Ernst & Young will take ICAEW students again, having abandoned the ICAEW at the turn of the century in favour of ICAS.
However, Ernst & Young will continue to use ICAS.
Showing posts with label training. Show all posts
Showing posts with label training. Show all posts
Friday, October 09, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Madden Leaves
Accountancy Age reports that Dr Raymond Madden, executive director for learning and professional development of the ICAEW, is leaving his post this week without warning.
His duties have been taken on by Mark Protherough, director of learning and professional development at the institute.
The sudden departure was, seemingly, unexpected.
His duties have been taken on by Mark Protherough, director of learning and professional development at the institute.
The sudden departure was, seemingly, unexpected.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
CA Qualification To Be Offered Outside The UK
ICAS is to offer its CA Qualification outside the UK for the first time. ICAS will offer students in Luxembourg the CA course.
ICAS Chief Executive, Anton Colella said:
"We are breaking new ground by taking the CA qualification outside the UK and onto the continent.
We are responding to clear employer demand for our qualification, which is regarded by many as the 'gold standard' in accountancy training. CAs work successfully in a global business environment – so it made sense to offer business outside the UK the chance to train the leaders of the future through our CA programme."
John Li, Managing Partner, KPMG in Luxembourg said:
"We welcome this excellent initiative from ICAS... We have found that the CA is admirably equipped to satisfy these and other demands from our clients and KPMG are therefore delighted to be at the forefront of supporting this initiative."
Why doesn't the ICAEW opt for in house training, instead of farming it out to third parties?
The ICAEW could then offer its qualification globally, and earn money for doing so, without diluting the brand.
ICAS Chief Executive, Anton Colella said:
"We are breaking new ground by taking the CA qualification outside the UK and onto the continent.
We are responding to clear employer demand for our qualification, which is regarded by many as the 'gold standard' in accountancy training. CAs work successfully in a global business environment – so it made sense to offer business outside the UK the chance to train the leaders of the future through our CA programme."
John Li, Managing Partner, KPMG in Luxembourg said:
"We welcome this excellent initiative from ICAS... We have found that the CA is admirably equipped to satisfy these and other demands from our clients and KPMG are therefore delighted to be at the forefront of supporting this initiative."
Why doesn't the ICAEW opt for in house training, instead of farming it out to third parties?
The ICAEW could then offer its qualification globally, and earn money for doing so, without diluting the brand.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
The Numbers Game
It was reported last week that domestic ICAEW member numbers have all but stood still over the last year.
The Professional Oversight Board's recent survey, Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession, shows that domestic member numbers for the ICAEW grew by a mere 350 over the last 12 months or 0.3%.
However, ACCA membership rose from 56,837 to 59,059 over the same period, and CIMA grew from 51,386 to 53,697; growth rates of 3.9% and 4.4% respectively.
ACCA also trounces the ICAEW in terms of its age profile, with 70% of members under 45 years old, whilst the ICAEW and ICAS both have around 50% over 45 years old.
As we know, the ICAEW preferred method of addressing this stagnation in membership has been that of merging with other bodies. This method, because it dilutes the brand value of the qualification, was rejected by the membership last year.
However, I have been discussing with Dr Jeff Wooller (founder of the Ginger Group - not ICAEW approved) another solution.
We believe that we need to offer a solution which addresses both the needs of the market, and maintains the brand image of the ACA and FCA qualifications.
The ICAEW needs to offer the market what it wants, namely a tiered membership pitched at different levels. We should offer two additional qualifications, each with its own set of designatory letters:
However, we would first need to find out from leading ICAEW members, in business rather than in practice, what they would want from such qualifications. We believe that the ICAEW Faculties would be ideal vehicles for such research.
It will be interesting to see the reactions from the ICAEW competitors to our proposal, an attack would indicate that we have a winning proposal.
The Professional Oversight Board's recent survey, Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession, shows that domestic member numbers for the ICAEW grew by a mere 350 over the last 12 months or 0.3%.
However, ACCA membership rose from 56,837 to 59,059 over the same period, and CIMA grew from 51,386 to 53,697; growth rates of 3.9% and 4.4% respectively.
ACCA also trounces the ICAEW in terms of its age profile, with 70% of members under 45 years old, whilst the ICAEW and ICAS both have around 50% over 45 years old.
As we know, the ICAEW preferred method of addressing this stagnation in membership has been that of merging with other bodies. This method, because it dilutes the brand value of the qualification, was rejected by the membership last year.
However, I have been discussing with Dr Jeff Wooller (founder of the Ginger Group - not ICAEW approved) another solution.
We believe that we need to offer a solution which addresses both the needs of the market, and maintains the brand image of the ACA and FCA qualifications.
The ICAEW needs to offer the market what it wants, namely a tiered membership pitched at different levels. We should offer two additional qualifications, each with its own set of designatory letters:
- An accounting technician qualification, which would be very popular overseas and rival the CAT qualification of ACCA.
- A non practising qualification, at a higher level than technician, for those who do not wish to endure a training contract. This again would be very popular overseas, and would compete directly with the CAT of the ACCA. It would also be a cheaper and more practical alternative than MBA courses.
However, we would first need to find out from leading ICAEW members, in business rather than in practice, what they would want from such qualifications. We believe that the ICAEW Faculties would be ideal vehicles for such research.
It will be interesting to see the reactions from the ICAEW competitors to our proposal, an attack would indicate that we have a winning proposal.
Friday, June 02, 2006
A Confused Message
There seems to be some confusion as regards the tendering process used by the ICAEW, in relation to the Russian and Chinese training contracts that caused the implosion of Graham Durgan's bid to become President and the ongoing media relations debacle.
Accountancy (June 2006 page 5) state:
"The ICAEW says the work was awarded on an 'open tender' basis..."
Yet an article (Misrepresentation and Shabbiness) was posted on this site (18 May), which Accountancy read, that stated:
"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."
Additionally, Dr Jeff Wooller, wrote in the comment section:
"The Institute of Professional Financial Managers was not asked to pitch. We have a good reputation for courses in Eastern Europe and our own website in Russian."
So, is that open tendering or not? It doesn't sound very open to me.
I have sent this to Accountancy asking them to clarify their report.
Accountancy (June 2006 page 5) state:
"The ICAEW says the work was awarded on an 'open tender' basis..."
Yet an article (Misrepresentation and Shabbiness) was posted on this site (18 May), which Accountancy read, that stated:
"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."
Additionally, Dr Jeff Wooller, wrote in the comment section:
"The Institute of Professional Financial Managers was not asked to pitch. We have a good reputation for courses in Eastern Europe and our own website in Russian."
So, is that open tendering or not? It doesn't sound very open to me.
I have sent this to Accountancy asking them to clarify their report.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Durgan Not to Stand - Confirmed
The Independent confirm's that Graham Durgan will be stepping aside as President of the ICAEW, as noted here yesterday.
The article notes that the ICAEW maintain that Durgan's interest in EWI, the training company awarded the Chinese and Russian contracts, were openly declared throughout the tender process.
However, what the ICAEW failed to do was hold an open tendering process allowing all companies to apply for the contracts.
That is why they are in this mess. Unfortunately, the ICAEW don't see it this way and are blaming the press for this.
The article notes that the ICAEW maintain that Durgan's interest in EWI, the training company awarded the Chinese and Russian contracts, were openly declared throughout the tender process.
However, what the ICAEW failed to do was hold an open tendering process allowing all companies to apply for the contracts.
That is why they are in this mess. Unfortunately, the ICAEW don't see it this way and are blaming the press for this.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Durgan Not to Stand
It is reported that Graham Durgan will not stand for Presidency of the ICAEW next week.
This has yet to be confirmed by the ICAEW.
Had the ICAEW followed an open tendering process for the training contracts for the Chinese and Russian contracts, much of this fuss would have been avoided and Durgan might still have been able to stand for President.
The ICAEW needs to practice what it preaches when it comes to best business practice.
Assuming that Durgan is stepping aside, he has saved the ICAEW a large amount of embarassment; I wonder if others will follow his example?
This has yet to be confirmed by the ICAEW.
Had the ICAEW followed an open tendering process for the training contracts for the Chinese and Russian contracts, much of this fuss would have been avoided and Durgan might still have been able to stand for President.
The ICAEW needs to practice what it preaches when it comes to best business practice.
Assuming that Durgan is stepping aside, he has saved the ICAEW a large amount of embarassment; I wonder if others will follow his example?
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.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
The ICAEW Annual Review
The ICAEW published its annual review for 2005 on May 8.
In it Eric Anstee talks about formalising the working relationship with CIPFA, he goes on to say:
"So we are exploring options for a closer working relationship with CIPFA on policy issues such as pensions as well as offering member and student benefits in learning and professional development.
We remain committed to the principle of consolidation of the UK profession in the long term."
It is clear that the ICAEW is determined to try to push the merger through again. Lessons have not been learned.
The review also notes, as one of the ICAEW's achievements in 2005, the restructuring of the ACA and training framework. This is patently untrue, or let me say a gross exaggeration, the new syllabus which was due to be launched in 2006 was put back to 2007 becuase of internal problems within the ICAEW (see Chaos at The ICAEW).
Anstee goes on to say:
"We have begun exploring routes to qualification to increase access to the profession, setting an ambitious target of doubling student numbers by 2010.
Equally, we have looked at wider avenues of increasing membership, for example, with the membership and co-operation agreement with the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants announced in 2004.
We are continuing to build such partnerships with premier bodies in other key markets."
I have made this point before, but it seems worthwhile making again, the size of the ICAEW is not the issue; it is the quality of the membership that is crucial to maintaining our brand value.
By opening the doors to other bodies, who do not have identical training methods or exam systems, the ICAEW are simply diluting our brand.
The ICAEW are seeking a 4% increase in subscriptions, given that they wasted over £1.4 million last year on the failed merger vote and that they are clearly seeking to try the same again in 2007, I have voted against the rise.
In it Eric Anstee talks about formalising the working relationship with CIPFA, he goes on to say:
"So we are exploring options for a closer working relationship with CIPFA on policy issues such as pensions as well as offering member and student benefits in learning and professional development.
We remain committed to the principle of consolidation of the UK profession in the long term."
It is clear that the ICAEW is determined to try to push the merger through again. Lessons have not been learned.
The review also notes, as one of the ICAEW's achievements in 2005, the restructuring of the ACA and training framework. This is patently untrue, or let me say a gross exaggeration, the new syllabus which was due to be launched in 2006 was put back to 2007 becuase of internal problems within the ICAEW (see Chaos at The ICAEW).
Anstee goes on to say:
"We have begun exploring routes to qualification to increase access to the profession, setting an ambitious target of doubling student numbers by 2010.
Equally, we have looked at wider avenues of increasing membership, for example, with the membership and co-operation agreement with the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants announced in 2004.
We are continuing to build such partnerships with premier bodies in other key markets."
I have made this point before, but it seems worthwhile making again, the size of the ICAEW is not the issue; it is the quality of the membership that is crucial to maintaining our brand value.
By opening the doors to other bodies, who do not have identical training methods or exam systems, the ICAEW are simply diluting our brand.
The ICAEW are seeking a 4% increase in subscriptions, given that they wasted over £1.4 million last year on the failed merger vote and that they are clearly seeking to try the same again in 2007, I have voted against the rise.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
ACCA Steals A March On The ICAEW
The ACCA have announced that prospective ACCA's will be required to sit a new ethics exam.
The subject will be examined for the first time in December 2007.
The ethics module will comprise an exam on ethics, tailored practical experience and an online module presenting students with real-life ethical dilemmas.
Clare Minchington, managing director of education, training and development at ACCA, is quoted by Accountancy Age as saying:
"After the accounting scandals of recent years, it's vital for the accountants and financial professionals of tomorrow to be equipped to operate in an industry subject to such close scrutiny.
Our new qualification prepares the way for the professional accountant and I am especially delighted with the online ethics module because it's the first of its kind."
I couldn't agree more.
It is worthwhile remembering that the ICAEW were to introduce an ethics paper in 2006, and would have been able to show that they were the leading institute in the field of ethics and a leader of the profession.
Yet as I can personally attest to, I was asked to an interview for the position of Ethics examiner, the ICAEW failed in their attempt to manage this and have ended up having to postpone their revamped syllabus.
See "Chaos At The ICAEW" for the background on this.
It is sad to say, but the leadership of the ICAEW are failing the membership and the profession.
It is time for a radical change.
Step one, reduce ths size of council to no more than 12.
The subject will be examined for the first time in December 2007.
The ethics module will comprise an exam on ethics, tailored practical experience and an online module presenting students with real-life ethical dilemmas.
Clare Minchington, managing director of education, training and development at ACCA, is quoted by Accountancy Age as saying:
"After the accounting scandals of recent years, it's vital for the accountants and financial professionals of tomorrow to be equipped to operate in an industry subject to such close scrutiny.
Our new qualification prepares the way for the professional accountant and I am especially delighted with the online ethics module because it's the first of its kind."
I couldn't agree more.
It is worthwhile remembering that the ICAEW were to introduce an ethics paper in 2006, and would have been able to show that they were the leading institute in the field of ethics and a leader of the profession.
Yet as I can personally attest to, I was asked to an interview for the position of Ethics examiner, the ICAEW failed in their attempt to manage this and have ended up having to postpone their revamped syllabus.
See "Chaos At The ICAEW" for the background on this.
It is sad to say, but the leadership of the ICAEW are failing the membership and the profession.
It is time for a radical change.
Step one, reduce ths size of council to no more than 12.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Chaos At The ICAEW
I read with interest today the story in Accountancy Age, concerning the delay in the new ICAEW syllabus.
The new syllabus was meant to have been implemented in 2006, yet will now be postponed until 2007.
The rumour, printed in Accountancy Age, is that the delay is due to staff turnover; rather than a coherent strategy.
The story is of particular interest to me because in September the ICAEW advertised for professionals, interested in acting as examiners for the new syllabus; the advertisement noted that it would go live in 2006. The work would be for a few days a year.
There were to be 12 modules; one of which, Ethics (a new subject), I applied for.
I take a particular interest in ethics and corporate governance, and feel that these areas in many companies need some serious attention. Ethics is something that should be of great importance to the ICAEW as well:
I had a one to one 20 minute interview, then a 45 minute panel interview. Seemingly I was the only person to specify Ethics as my first/only choice of paper.
I was told that I would hear by the end of the month, and that if chosen I would have to make a decision quickly; as work on the paper would start in November.
I received an email on the 1st of November which stated that since the interviews the ICAEW had rethought the approach to Ethics, and that there may well not be an assessment of the kind envisaged.
As such no Ethics exam team would be appointed.
I found the change of heart, in such a short space of time, to be surprising and odd at the time. Hardly indicative of a well thought through strategy, given the time and money spent in preparing the syllabus, advertising and interviewing candidates.
Changing the syllabus within the space of a fortnight, seemed to me as though the ICAEW was making up policy as it went along.
Clearly, in the light of today's report, there is chaos within the ICAEW. The result being that not only are the current members being let down, but those who are studying for qualification, and the industries in which they hope to serve, are being let down as well.
This is a very sorry state of affairs indeed.
The new syllabus was meant to have been implemented in 2006, yet will now be postponed until 2007.
The rumour, printed in Accountancy Age, is that the delay is due to staff turnover; rather than a coherent strategy.
The story is of particular interest to me because in September the ICAEW advertised for professionals, interested in acting as examiners for the new syllabus; the advertisement noted that it would go live in 2006. The work would be for a few days a year.
There were to be 12 modules; one of which, Ethics (a new subject), I applied for.
I take a particular interest in ethics and corporate governance, and feel that these areas in many companies need some serious attention. Ethics is something that should be of great importance to the ICAEW as well:
- The ethical image and reputation of the profession has been badly undermined by the media coverage of eg Enron, WorldCom, Andersens etc
- The ICAEW needs to publicly display to the world that it is committed to ethics and integrity
- Including Ethics as a specific subject in the examination syllabus is an ideal method to send a message to the media, and the world, that we take ethics seriously
- Not to include it in the syllabus is an opportunity wasted (to say the least)
I had a one to one 20 minute interview, then a 45 minute panel interview. Seemingly I was the only person to specify Ethics as my first/only choice of paper.
I was told that I would hear by the end of the month, and that if chosen I would have to make a decision quickly; as work on the paper would start in November.
I received an email on the 1st of November which stated that since the interviews the ICAEW had rethought the approach to Ethics, and that there may well not be an assessment of the kind envisaged.
As such no Ethics exam team would be appointed.
I found the change of heart, in such a short space of time, to be surprising and odd at the time. Hardly indicative of a well thought through strategy, given the time and money spent in preparing the syllabus, advertising and interviewing candidates.
Changing the syllabus within the space of a fortnight, seemed to me as though the ICAEW was making up policy as it went along.
Clearly, in the light of today's report, there is chaos within the ICAEW. The result being that not only are the current members being let down, but those who are studying for qualification, and the industries in which they hope to serve, are being let down as well.
This is a very sorry state of affairs indeed.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Letter To Council
For your information I reproduce the full text of a letter sent by Bruce Lawson to all members of the ICAEW council.
"Dear Member of Council,
A miss is as good as a mile – No means No!
So the Institute gambled and lost – just 29% voted for a merger – 15% voted against and 56% don’t care – hardly a recipe for a re-run. Taking the ICAEW cost of £1.42 million, the 37,004 Yes votes cost £38 each.
The No camp, with two websites and less than a £5,000 spend, was successful because ICAEW strategy was inherently wrong. Try again, and with a £38 a head budget for the Nos (£734,000) you might not even get 50% of the vote and become even more embarrassed.
Your Chief Executive compares the vote with a parliamentary mandate – should a 29% vote be permitted to run the country – does the Council want to compare themselves with spinning politicians and the apathy that they expensively create. Hopefully not after the excellent leadership ICAEW has given until recently.
The debate has had the benefit of educating members. I did not know ICAEW had 500 staff whereas ICAS have 140. A lady at the EGM, who spoke eagerly in favour of the merger, was amazed to know there were 95 Council members.
So where next?
Surely the strategy must focus on falling income. Increased regulation, Practice Assurance, CPD requirements, etc. mean members will not fade away as in the past, but stop and resign to save paying expensive subscriptions. We might like to work longer, but will stress levels permit?
A recent Robert Half report shows (AA 27th October) 25% of a 2,232 sample don't want to work past 55. So face it, budget for a 20% fall in income in real terms over the next five years (think of the 1946 baby boomers) and cut your cloth accordingly.
A truly independent panel of ICAEW members with a budget of say £200K – 10% of what has recently been wasted – should review all ICAEW activities with a view to cutting costs and staff by say one-fifth, and Council members by at least half.
Dissident members will (and should) from now on, resist any subscription increase of more than general inflation – say 3% p.a. ICAEW must live within its means – members have to.
We note gratefully that ICAEW "work hard to provide value for money for our members and realize future cost savings" (page 8, Accountancy – November 2005).
ICAEW should concentrate on training, discipline and a dissemination of technical information and advice on ethics. Sponsoring major symposiums in Washington … what utter drivel.
Council should also abandon the collective responsibility secrecy, which MAC have written evidence of existing and find so disturbing. ICAEW must be utterly transparent in its dealings and an unwieldy Council should not be led by the Executive. What was wrong with the previous system anyway?
Your Chief Executive sees the vote as a mandate to continue to discuss consolidation. He and the Council would be wrong to pursue that strategy. Say you were wrong; budget for lower numbers and the inevitable recession. Cut costs and fanciful delusions of grandeur and then maybe you will get 71% of the members, who voted No or don’t care, and perhaps some of the Yes voters, who only reluctantly voted on your side again.
Ignore these warning signs and the Institute could become ungovernable.
On a lighter note, and in football parlance, you lost, the Nos won; accept defeat as graciously as your current President. Both sides knew the rules. Complaining to the referee after the match achieves very little … and what of the manager’s position?..
We shall see what happens next.
"Dear Member of Council,
A miss is as good as a mile – No means No!
So the Institute gambled and lost – just 29% voted for a merger – 15% voted against and 56% don’t care – hardly a recipe for a re-run. Taking the ICAEW cost of £1.42 million, the 37,004 Yes votes cost £38 each.
The No camp, with two websites and less than a £5,000 spend, was successful because ICAEW strategy was inherently wrong. Try again, and with a £38 a head budget for the Nos (£734,000) you might not even get 50% of the vote and become even more embarrassed.
Your Chief Executive compares the vote with a parliamentary mandate – should a 29% vote be permitted to run the country – does the Council want to compare themselves with spinning politicians and the apathy that they expensively create. Hopefully not after the excellent leadership ICAEW has given until recently.
The debate has had the benefit of educating members. I did not know ICAEW had 500 staff whereas ICAS have 140. A lady at the EGM, who spoke eagerly in favour of the merger, was amazed to know there were 95 Council members.
So where next?
Surely the strategy must focus on falling income. Increased regulation, Practice Assurance, CPD requirements, etc. mean members will not fade away as in the past, but stop and resign to save paying expensive subscriptions. We might like to work longer, but will stress levels permit?
A recent Robert Half report shows (AA 27th October) 25% of a 2,232 sample don't want to work past 55. So face it, budget for a 20% fall in income in real terms over the next five years (think of the 1946 baby boomers) and cut your cloth accordingly.
A truly independent panel of ICAEW members with a budget of say £200K – 10% of what has recently been wasted – should review all ICAEW activities with a view to cutting costs and staff by say one-fifth, and Council members by at least half.
Dissident members will (and should) from now on, resist any subscription increase of more than general inflation – say 3% p.a. ICAEW must live within its means – members have to.
We note gratefully that ICAEW "work hard to provide value for money for our members and realize future cost savings" (page 8, Accountancy – November 2005).
ICAEW should concentrate on training, discipline and a dissemination of technical information and advice on ethics. Sponsoring major symposiums in Washington … what utter drivel.
Council should also abandon the collective responsibility secrecy, which MAC have written evidence of existing and find so disturbing. ICAEW must be utterly transparent in its dealings and an unwieldy Council should not be led by the Executive. What was wrong with the previous system anyway?
Your Chief Executive sees the vote as a mandate to continue to discuss consolidation. He and the Council would be wrong to pursue that strategy. Say you were wrong; budget for lower numbers and the inevitable recession. Cut costs and fanciful delusions of grandeur and then maybe you will get 71% of the members, who voted No or don’t care, and perhaps some of the Yes voters, who only reluctantly voted on your side again.
Ignore these warning signs and the Institute could become ungovernable.
On a lighter note, and in football parlance, you lost, the Nos won; accept defeat as graciously as your current President. Both sides knew the rules. Complaining to the referee after the match achieves very little … and what of the manager’s position?..
We shall see what happens next.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
D Day
The deadline for casting your vote on the merger proposal is the 25th of October.
Please remember to vote, and please ensure that you encourage/motivate your fellow ICAEW members to visit this site and to vote against the merger.
The ICAEW need 67% of those who vote to vote in favour, if the motion is to pass.
Remember, as the ICAEW says:
"Our rigorous integrated education and training programme produces chartered accountants, auditors and business advisers, who are valued above all others in practice, industry, commerce and the public sector, in the UK and worldwide.
..The qualification will retain all the features that have made it the premier accountancy qualification in the world"
Let us ensure that our qualification, and brand, retains this premier position.
Thank you.
Ken
Please remember to vote, and please ensure that you encourage/motivate your fellow ICAEW members to visit this site and to vote against the merger.
The ICAEW need 67% of those who vote to vote in favour, if the motion is to pass.
Remember, as the ICAEW says:
"Our rigorous integrated education and training programme produces chartered accountants, auditors and business advisers, who are valued above all others in practice, industry, commerce and the public sector, in the UK and worldwide.
..The qualification will retain all the features that have made it the premier accountancy qualification in the world"
Let us ensure that our qualification, and brand, retains this premier position.
Thank you.
Ken
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
The Webcast
The ICAEW has just released a webcast, outlining their rationale for the takeover of CIPFA, it can be viewed via this link webcast.
I would like to address the issues raised in the webcast:
Increased Influence
The ICAEW state that the merged body will bring about increased influence and provide a stronger voice, with regulatory bodies, for the membership.
However, the proposal to takeover CIPFA will add only another 13500 members to our numbers, that represents a mere 11% of our current membership. An 11% increase in the size of the ICAEW will not dramatically alter the status quo, or increase our standing within the financial community.
Sir John Bourn, Chairman of the Professional Oversight Board for Accountancy and a member of the Financial Reporting Council, is quoted in April’s Accountancy (p 41) as saying:
"existence of different professional bodies servicing either different geographical or technical needs has supported the strength and depth of the UK profession.."
Expanded Expertise
The ICAEW argue that, by including those with expertise in the public services, the takeover of CIPFA will add value to the ICAEW.
At first sight, this may seem to be fair comment; adding another body of people with different skill sets and experiences can, in theory, add value. However, it is not at all clear that the two bodies are compatible.
The private and public sectors are dissimilar, it is doubtful that the combination of CIPFA and ICAEW will give rise to any synergies
Prestige Preserved
The ICAEW claim that they will maintain a dual qualification approach, and that ICAEW and CIPFA designatory letters will remain. We are reassured that the two groups will be equal.
Quote:
"There will be no change to the separate routes to qualification for existing students of the ICAEW and CIPFA. Any future changes to these arrangements will be subject to a special majority of the new Council and only in response to the needs of members and the market."
I am afraid that this promise is no more than a short term "political sop", designed to allay the fears of the membership.
How can both parties be equal, if they have not had the same training?
At some stage the question of designatory letters, and a common training programme will have to be addressed.
To fail to address this issue will leave a two tier membership in place. A two tier membership will be both confusing to the membership, and the outside world, and impractical to administer.
There will have to be one unified brand.
Those that claim that Council will not renege on their promise to maintain the dual qualification approach should read the proposed constitution of the new body.
Quote:
"Any future changes to these arrangements will be subject to a special majority of the new Council and only in response to the needs of members and the market."
I would also remind you that a vote was passed a few years ago, to reduce the membership of Council from approximately 90 to under 40.
Council have ignored that vote, and they will ignore their promise re the dual qualification approach as well.
Enhanced Resources
Much is made of the acquisition by the ICAEW of the CIPFA regional training facilities. If these facilities are really so desperately needed, would it not have been simpler and cheaper to outsource these from a third party rather than to takeover another professional body?
The Name
The ICAEW state that they are already discussing the proposed new name of the new body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, with the Privy Council. Have they forgotten, or are they ignoring, the fact that ICAS have promised to fight this perceived "infringement" of their trademark?
See Ian Robertson’s, President of ICAS, letter in May’s Accountancy (p 22).
This oversight shows that the proposal has not been properly thought through.
Revenue
The ICAEW emphasise the revenue enhancing features of the takeover. Yet if this is one of the key motivations for the takeover, why have the larger ACCA not been invited to join?
I note that the ICAEW are pressing for a 9% rise in subscriptions for 2006, does this need to raise subs not contradict their argument as to the beneficial revenue effects of the merger?
Demographics
I note that up until now the ICAEW has made much of the demographic issues facing us, ie the declining and aging membership; they have stated, when CIMA was also expected to join, that a merger would address these issues.
Now the issue of demographics has been dropped.
Council
The ICAEW propose increasing the size of Council from its current unwieldy level of around 90, to 115.
This proposal is absurd.
I believe that if the ICAEW is to successfully address, and respond to, the challenges facing it in the 21st century then cutting the size of Council should be its number one priority.
"The purpose of Council, as defined in the 2003 accounts, is to consider, review and approve the overall Institute Strategy and Strategic Plan, including the Institute budget. Council scrutinises policies, policy changes and budgets proposed by The Board and the Directorate Boards in support of the Strategy. It also reviews the activities and performance of the Directorate Boards.
It represents, and articulates, the views of members on all these matters and otherwise delegates the powers and authorities conferred on it by the Charter and bye-laws. Council members take decisions in the best interests of the Institute as a whole."
There are currently around 90 or more Council members. This, to my view, is excessive; it is a hindrance to effective and rapid decision making.
I believe that a leaner, more focused, decision making body would best serve the membership in the 21st century.
I propose that the current arrangement, whereby members are elected from 22 regional constituencies, be abolished and replaced with elected representatives from the Lines of Business (LOB) of the membership.
The LOB's would be:
-Tax
-IT
-Finance
-Audit (Practice)
-Audit (Internal)
-Students
-Retired
In order to keep the size of Council manageable, there would be no more than two posts available for each LOB. Thus an elected Council of no more than 14 members would be created.
In my view this would be a significant step forward to making the ICAEW "best in class" in the 21st century.
A motion to reduce the number of Council members to below 40 was raised, and indeed passed, a number of years ago.
Yet it has been ignored by Council!
Questions that need to be addressed
I would like to address the issues raised in the webcast:
Increased Influence
The ICAEW state that the merged body will bring about increased influence and provide a stronger voice, with regulatory bodies, for the membership.
However, the proposal to takeover CIPFA will add only another 13500 members to our numbers, that represents a mere 11% of our current membership. An 11% increase in the size of the ICAEW will not dramatically alter the status quo, or increase our standing within the financial community.
Sir John Bourn, Chairman of the Professional Oversight Board for Accountancy and a member of the Financial Reporting Council, is quoted in April’s Accountancy (p 41) as saying:
"existence of different professional bodies servicing either different geographical or technical needs has supported the strength and depth of the UK profession.."
Expanded Expertise
The ICAEW argue that, by including those with expertise in the public services, the takeover of CIPFA will add value to the ICAEW.
At first sight, this may seem to be fair comment; adding another body of people with different skill sets and experiences can, in theory, add value. However, it is not at all clear that the two bodies are compatible.
The private and public sectors are dissimilar, it is doubtful that the combination of CIPFA and ICAEW will give rise to any synergies
Prestige Preserved
The ICAEW claim that they will maintain a dual qualification approach, and that ICAEW and CIPFA designatory letters will remain. We are reassured that the two groups will be equal.
Quote:
"There will be no change to the separate routes to qualification for existing students of the ICAEW and CIPFA. Any future changes to these arrangements will be subject to a special majority of the new Council and only in response to the needs of members and the market."
I am afraid that this promise is no more than a short term "political sop", designed to allay the fears of the membership.
How can both parties be equal, if they have not had the same training?
At some stage the question of designatory letters, and a common training programme will have to be addressed.
To fail to address this issue will leave a two tier membership in place. A two tier membership will be both confusing to the membership, and the outside world, and impractical to administer.
There will have to be one unified brand.
Those that claim that Council will not renege on their promise to maintain the dual qualification approach should read the proposed constitution of the new body.
Quote:
"Any future changes to these arrangements will be subject to a special majority of the new Council and only in response to the needs of members and the market."
I would also remind you that a vote was passed a few years ago, to reduce the membership of Council from approximately 90 to under 40.
Council have ignored that vote, and they will ignore their promise re the dual qualification approach as well.
Enhanced Resources
Much is made of the acquisition by the ICAEW of the CIPFA regional training facilities. If these facilities are really so desperately needed, would it not have been simpler and cheaper to outsource these from a third party rather than to takeover another professional body?
The Name
The ICAEW state that they are already discussing the proposed new name of the new body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, with the Privy Council. Have they forgotten, or are they ignoring, the fact that ICAS have promised to fight this perceived "infringement" of their trademark?
See Ian Robertson’s, President of ICAS, letter in May’s Accountancy (p 22).
This oversight shows that the proposal has not been properly thought through.
Revenue
The ICAEW emphasise the revenue enhancing features of the takeover. Yet if this is one of the key motivations for the takeover, why have the larger ACCA not been invited to join?
I note that the ICAEW are pressing for a 9% rise in subscriptions for 2006, does this need to raise subs not contradict their argument as to the beneficial revenue effects of the merger?
Demographics
I note that up until now the ICAEW has made much of the demographic issues facing us, ie the declining and aging membership; they have stated, when CIMA was also expected to join, that a merger would address these issues.
Now the issue of demographics has been dropped.
Council
The ICAEW propose increasing the size of Council from its current unwieldy level of around 90, to 115.
This proposal is absurd.
I believe that if the ICAEW is to successfully address, and respond to, the challenges facing it in the 21st century then cutting the size of Council should be its number one priority.
"The purpose of Council, as defined in the 2003 accounts, is to consider, review and approve the overall Institute Strategy and Strategic Plan, including the Institute budget. Council scrutinises policies, policy changes and budgets proposed by The Board and the Directorate Boards in support of the Strategy. It also reviews the activities and performance of the Directorate Boards.
It represents, and articulates, the views of members on all these matters and otherwise delegates the powers and authorities conferred on it by the Charter and bye-laws. Council members take decisions in the best interests of the Institute as a whole."
There are currently around 90 or more Council members. This, to my view, is excessive; it is a hindrance to effective and rapid decision making.
I believe that a leaner, more focused, decision making body would best serve the membership in the 21st century.
I propose that the current arrangement, whereby members are elected from 22 regional constituencies, be abolished and replaced with elected representatives from the Lines of Business (LOB) of the membership.
The LOB's would be:
-Tax
-IT
-Finance
-Audit (Practice)
-Audit (Internal)
-Students
-Retired
In order to keep the size of Council manageable, there would be no more than two posts available for each LOB. Thus an elected Council of no more than 14 members would be created.
In my view this would be a significant step forward to making the ICAEW "best in class" in the 21st century.
A motion to reduce the number of Council members to below 40 was raised, and indeed passed, a number of years ago.
Yet it has been ignored by Council!
Questions that need to be addressed
- Why have ACCA and ICAS not been invited to join the merger?
- How much will the merger cost if it goes ahead?
- How much has been spent so far, eg the free edition of April’s Accountancy, in trying to persuade the members as to the merits of the proposal?
- The ICAEW is meant to represent the interests of its members, yet it is ignoring the membership; why?
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Have We Already Merged?
There is an interesting public difference of opinion being aired on accountingweb, between Jeff Wooller and the ICAEW.
Nothing new there, you may say.
However, the issue that JW raises is relevant to the merger plans.
It seems that the director of training and education, Brain Chiplin, departed in November due to ill health.
Now the odd thing here is that this fact was only made public, when JW raised it in December.
The fact that there is no permanent replacement in the role yet is, according to JW, down to CIMA; who, he alleges, are annoyed at not being consulted over the advertisements for the post.
Now, if JW is correct, this means that CIMA already seem to have a say in ICAEW policy; this despite the fact that the members of the ICAEW have not yet voted against the merger plan.
I would be very pleased to hear from anyone who can confirm, or deny, this story. It is less than satisfactory to find out that we are being "steamrollered" into a merger, by giving outside bodies a say in ICAEW policy.
Nothing new there, you may say.
However, the issue that JW raises is relevant to the merger plans.
It seems that the director of training and education, Brain Chiplin, departed in November due to ill health.
Now the odd thing here is that this fact was only made public, when JW raised it in December.
The fact that there is no permanent replacement in the role yet is, according to JW, down to CIMA; who, he alleges, are annoyed at not being consulted over the advertisements for the post.
Now, if JW is correct, this means that CIMA already seem to have a say in ICAEW policy; this despite the fact that the members of the ICAEW have not yet voted against the merger plan.
I would be very pleased to hear from anyone who can confirm, or deny, this story. It is less than satisfactory to find out that we are being "steamrollered" into a merger, by giving outside bodies a say in ICAEW policy.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Inland Revenue Seal of Approval
The ICAEW website reports the following:
"A number of students at the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are to begin training for the ACA qualification. The students were impressed with the range of careers available to ACAs in both the private and public sector, once they had qualified."
David Swift, Head of the Accountancy Profession at the Inland Revenue, is quoted as saying:
"I believe that this reflects the consistently high regard in which the ICAEW qualification is held amongst graduates.."
Given this vote of confidence by the Inland Revenue in the ACA qualification, I must ask again, why dilute the brand by merging?
"A number of students at the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are to begin training for the ACA qualification. The students were impressed with the range of careers available to ACAs in both the private and public sector, once they had qualified."
David Swift, Head of the Accountancy Profession at the Inland Revenue, is quoted as saying:
"I believe that this reflects the consistently high regard in which the ICAEW qualification is held amongst graduates.."
Given this vote of confidence by the Inland Revenue in the ACA qualification, I must ask again, why dilute the brand by merging?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)