The Merger - Update

 

Opposition to the merger has not softened with the passing of years for some critics. “I cannot believe that 20 years on they are trying to resurrect this pitiful corpse of a failed policy that cost members £1.4m to reject in 2005,” said Ken Frost, a long-standing opposer of the merger.

“The proposed merger with CIPFA is a poorly conceived plan that threatens to erode ICAEW’s brand, burden its members with costs and distractions, and sideline their voices in a pivotal decision,” he added in a blog post on his Stop the merger website. 

Another one of Frost’s gripes is that only CIPFA members will be getting a vote this time, not ICAEW members. “Most ICAEW members have little to gain from access to CIPFA’s public-sector training or networks, yet they may face increased membership fees or resource redirection to support CIPFA’s distinct offerings.” 

AccountingWEB 

The ICAEW’s Proposed Merger with CIPFA is a Disaster for Members

In 2021 I warned of the dangers of the ICAEW trying to revive its merger plans via the backdoor. It seems I was not wrong.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) has announced a Heads of Terms agreement to explore a potential merger with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), a move touted as a strategic alignment to strengthen the accountancy profession. While the ICAEW’s leadership, led by Chief Executive Alan Vallance, paints this as a milestone for member benefits and public interest, a closer examination reveals a litany of reasons why this proposal is a grave misstep for ICAEW members. Below, point by point, we dismantle the rationale behind this merger and expose its potential to dilute the ICAEW’s prestige, burden its members, and undermine their professional interests.

1. Dilution of the ICAEW Brand and Prestige

The ICAEW’s ACA qualification is widely regarded as the gold standard for private-sector accountancy, synonymous with rigorous training and expertise in corporate finance, audit, and tax. CIPFA, while respected in the public sector, holds a narrower focus on public finance and lacks the same global recognition. As I have repeatedly stated, merging with CIPFA risks diluting the ICAEW’s elite brand, as the distinct identities of the two bodies blur in the eyes of employers, clients, and regulators.

Under the proposed structure, CIPFA would retain its brand but join the ICAEW group, creating a confusing hybrid where the ICAEW’s prestige could be overshadowed by CIPFA’s niche public-sector identity. For ICAEW members, whose careers often hinge on the ACA’s reputation for excellence, this dilution could diminish their competitive edge in the private sector, where global firms prioritise the ICAEW’s distinct pedigree over a merged entity with a public-sector slant.

2. Misaligned Professional Focus and Member Needs

ICAEW and CIPFA serve fundamentally different constituencies. ICAEW members primarily work in private-sector roles—audit, corporate finance, and advisory services for businesses—while CIPFA members specialise in public-sector finance, managing budgets for local authorities and government bodies. These divergent focuses mean their professional development needs, technical expertise, and career paths rarely overlap.

The promise of “enhanced member services” rings hollow when the merger’s benefits—such as shared resources or dual membership—cater to a small minority who straddle both sectors. Most ICAEW members have little to gain from access to CIPFA’s public-sector training or networks, yet they may face increased membership fees or resource redirection to support CIPFA’s distinct offerings. The fast-track dual membership scheme, already in place since 2024, has seen limited uptake, suggesting members see little value in CIPFA’s designation. Forcing closer integration risks prioritising a theoretical synergy over the practical needs of ICAEW’s core membership.

3. Financial and Operational Risks

Mergers are costly, complex, and fraught with risk. The ICAEW’s leadership has not disclosed the financial implications of integrating CIPFA, but historical precedent suggests members could bear the burden. Integration costs—legal fees, IT systems alignment, and staff restructuring—could strain ICAEW’s reserves or lead to higher membership fees. Moreover, CIPFA’s smaller size and public-sector focus may bring limited financial upside, leaving ICAEW members subsidising an entity with less revenue-generating potential.

Operationally, the merger introduces uncertainty. CIPFA’s retention of “operational independence” and charitable status raises questions about governance and accountability. Will ICAEW members have a say in CIPFA’s decisions, or will they be tethered to a partner with misaligned priorities? The integration of CIPFA’s disciplinary scheme under ICAEW’s Professional Standards Department already hints at ICAEW absorbing CIPFA’s administrative burdens, diverting resources from member-focused initiatives.

4. Member Exclusion from Decision-Making

The merger proposal has been framed as a “strategic direction” rather than a done deal, yet the process lacks transparency and member input. The Heads of Terms agreement was signed without a member vote, and any formal proposal will only face a vote from CIPFA members, not ICAEW’s. This asymmetry is alarming: ICAEW members, who stand to lose the most from a diluted brand and misallocated resources, are sidelined while CIPFA members hold veto power.

Past attempts at closer alignment, such as the 2021 discussions, sparked backlash from ICAEW members who feared a “backdoor merger.” I have stated in the past that the leadership was bypassing member approval to push an unpopular agenda. The current proposal’s opaque governance—subject only to “respective governance and approval processes” and regulator nods—suggests a continuation of this top-down approach, eroding trust in ICAEW’s leadership.

5. Dubious Public Interest Claims

The merger’s proponents claim it will “amplify the public interest impact of accountancy.” Yet this lofty rhetoric ignores the reality that ICAEW and CIPFA already collaborate effectively without merging. Joint initiatives, like fast-track dual membership and co-location at ICAEW’s Moorgate headquarters, demonstrate that strategic partnerships can deliver benefits without the risks of full integration.

The public interest argument also glosses over potential conflicts. Public-sector accountancy, CIPFA’s domain, often involves navigating government policies and local authority budgets, which can clash with the private-sector priorities of ICAEW members. A merged entity risks being pulled in opposing directions, weakening its ability to advocate effectively for either group. ICAEW’s recent policy influence, such as its Business Confidence Monitor or input on the Employment Rights Bill, shows it can serve the public interest without diluting its private-sector focus.

6. Historical Failures and Member Resistance

This is not the first time ICAEW and CIPFA have flirted with closer ties, and history offers a cautionary tale. 

In 2005 the ICAEW spunked £1.4M of members' fees up the wall on the ir failed merger campaign.

In 2021, talks of a potential merger faced fierce opposition from ICAEW members, who saw it as a threat to their qualification’s integrity. The proposal fell short of approval, with critics arguing it would “water down” the ACA. The current Heads of Terms agreement, signed just two years after a joint declaration in 2023, feels like a rehash of a rejected idea, repackaged to avoid member scrutiny.

The persistent push for alignment despite member resistance raises questions about leadership’s motives. Is this about genuine member benefit, or a legacy project for executives like Vallance and CIPFA’s Owen Mapley, who both hold dual memberships to “underscore strategic alignment”? Members deserve clarity on why leadership is doubling down on a path repeatedly met with scepticism.

7. Weak Strategic Rationale in a Competitive Landscape

The accountancy profession faces global challenges—automation, AI, and regulatory shifts—that demand focused leadership. Merging with CIPFA distracts from these priorities and offers no clear competitive advantage. ICAEW’s global reach, with members in 147 countries, dwarfs CIPFA’s UK-centric public-sector focus. A merger risks tying ICAEW to a smaller, less dynamic partner, limiting its agility in a fast-evolving industry.

Competitors like ACCA and CIMA are not pursuing similar mergers, instead investing in digital transformation and global expansion. ICAEW’s resources would be better spent enhancing its own offerings—such as AI training or sustainability certifications—than integrating a body with limited international relevance. The claim that the merger will “strengthen the profession” ignores the reality that ICAEW’s strength lies in its independence and adaptability, not in tying itself to CIPFA’s niche.

Conclusion: A Betrayal of ICAEW Members

The proposed merger with CIPFA is a poorly conceived plan that threatens to erode the ICAEW’s brand, burden its members with costs and distractions, and sideline their voices in a pivotal decision. The vague promises of “enhanced services” and “public interest” fail to justify the risks of diluting the ACA’s prestige, misaligning professional priorities, and entangling ICAEW in a costly, complex integration. Members deserve better than a leadership that prioritises theoretical synergies over their practical needs.

ICAEW must abandon this misguided proposal and refocus on what truly matters: defending the ACA’s global reputation, investing in member-relevant services, and navigating the profession’s future with agility. Anything less is a betrayal of the trust placed in the institute by its 150,000 members. If leadership persists, members must demand a vote to halt this merger before it inflicts lasting damage. 

The Merger That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Amazed that, based on the importance of a two-thirds majority vote requirement of both ICAEW and CIPFA members, the latest announcement has been made. A merger in all but name, and apparently without a vote. #icaew #cipfa https://t.co/3zauziNp2F

— Kevin Reed (@Goonerreed) September 11, 2023

As Kevin Reed correctly points out, this is a merger in all but name.

Why are the ICAEW and CIPFA so reluctant to use the word "merger"?

The answer is because they know they would have to ask their members to vote on it!

Tax Investigation Insurance

Market leading tax fee protection insurance for businesses, sole traders and individuals. Protect yourself from accountancy fees in the event of an HMRC enquiry.

Having a Solar Protect Tax Investigation Insurance policy at your disposal means that should you be one of the many 1000's of businesses or individuals that are selected by HMRC each year to look into your tax affairs your own accountant (your tax return agent) can get on and defend you robustly.

You have the peace of mind knowing that your accountant's (your tax return agent) fees will be paid by the insurance without any Excess for you to find.

Tax Investigation Insurance is an insurance policy that will fully reimburse your accountant's (your tax return agent) fees up to £100,000 if you are subject to enquiry by or dispute with HMRC.

A Solar Protect policy will enable your accountant (your tax return agent) to:

• Deal with any correspondence from HMRC
• Attend any meeting with HMRC
• Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal
• Having the security of knowing that fees will be met in full will enable your Accountant (your tax return agent) to defend your position robustly

Please click here for details.

CIPFA and ICAEW Fast-track Pathway To Dual Membership - Merger By The Backdoor

 

Today's announcement by CIPFA and the ICAEW of a fast-track pathway to dual membership has raised eyebrows among some in the accountancy profession. Some see it as a positive development, as it will allow accountants to move more freely between the public and private sectors. Others, however, are more sceptical, and believe that it is simply a backdoor to a merger between the two bodies.

There are a number of reasons why this scepticism is justified. First, the two bodies have been working more closely together in recent years. In 2021, they signed a memorandum of understanding to "explore opportunities for closer collaboration". This collaboration has included sharing resources and expertise, and working together on joint initiatives.

Second, the fast-track pathway to dual membership is not the only way that accountants can move between the two bodies. CIPFA members with less than five years' experience can already apply to join ICAEW through the Pathways to Membership programme. And ICAEW members with less than five years' experience can already apply to join CIPFA through the Fast Track Route.

So why did CIPFA and ICAEW feel the need to create a new fast-track pathway? 

One possibility is that they are simply trying to make it easier for accountants to move between the two bodies. However, it is also possible that they are laying the groundwork for a merger which would dilute the ICAEW brand.

Tax Investigation Insurance

Market leading tax fee protection insurance for businesses, sole traders and individuals. Protect yourself from accountancy fees in the event of an HMRC enquiry.

Having a Solar Protect Tax Investigation Insurance policy at your disposal means that should you be one of the many 1000's of businesses or individuals that are selected by HMRC each year to look into your tax affairs your own accountant (your tax return agent) can get on and defend you robustly.

You have the peace of mind knowing that your accountant's (your tax return agent) fees will be paid by the insurance without any Excess for you to find.

Tax Investigation Insurance is an insurance policy that will fully reimburse your accountant's (your tax return agent) fees up to £100,000 if you are subject to enquiry by or dispute with HMRC.

A Solar Protect policy will enable your accountant (your tax return agent) to:

• Deal with any correspondence from HMRC
• Attend any meeting with HMRC
• Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal
• Having the security of knowing that fees will be met in full will enable your Accountant (your tax return agent) to defend your position robustly

Please click here for details.

The Merger That Dare Not Speak Its Name!

 

AccountingWeb note the following about the merger/non merger talks between CIPFA and the ICAEW:

"ICAEW also noted that the outcome of the discussions will be subject to approval within the institutes and by key external stakeholders.

We won’t know the details of the talks until early 2022, when the two bodies will bring forward the formal proposals, but an ICAEW spokesperson told AccountingWEB that "At this stage we do not believe that the nature of the relationship with CIPFA under discussion would require an ICAEW membership vote." 

That to me sounds as though they hope that they won't need membership approval, even though they say it will need approval within the institutes!

Can someone enlighten me as to how the institutes can approve something, if they don't ask the members to vote?

It seems one change will be faster routes to membership:

"The Institute can't say whether the closer relationship would mean a fast-tracked entry into either membership except, "We envisage any closer working would bring benefits to both ICAEW and CIPFA members. However, at this stage, it is too early to say what implications it may have on our Pathways to Membership scheme."

While the word ‘merger’ wasn’t mentioned in the press release, Ken Frost, who was a vocal opponent of the merger last time around, believes “this is an attempt at a merger by the backdoor”. 

“The fact members will have to vote on this cooperation validates that view,” he told AccountingWEB. “Suffice to say the arguments against the merger, that I put forward on my site in 2004, are still valid.

However, an ICAEW spokesperson confirmed to AccountingWEB that "a merger is definitely not the starting point for our current discussions".

"We are exploring various options, which go beyond any past relationship with CIPFA, and any outcome to these discussions will be subject to approval within the Institutes, as appropriate and necessary under their respective governance requirements, and by key external stakeholders including the UK Government, the Privy Council and regulators."

To my view, based on what the ICAEW have said, this is a merger that dare not speak its name - lest the members be required to vote on it!

Tax Investigation Insurance

Having a Solar Protect Tax Investigation Insurance policy at your disposal means that should you be one of the many 1000's of businesses or individuals that are selected by HMRC each year to look into your tax affairs your own accountant (your tax return agent) can get on and defend you robustly.

You have the peace of mind knowing that your accountant's (your tax return agent) fees will be paid by the insurance without any Excess for you to find.

Tax Investigation Insurance is an insurance policy that will fully reimburse your accountants (your tax return agent) fees up to £100,000 if you are subject to enquiry by or dispute with HMRC.

A Solar Protect policy will enable your Accountant (your tax return agent) to:

• Deal with any correspondence from HMRC
• Attend any meeting with HMRC
• Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal
• Having the security of knowing that fees will be met in full will enable your Accountant (your tax return agent) to defend your position robustly

Please click here for details.

Merger By The Backdoor?

 

‘@CIPFA and @ICAEW discuss potential for closer working’ … no sign of the ‘m’ word in the press release - but I thought the pair had a strategic partnership post-failed merger anyway? @ken_frost

— Kevin Reed (@Goonerreed) December 8, 2021

Don't you dare! 

Here is the text of the press release, it is clear that they are proposing a merger!

08 December 2021 PRESS RELEASE: 

CIPFA and ICAEW discuss potential for closer working

Professional chartered accountancy bodies, CIPFA and ICAEW, have announced that they are in talks to explore the potential of closer working.

The vision driving the discussions would see CIPFA and ICAEW combining their strengths and resources to better equip them to serve the public interest across all areas of economic activity, including the enterprise, public and third sectors.

In a joint statement, CIPFA Chief Executive Rob Whiteman and ICAEW Chief Executive Michael Izza said:

“We believe there is significant strategic benefit in our two bodies working more closely in the future and our discussions will examine ways of achieving that.”

CIPFA and ICAEW will now conduct further discussions with the aim of bringing forward proposals in 2022.

Any outcome to these discussions will be subject to approval within the Institutes, as appropriate and necessary under their respective governance requirements, and by key external stakeholders including the UK Government, the Privy Council and other regulators.

NOTES TO EDITOR:

About ICAEW

There are more than 1.8m chartered accountants and students around the world and 186,500 of them are members and students of ICAEW. They are talented, ethical and committed professionals, which is why all of the top 100 Global Brands employ chartered accountants.

ICAEW promotes inclusivity, diversity and fairness. We attract talented individuals into the profession and give them the skills and values they need to build resilient businesses, economies and societies, while ensuring our planet’s resources are managed sustainably.

Founded in 1880, we have a long history of serving the public interest and we continue to work with governments, regulators and business leaders around the world. And, as an improvement regulator, we supervise and monitor over 12,000 firms, holding them, and all ICAEW members and students, to the highest standards of professional competency and conduct.

ICAEW is proud to be part of Chartered Accountants Worldwide, a global network of 750,000 members across 190 countries, which promotes the expertise and skills of chartered accountants on a global basis.

We believe that chartered accountancy can be a force for positive change. By sharing our insight, expertise and understanding we can help to create strong economies and a sustainable future for all.

*Source: CAW, 2020 – Interbrand, Best Global Brands 2019

For more information please contact the CIPFA press office on +44 20 7543 5885 or email mark.davey@cipfa.org, or the ICAEW media office on 07918 767 822 or email media.office@icaew.com

About CIPFA

CIPFA, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, is the professional body for people in public finance. CIPFA shows the way in public finance globally, standing up for sound public financial management and good governance around the world as the leading commentator on managing and accounting for public money.

Tax Investigation Insurance

Having a Solar Protect Tax Investigation Insurance policy at your disposal means that should you be one of the many 1000's of businesses or individuals that are selected by HMRC each year to look into your tax affairs your own accountant (your tax return agent) can get on and defend you robustly.

You have the peace of mind knowing that your accountant's (your tax return agent) fees will be paid by the insurance without any Excess for you to find.

Tax Investigation Insurance is an insurance policy that will fully reimburse your accountants (your tax return agent) fees up to £100,000 if you are subject to enquiry by or dispute with HMRC.

A Solar Protect policy will enable your Accountant (your tax return agent) to:

• Deal with any correspondence from HMRC
• Attend any meeting with HMRC
• Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal
• Having the security of knowing that fees will be met in full will enable your Accountant (your tax return agent) to defend your position robustly

Please click here for details.

CIMA Explores Routes To Membership With ICAS and CIPFA

AccountancyAge reports that CIMA is in discussion with ICAS and CIPFA about offering routes to CIMA membership and the CGMA designation.

The institute said it will discuss how it can co-operate with CIPFA to strengthen public sector financial management. CIMA will also discuss routes for senior members of ICAS as well as other ways in which they can work together for the benefit of their members and the profession, it said.

The Emperor's New Clothes

As loyal readers know, I have often likened the ICAEW to a Victorian trading association (given its overpopulated council and the absurdly out of date rules for standing for election to council etc).

Yesterday the ICAEW and its member subsidised media organ economia managed to raise the bar on "Victoriana", with regard to a prize offered for completing a survey about the economia app.

The prize in question was a bespoke suit (up to the value of £1K) crafted by a London based tailors. So far so good, except that as Elaine Clark (British Accountancy Awards winner 2014) pointed out the tailors only make suits for men!

Errm, does the ICAEW not realise there are women accountants?

When Elaine raised the issue on Facebook and Twitter with economia/ICAEW, she was told that the tailors would make a suit for a woman (except that when she called the tailors, they said they don't make women's suits).

Economia then dug itself further into the hole of its own creation by calling Elaine, and asking her to remove her comments from Twitter etc.

I dare say some face saving amendment to the prize rules will now be made. However, the damage is done.

Once a brand is damaged it is very hard to undo that damage. The ICAEW should have learned that lesson a few years ago, when they tried to merge with Cipfa!

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.

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."

Spinning The Myth

I see on page 98 of January's Accountancy that Clive Parritt (ICAEW Vice President) is still spinning the myth (first espoused by Anstee - "Mr Anstee said the two-thirds voting threshold had allowed 'the minority to hold back the majority' and it was 'not beyond the bounds of possibility' the institute would ask its 127,000 members to amend the constitution to lower the barrier.") that the majority of ICAEW members voted in favour of a merger with CIPFA in 2005.

Parritt is quoted:

"...within a members' organisation, a small but determined minority can sometimes frustrate the majority."

Clearly time has dimmed the ICAEW's memory, only 29% of the ICAEW membership voted in favour of the merger.

As I noted at the time, 29% is not a majority!

Which part of the word "No" don't the ICAEW understand?

EC Books Failed For 13th Year Running

Accountancy Age reports that the European Court of Auditors has refused to sign off the European Commission's books for the 13th year in a row, citing a "lack of supervision" and "irregularities" in its accounts.

The audit did not unearth any major fraud case. However, it noted that some of the EU's farm subsidies and aid for development of poor regions had/may have gone to ineligible people.

Quote:

"The most frequent errors were claims for illegible expenditure and failure to carry out tender procedures as well as a lack of evidence to support the calculation of ... costs involved."

This humiliation could not come at a worse time for the EC.

Marta Andreasen, the former chief accountant of the European Commission, has said she is up against a "mafia" in the Commission whose aim it is to frighten off whistleblowers.

Andreasen lost her appeal against her dismissal by the EC last week, but that said she plans to appeal that judgment too.

Andreasen was suspended by the Commission in 2002, and was later sacked after exposing failures and weaknesses in accounting procedures.

As if by strange coincidence the ICAEW has invited Siim Kallas (Vice President of the EC in charge of administration, audit and anti fraud) to address a meeting at the ICAEW on 26th November.

The meeting is being organised by the ICAEW (co hosted by CIPFA) to promote "improved understanding of the Commission's accounting and auditing process".

The meeting also aims to:

• Consider objectively the progress made by the Commission in reforming internal accounting and auditing process



• Elicit an exchange of views on how public and private organisations deal with qualified accounts

It might prove to be an "interesting" event!

Given the ICAEW's current predilection for globalisation and co-operation with international professional bodies (despite an internal structure of governance that resembles a Victorian trading association) now would be a good time for the ICAEW to sally forth into Europe, and offer to train those in the EC who hold the purse strings, and have responsibility for spending our money, in the basics of accounting and financial reporting.

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.

Merger Most Foul

Guest blog article on Accounting Web - Merger Most Foul

ICAEW Strategic Partnership With CIPFA

I am advised by an impeccable source that tomorrow the ICAEW and CIPFA will issue a press release concerning a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that has been signed by the two bodies.

The subject of that MOU is a proposal for a "Strategic Partnership" between the two bodies.

Seemingly various committees etc will be set up, some of which will be led by CIPFA, that will determine the methodology for forming the joint policy of the two bodies.

It would seem that this is a merger by the back door, and that the ICAEW has ridden roughshod over the wishes of the membership. Somewhat surprisingly this comes in the midst of the ICAEW advertising campaign that proudly trumpets that the ICAEW qualification is the best bar none.

How contradictory is that?

It also contradicts Izza's recent interview, in which he made clear that the merger was off the agenda for the time being.

It would appear that the "leadership" of the ICAEW has decided to ignore the views of the members who pay the salaries of the "leadership" and the expenses of council.

How very foolish of them!

A Competitive Advantage?

The ICAEW launched its new advertising campaign this month.

The campaign underlines the value of chartered accountants to business for employers, training organisations and potential trainees.

The headlines used in the campaign, 'A Cut Above' and 'A Competitive Advantage', emphasise (in the words of the ICAEW) the benefits that the ACA qualification provides as a benchmark of the highest professional and ethical standards.

Does this mean that the ICAEW have finally accepted the argument that I have been making on this site, for almost three years, that a merger with a non CA body would dilute the brand?

It would seem that they have accepted that argument.

Otherwise, were they to try to foolishly push another merger attempt with eg CIPFA or CIMA, the words of their own advertising campaign would be thrown back at them.

The Confidential Plan

You may recall that last November I wrote about rumours that the ICAEW were considering merging with the Institute of Financial Accountants (IFA).

It seems that these rumours had some substance to them.

I understand that in July 2005 there was a report to the members of council of IFA from Michael O'Brien Chairman of IFA, and in November 2005 there was a confidential report to IFA Council members about a meeting between Michael O'Brien, J Malcolm Dean (CEO of IFA), Eric Anstee (CEO of ICAEW) and Les Smith (Head of the Executive Office of ICAEW).

The subject of these two reports?

Progress on discussions on collaboration between the ICAEW, IFA and the International Association of Bookkeepers (IAB).

Seemingly IFA and IAB would agree to affiliate to the ICAEW (to be renamed ICA - post merger with CIPFA). IFA and IAB would then become subsidiaries of the ICAEW, and agree to a common management with the ICAEW.

IFA and IAB would morph into one organisation which would affiliate to the ICAEW. However, there would be two routes to membership (IFA and IAB) and a new class of membership of IFA "Bookkeeper".

The two brands within the new IFA would be controlled by the newly formed ICA council. The November report emphasises that the two brands were seen as "routes", or "qualifications", to membership of the one overarching organisation - the ICA and its affiliate IFA.

It is spelt out that:

"a student can qualify as a bookkeeper via IAB, and thus enter membership of the IFA, and can continue to increase their skills, experience and qualifications to the point at which they can become a full audit member of the ICA."

IFA would have acted as a "feeder body" for the ICAEW, it also seems that IFA/IAB would have pressed for IFA qualifications to be granted exemption for fast track entry to ICA.

All IFA and IAB staff would also have been offered a job within ICA.

I wonder when the ICAEW council were going to tell the membership of the ICAEW about this plan?

Needless to say, this is all past history now. The best laid plans of mice and men etc.

After all, there is no way that the ICAEW would try to foist another merger on its long suffering membership.

Is there?

Absent Minded Anstee

The ICAEW has announced that new group will be formed to support over 8,000 of its members who work, or have an interest, in the public sector.

Seemingly the ICAEW will pay CIPFA to provide these services. Eric Anstee is quoted by Accountancy Age as bemoaning the fact that if the merger had gone ahead:

"we would have kept the qualification separate and made cost savings".

In other words, he is blaming the failed merger for the costs of this project.

The trouble with this argument, is that it conveniently ignores the £1.42M of our money that the ICAEW bunker wasted on the failed merger attempt.

Funny he forgot that!

A Bold Prediction

Michael Cleary, the head of Grant Thornton, has made a bold call for unification of all six UK professional accounting bodies in a speech delivered to the Institute of Financial Accountants.

Cleary said that it is a "nonsense" for Britain to have more than six professional organisations.

He went on to predict that within a decade all the institutes will combine to form one nationwide institute.

Cairn Energy chairman Norman Murray, who is president of the Scottish institute (ICAS), disagrees:

"We have always said that consolidation is not inevitable.

To demonstrate to our members that merging would be in their interests and in the public interest, we need to show that we can work together closely with other institutes first and foremost.

At the moment we see no need to merge."

The ICAEW president, Ian Morris, also spoke up about co-operation when he visited Edinburgh to address the 1300 members of the English institute who work in Scotland.

Quote:

"Our relationship with ICAS is one of partnership.

I value the long-standing and constructive working relationship that exists between (us)."

I agree that a merger with ICAS would be beneficial for both bodies, if the membership can be persuaded. However, last year's appalling public relations disaster wrt the name change foisted on the ICAEW members by the ICAEW leadership has not done the ICAEW's reputation in Scotland any favours.

Ian Morris is right to say that we should value a long standing and constructive relationship with ICAS. Unfortunately, last year the leadership of the ICAEW did its very best to destroy the relationship.

As regards Michael Cleary's desire to merge all bodies, a merger should only be sought between similar bodies of equal standing in respect of qualifications and prestige. ICAS and ICAEW are two such bodies; CIPFA, CIMA et al are not.

That is why the merger with CIPFA failed last year, until the leadership of the ICAEW get that message we will not be able to move forward and engage in constructive dialogue with ICAS.

Consolidation Dead For Five Years

The consolidation of UK accounting institutes is a dead issue for the next five years, according to the new president of CIPFA Caroline Gardner.

I wonder if the ICAEW agree with this view?