accounting Alliance.

Kevin Reed (editor of Accountancy Age) also thinks the same, as per his Leader on the subject:

"It’s nice in principle, but the ultimate question has to be whether members can bear their institute fees going towards setting up another ‘association’.

Don’t forget, we have the CCAB to represent the institutes in policy-making and strategy for the UK, while both ICAS and the ICAEW are also members of the Global Accounting Alliance, which does the same as the CCAB just…globally. The argument is that the CAW is for promotional activities. But, still…

The ICAEW, in particular, has already made outreach efforts, no doubt at some cost, in areas such as China and Hong Kong, plus the Middle-East. Do we really need the CAW?"

Izza Rules Out CIPFA Merger

ICAEW CEO, Michael Izza, has ruled out a merger with CIPFA.

He is quoted by Accountancy Age:

"There are no formal merger plans in the short, medium or long term."
 
He also expressed hope that one day CIMA would return to the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB).

Given that CIMA left CCAB because they feel that the fees charged to belong to CCAB were disproportionately high, it is unlikely that they will return to CCAB anytime soon.

CCAB will need to demonstrate that it is doing something useful.

CCAB Site Back Up

The CCAB site is now back up and running, after being taken down for a revamp.

Oddly though, there seems to be no publicity out telling people it has been revamped (aside from me doing this for free here).

ICAEW Launches True and Fair Updated

The ICAEW has launched a new website "True and Fair".

"This site is here to help you find out anything you would like to know about the process known as audit - or to use its full title 'Audit of Financial Statements'....

....www.trueandfair.org was created by ICAEW, a world leader of the accountancy and finance profession, as part of its public interest charter to advance the theory and practice of accountancy, finance, business and commerce."

Fair enough, but why not launch this as a CCAB initiative, given that CCAB is meant to "provide a unified voice on matters of common interest"?

FYI, the CCAB website is currently "under construction".

By the way, the ICAEW have not used the domain names www.trueandfair.com or www.trueandfair.co.uk, because they are owned by Omkar Joshi who is CEO of Company Reporting Ltd (a publishing business focused on financial reporting practices of public companies).

"Omkar's recent venture TrueandFair was acquired by Company Reporting Limited, a pan-European information service which reports on constantly changing corporate financial reporting practice; identifying actual year on year changes in the reporting practice and governance procedures of Europe's leading companies."

Carry On CCAB II - The Cost

Accountancy Age reports that cost the changeover from "old" CCAB to "new" CCAB, as the previous corporate structure was liquidated by KPMG, was £10K.

Given that CCAB have not issued a press release since 2009, was this really worth it?

Carry On CCAB

Accountancy Age reports that the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB) will continue operate without CIMA.

The ICAEW, ACCA, ICAS, CIPFA and Chartered Accountants Ireland will remain in it.

As I noted in March 2011 CCAB has been rather quiet,  not having issued a press release since 2009; yet still charging fees to its members!

However, Michael Izza (CEO of the ICAEW and CCAB secretary) has stated that it will "provide a unified voice on matters of common interest" he went on to say that the the institutes took a "hard look" at whether it was worth continuing as the CCAB.

"Having soul-searched, we decided to carry on."

Does this mean the same frequency of press releases?

Why Do We Pay Fees To CCAB?

It seems that, if Accountancy Age is correct, CIMA left CCAB because they feel that the fees charged to belong to CCAB were disproportionately high.

"CIMA explained that its members were paying a "hugely disproportionate amount" towards the body. However, CIMA's request to renegotiate the fee structure through an arbitrator was turned down by the other institutes: the ICAEW; ACCA; ICAS; ICAI; and CIPFA.

Given that CCAB appears to have done nothing (that it is proud to tell the world about) since December 2009, CIMA may well have a point about the fees.

What exactly are the members of the five remaining professional bodies paying their fees to CIMA for?

CIMA Displeased

Accountancy Age reports that CIMA are less than pleased with CCAB's decision to announce that CIMA were leaving, without first running that announcement past them:

"However, TS gathers that the CIMA bods were none-too-impressed at the CCAB press release announcing that the institute had buggered off.

With CIMA still technically a member of the CCAB (which will be reformed under a different moniker), the institute was 'very surprised' that the notice went out without its prior knowledge or signoff, catching them on the hop.

An administrative oversight surely, or the CCAB members making it clear that CIMA aren't part of the gang any more and can't have it both ways?"

Stand by for this to heat up.

Have CIMA Shot Themselves In The Foot?

Following the announcement by CIMA that they are to leave the seemingly moribund CCAB, there have been a number of comments posted on Accounting Web by members of CIMA.

Aside from the issue that none of them were consulted over this move, there is also the valid point being made that many accounting jobs require a CCAB qualification.

Now that CIMA have removed themselves from CCAB, does this not put their members at a disadvantage?

Have CIMA by their actions damaged their brand and made themselves and their members a lesser body or, does CIMA know that CCAB is about to implode and that this is in fact a canny move that ensures that they will avoid the chaos that will ensue?

CIMA Leaves CCAB

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:

- CCAB
- 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?

Scum of The Earth

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:

- CCAB
- financial accountants
- accounting technicians
- book-keepers.

Not unsurprisingly the ICAEW recognise that there may be some opposition to this (eg from the Association of International Accountants and Institute of Certified Bookkeepers).

ICB chief executive Garry Carter is quoted in Accountancy Age:

"Our members are highly qualified, they are not the scum of the earth."

It seems a very odd "accident" to publish this, given that the membership of the ICAEW are never allowed to read on the ICAEW site about what their illustrious members of council discuss or do.

I must ask why did the ICAEW publish this on the site, before they had finalised the plans?

I trust and assume that an investigation is being carried out by the ICAEW.

Needless to say, the ICAEW have now taken down the document from its site. However, I am pleased to say that I have a copy. Here it is ICAEW Report.

I would note that it contains this rather revealing paragraph:

"ICAEW has adopted a policy of getting closer to IFA and other organisations. In turn that meant that David Hunt became the IFA President in January 2007. Eric Anstee became the IFA Chairman of Council in September 2007."

Are we heading for another merger attempt, this time by the back door, or is this a takeover of IFA?

I did warn people about this in three articles in 2005 and 2006:

- The Confidential Plan

- Supersize Me!

- IFA Rumour

A Reaction from The Bunker

Almost three years after setting this site up, and a "pile" of articles/emails/media interviews later, the ICAEW has finally mentioned my name in public and suggests (Izza Answers - "To this end I would be happy to meet with him to see if we can put some of these issues to rest".) that they would like to talk to me.

I am heartened that three years of effort has not been wasted.

However, I would like to correct a few errors within Michael's blog post:

The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding with CIPFA

"I am glad to say that the story did not leak during the intervening week and that the story was published on our website on 6th July."

It did leak.

I published the story on this site on 4th July, two days before the end of the embargo.

Merger by the back door?

"a significant majority of our members were in favour of the proposals (just under 67%)."

Oh dear, it seems that Michael has fallen victim to the ICAEW's spin.

As I and numerous members of the ICAEW have stated, only 37,004 members voted in favour of the merger; this represents a mere 29% of the total membership of the ICAEW.

That is not a majority!

"The Institute needs to respect the democratic decision"

How very noble of the ICAEW to grudgingly listen to the membership for once.

Maybe not for long though?

"premature to put a member vote back on the table in the short term to medium term."

CCAB

"The Institute remains fully committed to working with the CCAB"

Why then do we need a strategic partnership on top of CCAB?

The ACA

"we believe that it remains the qualification for business leadership"

Quite!

Was this not the whole point of my "don't dilute the brand campaign", that so successfully scuttled the merger attempt?

I am glad that the ICAEW have taken my message to heart.

Ethics

"ethics is now examined across the whole syllabus"

This is not enough.

In my view a separate paper is needed, as was originally envisaged in 2005, in order to send a robust signal to the world and to potential new members about our stand wrt ethics.

The Constitution

"I would urge him to stand for Council and make his voice heard."

LOL!!!!

My voice is heard, by those who choose to listen.

Michael, do you not read the papers or communicate with your fellow ICAEW officers?

My campaign to stand for council was well featured in The Times and accountancy magazines (even the in house propaganda magazine "Accountancy" mentioned it, after the event!), I also wrote to the ICAEW asking them to let the Croydon membership know that I was interested in standing.

The ICAEW chose not to communicate that fact to the membership of Croydon.

"I would be happy to meet with him to see if we can put some of these issues to rest."

Michael's public invitation was posted on 19th July 2007, yet no private invitation was dispatched to me prior to his public invitation.

Why?

As I noted above, I have been campaigning for an improved ICAEW for almost three years. This is the only time that they have ever made the slightest attempt to communicate directly with me, emails of the past have been left unanswered and there has never been the slightest interest expressed by the ICAEW in talking to me before.

Why now I wonder?

Why make the invitation public, without first asking me privately?

Could it be that this blog was a rushed damage limitation exercise?

Epilogue

I received a call on the 20th from AccountingWeb, alerting me about Michael's blog. They said that they has suggested to the ICAEW Director of Communications that Michael and I could do a 10 minute podcast, to discuss the issues raised. Note, this offer was made by AccountingWeb without my prior knowledge.

The offer was rejected by the ICAEW.

Some hours later after the call, and one day after Michael's blog post, I was sent an email from the Director of Communications of the ICAEW asking if I would be amenable to a meeting "our Chief Executive"; thus trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.

It doesn't seem that they ICAEW have handled this particularly well.

I will write back to the ICAEW, with my answer, in the next 24 hours or so.

The Dying Institute?

Accountancy Age report that ACCA has 73,839 students in the UK and Ireland, CIMA has 57,106, while the ICAEW has 8,560.

The article also notes that the growth of ACCA and CIMA is outstripping that of the ICAEW.

Whilst it is true to say that size of itself is not an indication of quality, the ICAEW should be concerned that the number of people wishing to join the ICAEW is, on the face of these statistics, declining.

Yet, last year, the ICAEW wasted time and money chasing the false solution of a merger with lesser bodies.

The ICAEW needs to identify and address the "internal" issues that are putting potential new members from joining, and not waste its time and members' money on further merger votes.

Issues that need to be addressed include:

-The exam syllabus

-Ethics in the profession

-The size and structure of Council

-Value for money in respect of subscriptions

-Working more closely with CCAB

-Improving relations with ICAS

CCAB

I see that the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB) has finally got its website back up and running.

As the site states:

"CCAB provides a forum in which matters affecting the profession as a whole can be discussed and co-ordinated, and enables the profession to speak with a unified voice to government."

So we needed a merger for why?

Row Between ICAS and ICAEW Deepens

Des Hudson's (Chief Executive of ICAS) article about the proposed ICAEW merger, which is published today in Accountancy Age, has raised the hackles of the ICAEW.

In the article Des Hudson says that the merger is based on "unproven beliefs", and that a "monolithic institute" would not be more effective.

He goes on to say that ICAS sees considerable benefit in an "exclusive and unremitting focus on chartered accountants".

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.