Eric Anstee has made a plea to the Scots, in a recent article in The Herald.
He seems, in a rather indirect manner, to be asking the Scots to come on board with the merger proposals. This, in my view, should have been done before the merger plans were put before the members of the ICAEW.
I see he uses my phrase about "brand dilution". I am pleased that he reads, and takes notice, of what is being said on this site.
That being the case could someone from the ICAEW please respond to the pile of emails that I have sent them, over the past few weeks, asking them about the costs of the pro merger campaign?
Friday, June 03, 2005
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
CIMA Don't Want To Merge
Accountancy Age reported, earlier this month, that both the ICAEW and CIPFA are struggling to gain support for their merger vote in October. Additionally, they are having trouble convincing CIMA about the merits of the plans.
CIMA announced in May that it would still consider joining, if its new proposals were met.
There's the rub!
The sticking points include the higher fees for CIMA members, and concerns about the merged Institute containing an ICAEW dominated charter and council.
Roland Kaye, CIMA president, is quoted as saying that the merger proposals "did not yet recognise the distinctiveness of CIMA".
In other words, CIMA will only merge if they are treated as unique; which of course entirely negates the rationale for the merger.
As noted many times before, this merger proposal is being made up as it goes along.
Council have failed us, it is time that they were removed and restructured.
CIMA announced in May that it would still consider joining, if its new proposals were met.
There's the rub!
The sticking points include the higher fees for CIMA members, and concerns about the merged Institute containing an ICAEW dominated charter and council.
Roland Kaye, CIMA president, is quoted as saying that the merger proposals "did not yet recognise the distinctiveness of CIMA".
In other words, CIMA will only merge if they are treated as unique; which of course entirely negates the rationale for the merger.
As noted many times before, this merger proposal is being made up as it goes along.
Council have failed us, it is time that they were removed and restructured.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
My Webcast
I have recorded a short video outlining my personal views about the ICAEW merger proposal.
You can view a poor quality, in terms of picture/sound, dial up version via this link dial up version ICAEW Video 2MB.
Those of you with a little more patience should click this link for a far better quality version ICAEW Video 10MB.
I also have a very high quality 22MB version, which I can post to you upon request.
You can view a poor quality, in terms of picture/sound, dial up version via this link dial up version ICAEW Video 2MB.
Those of you with a little more patience should click this link for a far better quality version ICAEW Video 10MB.
I also have a very high quality 22MB version, which I can post to you upon request.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Subscription Hike Vote
I hope that people will remember to vote against the 9% hike in subscriptions being foisted on us by Council?
The AGM is on the 7th of June.
The AGM is on the 7th of June.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Subscription Hike
The ICAEW has stated that it wishes to impose a 9% hike in subscriptions for 2006, upon the membership.
They claim that this will go towards the costs of maintaining the quality of the qualification.
Yet they also claim that the merger will bring in extra revenue.
Which claim is to be believed?
Maybe some money could have been saved by not sending out free editions of Accountancy in April?
I have written to the ICAEW four times, asking them how much this little PR stunt cost, yet they have not replied.
May I ask for your help in eliciting a response from them?
Please write to them asking for a figure, there is a link in the menu bar of this site to enable you to do this via email.
Thanks.
They claim that this will go towards the costs of maintaining the quality of the qualification.
Yet they also claim that the merger will bring in extra revenue.
Which claim is to be believed?
Maybe some money could have been saved by not sending out free editions of Accountancy in April?
I have written to the ICAEW four times, asking them how much this little PR stunt cost, yet they have not replied.
May I ask for your help in eliciting a response from them?
Please write to them asking for a figure, there is a link in the menu bar of this site to enable you to do this via email.
Thanks.
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, April 28, 2005
CIMA Still Not Convinced
Roland Kaye, President of CIMA, is quoted as saying that currently an agreement has "not been reached" that meets CIMA's "requirements" for a "tri-partite consolidation".
Quote:
"Discussions continue with the aim of agreeing a joint way forward. At the March meeting of CIMA's council, a set of working principles was agreed in order that a successful consolidation could be achieved."
Could someone tell me what these requirements are?
It will be useful to know what CIMA thinks is wrong with the merger plans.
Quote:
"Discussions continue with the aim of agreeing a joint way forward. At the March meeting of CIMA's council, a set of working principles was agreed in order that a successful consolidation could be achieved."
Could someone tell me what these requirements are?
It will be useful to know what CIMA thinks is wrong with the merger plans.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Article in eFinancial Careers
There is an article about the merger on the eFinancial Careers website.
It mentions this site, and is skeptical about the rationale for the merger and the likelihood of it succeeding.
It mentions this site, and is skeptical about the rationale for the merger and the likelihood of it succeeding.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The Silence Is Deafening
I emailed the ICAEW on the 10th of April asking them how much the free editions of Accountancy, that we paid for, cost us.
I have yet to receive a reply.
Therefore I sent them this reminder today:
"I wrote to you over a week ago, asking how much it cost to send the membership a free copy of Accountancy.
I have not received a reply.
Please advise when I may expect one.
Many thanks.
Kind regards
Ken Frost"
If I receive a response I will post it here.
I have yet to receive a reply.
Therefore I sent them this reminder today:
"I wrote to you over a week ago, asking how much it cost to send the membership a free copy of Accountancy.
I have not received a reply.
Please advise when I may expect one.
Many thanks.
Kind regards
Ken Frost"
If I receive a response I will post it here.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Reform Or Die
The following was sent to Accountancy, and a number of other media organisations, today:
"It is clear from the responses that I am receiving, in respect of the proposed merger of the ICAEW and other bodies, that many members of the ICAEW are not happy with the merger proposal and are very unhappy with the current structure of the ICAEW.
One area that needs urgent reform is that of Council.
"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 96 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.
I have been in discussions with Dr Jeff Wooller, of the Ginger Group, on this matter; he advises me that a motion to reduce the number of Council members was raised, and indeed passed, a number of years ago.
Yet it has been ignored by Council!
Question: the ICAEW is meant to represent the interests of its members, yet it is happily ignoring the membership; why?
I would appreciate it if you could publish the above article in Accountancy, as it is the only way to elicit a response from Council.
Kind regards
Ken Frost"
"It is clear from the responses that I am receiving, in respect of the proposed merger of the ICAEW and other bodies, that many members of the ICAEW are not happy with the merger proposal and are very unhappy with the current structure of the ICAEW.
One area that needs urgent reform is that of Council.
"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 96 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.
I have been in discussions with Dr Jeff Wooller, of the Ginger Group, on this matter; he advises me that a motion to reduce the number of Council members was raised, and indeed passed, a number of years ago.
Yet it has been ignored by Council!
Question: the ICAEW is meant to represent the interests of its members, yet it is happily ignoring the membership; why?
I would appreciate it if you could publish the above article in Accountancy, as it is the only way to elicit a response from Council.
Kind regards
Ken Frost"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)