The early departure of Edward Hunter (the accountant) from episode one of The Apprentice may, on the face of it, disappoint those in the profession.
However, it should be noted that Edward (for reasons best known to himself) neither used any of his accounting skills, nor did he profess any "regard" or "self esteem" for being an accountant.
Not everyone is suited to the profession.
However, to reject the skills and knowledge garnered from years' of hard work and exams is surely akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water?
Like it or loath it, if you have managed to qualify as an accountant then use those skills and knowledge to your best advantage.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Pension Deficit
In 2009 I wrote about the ICAEW's defined benefit pension scheme:
"The ICAEW have finally realised that the current arrangement, whereby subscriptions are increased each year to fund the pension black hole, is unsustainable. Therefore the ICAEW is going to cancel the final salary (defined benefit) pension scheme (closed to new members since 2000) next year (ie 2010)."
I noted then that the scheme had a £19M deficit.
Today Accountancy Age reports that the defined benefits pension scheme, which was closed on 30 June 2010, is expected to show a £22.6M deficit as of 31 March 2010 following the completion of an actuarial valuation.
It seems that funding contributions of £6M a year for three years, followed by £3.5M a year, will be made until the deficit is eliminated.
It is reasonable to assume that the long suffering members of the ICAEW will be expected to pay increased subscriptions to cover these funding contributions.
"The ICAEW have finally realised that the current arrangement, whereby subscriptions are increased each year to fund the pension black hole, is unsustainable. Therefore the ICAEW is going to cancel the final salary (defined benefit) pension scheme (closed to new members since 2000) next year (ie 2010)."
I noted then that the scheme had a £19M deficit.
Today Accountancy Age reports that the defined benefits pension scheme, which was closed on 30 June 2010, is expected to show a £22.6M deficit as of 31 March 2010 following the completion of an actuarial valuation.
It seems that funding contributions of £6M a year for three years, followed by £3.5M a year, will be made until the deficit is eliminated.
It is reasonable to assume that the long suffering members of the ICAEW will be expected to pay increased subscriptions to cover these funding contributions.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Global Ambitions Chinese Whispers
The dangers of the ICAEW's global ambitions are revealed by a question posed at the ICAEW council meeting by Alan Livesey.
Accountancy Age report that he raised the problem of students in China (where the ICAEW has recently opened a new office, to great fanfare) passing their exams without ever having paid their membership.
The institute's board was taken aback by the suggestion, and promised to investigate.
Accountancy Age report that he raised the problem of students in China (where the ICAEW has recently opened a new office, to great fanfare) passing their exams without ever having paid their membership.
The institute's board was taken aback by the suggestion, and promised to investigate.
Monday, April 04, 2011
Global Ambitions - The ICAEW Looks East
The ICAEW's ambitions know no bounds (internatioanlly at least).
Accountancy Age reports that the ICAEW has opened a new office in Beijing, in order to extend its reach in China and Hong Kong.
I wonder how much this office and its staff will cost the membership?
Come to think of it, why does the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England Wales need an office in China?
Whilst people ponder those two questions, Accountancy Age goes on to report that Douglas Lau (regional director of the ICAEW in greater China) will head up the new office.
Factoid: The ICAEW has 200 members in mainland China and around 3,000 in Hong Kong.
As part of the ambition to grow its membership (its attempt to do so by merging with CIPFA et al was thwarted in the UK) the ICAEW will work with the Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants, with which it has signed memorandums of understanding.
There's irony for you!
It would seem that the article I wrote in October 2010, about ICAEW's ambitins in Sri Lanka, is also applicable to the Chinese venture:
"Global ambitions are all well and good. However, care needs to be paid by the ICAEW to ensure:
1 That any inter institute membership, if it occurs, will be structured in such a way as to ensure that the brand value of the ICAEW qualification will not be diluted.
2 That, given the recession and high cost of subscriptions, UK members' subscriptions are not frittered away on global ambitions that have little relevance to the UK membership."
Accountancy Age reports that the ICAEW has opened a new office in Beijing, in order to extend its reach in China and Hong Kong.
I wonder how much this office and its staff will cost the membership?
Come to think of it, why does the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England Wales need an office in China?
Whilst people ponder those two questions, Accountancy Age goes on to report that Douglas Lau (regional director of the ICAEW in greater China) will head up the new office.
Factoid: The ICAEW has 200 members in mainland China and around 3,000 in Hong Kong.
As part of the ambition to grow its membership (its attempt to do so by merging with CIPFA et al was thwarted in the UK) the ICAEW will work with the Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants, with which it has signed memorandums of understanding.
There's irony for you!
It would seem that the article I wrote in October 2010, about ICAEW's ambitins in Sri Lanka, is also applicable to the Chinese venture:
"Global ambitions are all well and good. However, care needs to be paid by the ICAEW to ensure:
1 That any inter institute membership, if it occurs, will be structured in such a way as to ensure that the brand value of the ICAEW qualification will not be diluted.
2 That, given the recession and high cost of subscriptions, UK members' subscriptions are not frittered away on global ambitions that have little relevance to the UK membership."
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Global Ambition II - Are ICASL and ICAEW About To Merge?
In October 2010 the ICAEW and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka (ICASL) signed an MoU designed to establish closer working relationships.
I noted the following at the time:
"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."
I see that according to the Daily Mirror in Sri Lanka:
"Justin West, ICAEW’s Head of New Business Opportunities declared that the two institutes were looking at going beyond exchanging membership and was seriously focusing how the two institutes can share talent, ideas and technical expertise which will help take the profession forward.
In a detailed presentation, West who articulated the international recognition possessed by ICAEW and thereby the benefits that members can enjoy with an ICAEW membership, disclosed that within the next six months, both Institutes will make an announcement on the tangible benefits that its members can enjoy which would help in the further development of their professional goals."
I also note that ICAEW has extended the fee waiver, valued at £900, offered to all ICASL members until September 2011 who wish to join ICAEW.
Are ICASL and ICAEW about to merge?
My comments made in October 2010 stand.
I noted the following at the time:
"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."
I see that according to the Daily Mirror in Sri Lanka:
"Justin West, ICAEW’s Head of New Business Opportunities declared that the two institutes were looking at going beyond exchanging membership and was seriously focusing how the two institutes can share talent, ideas and technical expertise which will help take the profession forward.
In a detailed presentation, West who articulated the international recognition possessed by ICAEW and thereby the benefits that members can enjoy with an ICAEW membership, disclosed that within the next six months, both Institutes will make an announcement on the tangible benefits that its members can enjoy which would help in the further development of their professional goals."
I also note that ICAEW has extended the fee waiver, valued at £900, offered to all ICASL members until September 2011 who wish to join ICAEW.
Are ICASL and ICAEW about to merge?
My comments made in October 2010 stand.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Average Salaries £82,400?
According to the survey carried out by the ICAEW and Robert Half, the average salary of an ACA is £82,400 and the average bonus is £17,400.
Am I alone in thinking that these numbers seem to be on the high side?
Who actually has time to complete these surveys?
Am I alone in thinking that these numbers seem to be on the high side?
Who actually has time to complete these surveys?
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Why Do We Pay Fees To CCAB?
It seems that, if Accountancy Age is correct, CIMA left CCAB because they feel that the fees charged to belong to CCAB were disproportionately high.
"CIMA explained that its members were paying a "hugely disproportionate amount" towards the body. However, CIMA's request to renegotiate the fee structure through an arbitrator was turned down by the other institutes: the ICAEW; ACCA; ICAS; ICAI; and CIPFA.
Given that CCAB appears to have done nothing (that it is proud to tell the world about) since December 2009, CIMA may well have a point about the fees.
What exactly are the members of the five remaining professional bodies paying their fees to CIMA for?
"CIMA explained that its members were paying a "hugely disproportionate amount" towards the body. However, CIMA's request to renegotiate the fee structure through an arbitrator was turned down by the other institutes: the ICAEW; ACCA; ICAS; ICAI; and CIPFA.
Given that CCAB appears to have done nothing (that it is proud to tell the world about) since December 2009, CIMA may well have a point about the fees.
What exactly are the members of the five remaining professional bodies paying their fees to CIMA for?
CIMA Displeased
Accountancy Age reports that CIMA are less than pleased with CCAB's decision to announce that CIMA were leaving, without first running that announcement past them:
"However, TS gathers that the CIMA bods were none-too-impressed at the CCAB press release announcing that the institute had buggered off.
With CIMA still technically a member of the CCAB (which will be reformed under a different moniker), the institute was 'very surprised' that the notice went out without its prior knowledge or signoff, catching them on the hop.
An administrative oversight surely, or the CCAB members making it clear that CIMA aren't part of the gang any more and can't have it both ways?"
Stand by for this to heat up.
"However, TS gathers that the CIMA bods were none-too-impressed at the CCAB press release announcing that the institute had buggered off.
With CIMA still technically a member of the CCAB (which will be reformed under a different moniker), the institute was 'very surprised' that the notice went out without its prior knowledge or signoff, catching them on the hop.
An administrative oversight surely, or the CCAB members making it clear that CIMA aren't part of the gang any more and can't have it both ways?"
Stand by for this to heat up.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Have CIMA Shot Themselves In The Foot?
Following the announcement by CIMA that they are to leave the seemingly moribund CCAB, there have been a number of comments posted on Accounting Web by members of CIMA.
Aside from the issue that none of them were consulted over this move, there is also the valid point being made that many accounting jobs require a CCAB qualification.
Now that CIMA have removed themselves from CCAB, does this not put their members at a disadvantage?
Have CIMA by their actions damaged their brand and made themselves and their members a lesser body or, does CIMA know that CCAB is about to implode and that this is in fact a canny move that ensures that they will avoid the chaos that will ensue?
Aside from the issue that none of them were consulted over this move, there is also the valid point being made that many accounting jobs require a CCAB qualification.
Now that CIMA have removed themselves from CCAB, does this not put their members at a disadvantage?
Have CIMA by their actions damaged their brand and made themselves and their members a lesser body or, does CIMA know that CCAB is about to implode and that this is in fact a canny move that ensures that they will avoid the chaos that will ensue?
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
CIMA Leaves CCAB
In 2005 I wrote:
"Eric Anstee is reportedly so incensed, by what he calls "spoiling tactics", that he has threatened to "realign" the ICAEW's funding of CCAB; he may even withdraw ICAEW from CCAB."
Yet, by 2008, the ICAEW had somewhat changed its views wrt CCAB:
"..It seems that the ICAEW, either via accident or design, has managed to stir up another major row with some other accounting bodies.
Accountancy Age reports that "private papers" (intended for council only) were "accidentally" published on the ICAEW website last week.
The papers disclose a plan to rank accountants in terms of a hierarchy. The Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies would be the top, and book-keepers at the bottom.
The plan is part of the ICAEW's desire to formally recognise the term "accountant", and will be submitted to the Privy Council.
The ranking will be as follows:
- CCAB
- financial accountants
- accounting technicians
- book-keepers..."
Given that the plan then was to make CCAB numero uno, the decision by CIMA to leave CCAB is a tad odd, is it not?
What is the reason for this decision?
Could the reason be that CCAB appears to have died (no press releases since 2009), and CIMA wants to leave before the ship sinks and drowns all those left on board?
"Eric Anstee is reportedly so incensed, by what he calls "spoiling tactics", that he has threatened to "realign" the ICAEW's funding of CCAB; he may even withdraw ICAEW from CCAB."
Yet, by 2008, the ICAEW had somewhat changed its views wrt CCAB:
"..It seems that the ICAEW, either via accident or design, has managed to stir up another major row with some other accounting bodies.
Accountancy Age reports that "private papers" (intended for council only) were "accidentally" published on the ICAEW website last week.
The papers disclose a plan to rank accountants in terms of a hierarchy. The Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies would be the top, and book-keepers at the bottom.
The plan is part of the ICAEW's desire to formally recognise the term "accountant", and will be submitted to the Privy Council.
The ranking will be as follows:
- CCAB
- financial accountants
- accounting technicians
- book-keepers..."
Given that the plan then was to make CCAB numero uno, the decision by CIMA to leave CCAB is a tad odd, is it not?
What is the reason for this decision?
Could the reason be that CCAB appears to have died (no press releases since 2009), and CIMA wants to leave before the ship sinks and drowns all those left on board?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)