Blogger
Share this content
0
19
2948

ACCA Council candidates

Have any of my fellow long suffering ACCA colleagues had a look at the list of candidates for election to the ACCA Council?

A lot of them seem to be from Hong Kong, although many of them are pretty evasive as to where they live and work.

I could only find one candidate to vote for and even he didn't tick many boxes.

I guess that this is since the rule change which means that a set percentage of Council no longer need to be UK Auditors.

Going by the ACCA website stats 63% of all ACCA members are from "Europe & Americas" yet fewer than 45% of these candidates are from E&A. It will be interesting to see what the geographical make-up of the Council is after the AGM.

It seems to me as though the ACCA gets it UK credibility from UK Practising Certificate holders but doesn't expect to have to do much to meet their needs.

The ACCA qualification appears to have become the equivalent of an international MBA. It was very different when I joined as a student 25 odd years ago. Then along came the foreign travel loving Anthea Rose who took the helm and set a course for international expansion.

It reminds me of the UK's membership of the EC where the public are desperate for a referendum but the politicians are determined not to give them one as they know what the result would be. If the ACCA asked the UK membership for their views on the whole Global Domination strategy I can't imagine that the UK membership would endorse it.

In a recent Any Answers thread one poster announced that he was in both the ACCA and the ICPA. I was shocked by this as I always thought that one organisation demonstrated its members' compliance with UK best practice whilst the other was little more than a sham trade association giving its subscribers some official looking letters with which to hoodwink the public into believing that the fee payer was a bona-fide time served qualified accountant.

I'm starting to think that I've been overtaken by events and that the future lies in surrendering my ACCA membership and joining a trade body.

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Not just me then!

I voted for 6 - one chap in Malaysia because he looked like a decent bloke (yes seriously! I figured we needed someone trustworthy-looking on the council....), the Irish woman because at least she was pretty close to us, and the rest because they were in this country and therefore might be vaguely representative of me as a UK member (don't worry I'm not so naive to think that they really will give a toss about a small practitioner) and I think one or two were practitioners themselves. But I could happily have ruled them all out because of the crap they come out with in their spiel - if they actually believe that the ACCA is as perfect and wonderful as they claim then quite frankly they could do with professional help.

We're doomed!

And it might well have been me that Mumpkin was referring to re ACCA & ICPA - I get far better value from ICPA and I get the feeling they're more vocal on what counts than ACCA ever will be. 

Thanks (0)

Part of the reason...

Thanks (0)

ICAEW

I suspect that if the ICAEW(/S) were to make another, more concerted push to poach ACCA members they could do rather well from it.

Thanks (0)

I'm sorry, I'll read that again ...

... Flash, I first read you voted for the Irish one because she was pretty - or did you miss out a comma ;o)

But to answer the OP, I agree ACCA are as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Thing is, practising menbers in the UK we have some much s**t to deal with from HMRC no one has the time to stand for council.

Thanks (0)

@ Old Greying

Trust me, voting would have been far easier if there had been some attractive candidates! Having minimum criteria of living in the same country as me (or one fairly nearby) and not talking 100% b*llocks (but 99% will be bearable) narrowed the field too much.... 

I'm sure the day will come when I decide to stop paying them.... 

Thanks (0)

ICAEW vs ICPA

I've just had a look at the ICPA website as a result of this thread. Wow, they actually know what small practitioners need and I would actually get something for my subs. If it wasn't for the fact that my FCA (the only benefit I seem to get from my ICAEW subs) is a good marketing tool I would switch.  Why can't the Institute provide similar benefits for small practitioners ? Stupid question I suppose, they could but choose to waste it on grand premises and self congratulating projects.

Thanks (0)

ICPA

I am a member, and I personally know many accountants (qualified and unqualified) who have joined.

You will often see comments on here from the ICPA chairman Tony Margaritelli, who is also involved in the Agent strategy discussions. How many times have you seen representatives from other bodies on here taking an interest, getting involved, and 'getting their hands dirty'?

Yes, it's good to know that there is SOMEONE looking out for the small practitioners, and the ICPA seem to fulfil that role.

Thanks (0)

ICPA
No doubt that ICPA does some good work and increasingly serves a useful function offering support and PI to the unqualifieds. If they play their cards right they may well be at the forefront of grandfathering in all the unqualifieds when regulation becomes manadatory. My gripe with them is that they permit their members to use the title 'Certified Practising Accountant' which to my mind is an abuse and misleads the public and is quite indefensible. If you were Joe Public you would not know the difference between a Certified Accountant (who has spent 5 years+ of hard study to get there) and Certified Practising Accountant who has just filled a form in and has had no test of competence.

Thanks (0)

Interesting thread on all fronts

I'm paying particular attention right now because as part of our relaunch this week we're planning to expand our Discussion Groups significantly and one of the areas under consideration was to do with the different professional bodies.

Would those of you who have commented here about ACCA, ICAEW and ICPA find value in having a separate area where you could share opinions, ideas and information about your professional bodies?

We make a point of not just creating a group because it seems like a good idea - we need to have some evidence that there are members who would like to take part. Please let us know here (or send me a private message) if you would like one for your professional body.

Thanks (0)

@jon-griffey

I don't use the words 'Certified Practicing Accountant'. Does that mean I am ok, as I am not 'fooling' anyone?

Would you prefer unqualifed's/previously qualified's to not be a member of anything?

Surely, being a member of a body that can kick you out shows that (so far!) you haven't done anything to incur their wrath! It also means that potential complainers have somewhere to complain to, and it confirms that you have PII, etc.

Isn't it just the same for any accountancy body? Being a member of ICAEW doesn't necessarily mean you are competent in the work you undertake, but it does mean they haven't kicked you out (yet!).

ps. The public don't really care about certified/chartered, etc, providing you are competent. In my many years in practice I have only once been asked if I am a chartered accountant. Accountants are more bothered about it than the clients we serve.

Thanks (0)

-

My gripe with them is that they permit their members to use the title 'Certified Practising Accountant' which to my mind is an abuse and misleads the public and is quite indefensible. If you were Joe Public you would not know the difference between a Certified Accountant (who has spent 5 years+ of hard study to get there) and Certified Practising Accountant who has just filled a form in and has had no test of competence.

 

Posted by jon_griffey on Mon, 01/08/2011 - 13:59

 

 

Sorry but I don't agree.  As I've said many times, qualifications gained years (possibly decades ago) are meaningless. I qualified in the early 70's and what I had to know then to pass the exams is of zero use to me today. Hell PC's didnt exist back then, calculators were still considered to be almost cheating, and getting your hands dirty by working in industry was something that members of the Institute of Cost & Management Accountants did. 

The CPA require a minimum 5 years in practice and references, quite frankly that is a more useful requirement than is placed on a "qualified" accountant moving from industry into practice. 

   

 

Thanks (0)

two issues

@ John Stokdyk

I'd certainly be interested in a discussion group about ICAEW. From my viewpoint is would serve three purposes - 1) an outlet for gripes 2) a possible place where others could point out useful services that they offer that I may not be aware of and 3) (maybe a fantasy !) the Institute may look in and see some of the gripes their small practice members have.

@jon-griffey

I know what you mean. I'm very proud of my FCA and every time I've looked at ending my ICAEW membership it's losing the only tangible result of years of effort that stops me. But I don't believe ICPA are just a paper certificate organisation. OK you don't need to qualify as anything but as ShirleyM says there are other barriers to membership and they do encourage CPD, PII etc. Some of the best accountants I've known have been unqualifieds and the 2 guys who taught me most when I was training (in the 80s !) had both given up on their qualifications but knew a lot and were very business-minded. It is annoying to see our hard earned qualifications challenged but that's the modern world. Clients will go to the firm with the best reputation not the longest list of letters behind the partners names.

Thanks (0)

ICPA

PII isn't 'encouraged', it is mandatory for ICPA members, and better still, it is provided as part of the membership fee.

Having said that, when I first joined ICPA, my PII still had a few months to run, so I got a discount on the membership fees, so really the PII isn't 'free'. But that doesn't change the fact that it is mandatory, and I had to provide full details of my PII cover when I first joined.

Thanks (0)

Icpa
I am not rubbishing icpa as they do some good stuff. But it can't be in the public interest for acca and icpa members to be both described as Certified. To my mind if you use a grand sounding description then there should be some substance behind it. I get the argument that some unqualifieds are competent and
some qualifieds are not but that is a different debate.

Thanks (0)

Chartered Certified?

Why don't you use Chartered Certified to distinguish yourself from the few ICPA members who do use Certified Practicing?

Problem solved :)

Thanks (0)

Cant be done
 

But it can't be in the public interest for acca and icpa members to be both described as Certified. To my mind if you use a grand sounding description then there should be some substance behind it.

Posted by jon_griffey on Mon, 01/08/2011 - 17:09

 

Legally the word "Certified" is incapable of being "protected", as indeed is the description "accountant".

I fail to see your public interest argument. The only thing that is in the publifc interest is the freedom to choose. Should we ever reach the position where only those holding specific qualifications are allowed to represent taxpayers then that will actually be against the publi interest as it will constitute what amounts to a cartel alloweing price fixing and the inevitable ripping-off of the public.

 

Thanks (0)

Whenever clients have shown concern (which is rarely) ...

... it is the word "Chartered" they are concerned with, not "Certified".

Thanks (0)

Certified means nothing
I am an FCCA, but also found that "Certified" means nothing at all to most people. The very few clients that are bothered look for the "chartered" tag. I don't have a problem at all with other people using the "certified" name - I used "chartered certified" which is the right designation for my body. Certified means nothing, not to me, not to anyone else - it just describes some form of certification. However, "chartered" is a very strong label, conferring the Royal Charter, and also covers many other professions, such as Chartered Surveyor. Neither the word "certified" nor "accountant" are protected in any form, so why worry about other people using those tags - you can't do anything about it.

Thanks (0)

With globalisation ...

... the bigger worry is that are not our (ACCA) US compatriots CPA's?

(which I believe is "Certified Public Accountant")

Thanks (0)