What are options for non CA firm

What are options for non CA firm

Didn't find your answer?

We are an accountancy firm who has grown massively in past few years and I am now at a point in early 40's I know I can keep growing but without the CA after my name, my options are going to be limited. I've had no problems so far but there is going to be a time I don't get that big client because I'm not.

Advice from both qualified and non qualified would be appreciated.

Replies (70)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Steve McQueen
18th Jul 2014 19:48

Don't see what the problem is
As someone who stepped away from the CA badge, you don't need it and I don't see why you think you do?

Auditing is a dying business, but you can soon jv with someone if you really want to do it and nothing else is regulated (insolvency - which again you can jv with if you really really want to)

I run a £3m firm (and growing) and employ ACAs, ACCAs CTAs etc but no client ever asks what qualifications we hold and are we a chartered firm

Thanks (2)
Replying to andy.partridge:
avatar
By qad999
24th Jul 2014 03:09

problem ?

Steve McQueen wrote:
As someone who stepped away from the CA badge, you don't need it and I don't see why you think you do? Auditing is a dying business, but you can soon jv with someone if you really want to do it and nothing else is regulated (insolvency - which again you can jv with if you really really want to) I run a £3m firm (and growing) and employ ACAs, ACCAs CTAs etc but no client ever asks what qualifications we hold and are we a chartered firm

 

umm .. you've been a bodybuilder , accountant etc .. etc almost bankrupt .. do you also sell timeshare ?

I am sorry for you that you were forced to write up a cashbook at age 7 , that is really sad .. indeed bordering on child abuse

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tim Vane:
avatar
By Steve McQueen
28th Jul 2014 23:32

Accountancy is not the only fruit

qad999 wrote:

Steve McQueen wrote:
As someone who stepped away from the CA badge, you don't need it and I don't see why you think you do? Auditing is a dying business, but you can soon jv with someone if you really want to do it and nothing else is regulated (insolvency - which again you can jv with if you really really want to) I run a £3m firm (and growing) and employ ACAs, ACCAs CTAs etc but no client ever asks what qualifications we hold and are we a chartered firm

 

umm .. you've been a bodybuilder , accountant etc .. etc almost bankrupt .. do you also sell timeshare ?

I am sorry for you that you were forced to write up a cashbook at age 7 , that is really sad .. indeed bordering on child abuse

 

For 2 weeks, yes, I did sell timeshare. I was quite good at it too, just thought it was BS money so I left.

 

I've also been a professional artist (still am - sell work weekly), owned a restaurant, been a personal trainer, t-shirt manufacturer, coach builder, retailer, written three published books and a hand full of other occupations.

 

I had a bonkers father who arrived in the UK from Europe in the late 1940's having survived the holocaust and had a lot worst than writing up cashbooks happen to me during my childhood.

 

Steve

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By qad999
30th Jul 2014 23:55

please .. no ancient ὁλόκαυστος stories

Steve McQueen wrote:

qad999 wrote:

Steve McQueen wrote:
As someone who stepped away from the CA badge, you don't need it and I don't see why you think you do? Auditing is a dying business, but you can soon jv with someone if you really want to do it and nothing else is regulated (insolvency - which again you can jv with if you really really want to) I run a £3m firm (and growing) and employ ACAs, ACCAs CTAs etc but no client ever asks what qualifications we hold and are we a chartered firm

 

umm .. you've been a bodybuilder , accountant etc .. etc almost bankrupt .. do you also sell timeshare ?

I am sorry for you that you were forced to write up a cashbook at age 7 , that is really sad .. indeed bordering on child abuse

 

For 2 weeks, yes, I did sell timeshare. I was quite good at it too, just thought it was BS money so I left.

I've also been a professional artist (still am - sell work weekly), owned a restaurant, been a personal trainer, t-shirt manufacturer, coach builder, retailer, written three published books and a hand full of other occupations.

 

I had a bonkers father who arrived in the UK from Europe in the late 1940's having survived the holocaust and had a lot worst than writing up cashbooks happen to me during my childhood.

 

Steve

 

nothing could be worse than being forced to write up a cashbook as  a child

Not even being the auditor of a timeshare company ( believe me that was bad.... and before the timeshare act)

I would endure anything other than that......

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
18th Jul 2014 20:17

Me too

Surely what matters is what you can do for your clients and, by doing it to the best of your ability, they will recommend you to new clients, and I can assure you they will not be talking about the letters after your name.

Although off topic, why the "need" to keep growing and getting "that big client"?  At what point do you say that's enough?  There is every possibility that you may have already reached "that's enough" but just "need"? to keep growing, if so then letters after your name is the last thing you need to be thinking about.

 

Thanks (1)
By mrme89
18th Jul 2014 20:40

I agree with most of the the above posts.

If you've grown 'massively' under your current structure, why change? That big client won't make much difference, why go through so much trouble for such a minority?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By DMGbus
18th Jul 2014 22:11

Freed of the shackles

A firm of accountants free of the shackles of ICAEW can state this fact to its advantage

"We are NOT a member firm of ICAEW, this gives you the client a number advantages, for example...

We work for you not for ICAEWWe can produce meaningful accounts for limited companies instead of overly complicated formats advocated / policed by ICAEWWasted effort on ICAEW compliance jobsworth paperwork and rules regarding unnecessary paperwork can be re-directed into really useful enhanced services for you our clients

Thanks (2)
Replying to atleastisoundknowledgable...:
avatar
By qad999
24th Jul 2014 23:00

Free of the ICAEW, but at a cost to you .. the client

DMGbus wrote:

A firm of accountants free of the shackles of ICAEW can state this fact to its advantage

"We are NOT a member firm of ICAEW, this gives you the client a number advantages, for example...

We work for you not for ICAEWWe can produce meaningful accounts for limited companies instead of overly complicated formats advocated / policed by ICAEWWasted effort on ICAEW compliance jobsworth paperwork and rules regarding unnecessary paperwork can be re-directed into really useful enhanced services for you our clients

plus

4. We are "Free" not to take out PI insurance .. so you are Free to sue us without a cats chance in hell

5.We are not subject to any ethical rules and  are free to intermingle your "client" money with ours, including reducing our overdraft if we are short one month

6. We are Free not to keep up to date in our professional field and there is no one to check up on us

7. In a nutshell We are free to do whatever we want and you will be none the wiser.... until something goes wrong 

Thanks (1)
Replying to Alex_T:
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
25th Jul 2014 08:07

@qad

qad999 wrote:

4. We are "Free" not to take out PI insurance .. so you are Free to sue us without a cats chance in hell

5.We are not subject to any ethical rules and  are free to intermingle your "client" money with ours, including reducing our overdraft if we are short one month

6. We are Free not to keep up to date in our professional field and there is no one to check up on us

7. In a nutshell We are free to do whatever we want and you will be none the wiser.... until something goes wrong 

I get your drift but, come on, do you honestly think that having the possibility of a control visit every X years will guarantee that a qualified member will keep all these up to date, the disciplinary hearings are full of reports of those who don't.

More importantly though, when I drop my membership next year, do you think I'll punch the air that I can no longer be insured or do CPD and that I can start acting unethically, cos after all, after 40 years of being under the cosh, that's all I've ever wanted to do.

Get real, I'd be stupid to stop insuring myself or to stop keeping up to date with technical issues, both of which are business risks I want to avoid.  Doing these things makes sense and acting ethically and professionally has nothing to do with what some body tells me, it's a human attribute.

To repeat repeat myself the rules & regs and all the stuff that goes with the reg bodies really has nothing to do with me and how I operate, it's for the tiny minority who don't see this things as essential.

Finally, on the getting away with client money, if you were a fraudster and wanted access to people's money, finances, confidence & trust what would be a good way to enable that?  You'd get yourself a qualification, read Accountingweb's home page every so often.

 

Thanks (2)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By qad999
25th Jul 2014 23:02

You need to be regulated Paul Scholes

Its fine if you want to do that ( ie resign from ICAEW) and you are a decent person , but the big "but" is that some aren't  (qualified and unqualified) ..

it absurd to say that the public should just trust you with no over-seeing body

ok the ICAEW is by no means perfect...... but its better than no-regulation ..

you seem to  forget  that  you dont always hear about the local non-qualified fraudsters and incompetence.. the reason you hear about bad ICAEW members is that they are published in a  national journal .. it is totally  open.....I think thats skewed your view into thinking there are many bad ICAEW members .... 

clients with no funds to start a civil action to obtain damages have  no redress against unqualified fraudsters

anyone who offers services like this to the public needs to be controlled in the same way that financial services and legal services are controlled.. its that simple..... I just dont understand why you dont take that on board

the big inconsistency in your argument is that you expect the public to trust you , with no oversight by a third party ??? ... there needs to be some sort of checks and balances

I am quite happy to be subject to regulation, if you  are providing services to the public that can have potentially serious financial consequences you need to be regulated .. simple as that

 

I have been practising for over 30 years .. in that time I have complained about a handful of ICAEW/ACCA members.. but they are dwarfed by the number of triple xxx horror stories I could relate about the trail of damage left by unqualified non-regulated firms, and with absolutely no redress for the poor clients , it truly beggars belief

 

the really sad thing is some "clients thought they were "chartered " even regulated by the good , now, old "FSA"  because they described themselves as such .. when in fact they were not...

  

Thanks (0)
Replying to Alex_T:
avatar
By Ken Howard
25th Jul 2014 08:46

Points 4-7 irrelevant for the one man band type of accountant

qad999 wrote:

DMGbus wrote:

A firm of accountants free of the shackles of ICAEW can state this fact to its advantage

"We are NOT a member firm of ICAEW, this gives you the client a number advantages, for example...

We work for you not for ICAEWWe can produce meaningful accounts for limited companies instead of overly complicated formats advocated / policed by ICAEWWasted effort on ICAEW compliance jobsworth paperwork and rules regarding unnecessary paperwork can be re-directed into really useful enhanced services for you our clients

plus

4. We are "Free" not to take out PI insurance .. so you are Free to sue us without a cats chance in hell

5.We are not subject to any ethical rules and  are free to intermingle your "client" money with ours, including reducing our overdraft if we are short one month

6. We are Free not to keep up to date in our professional field and there is no one to check up on us

7. In a nutshell We are free to do whatever we want and you will be none the wiser.... until something goes wrong 

How many claims are ever paid out via PI insurance for small/one man band practices?  I'd suggest very very few because their clients will tend to be small and simple.

How many smaller firms actually deal with client's monies at all?  We've never held any client money - a small/one man band type of practice doesn't need to - just tell the clients to pay the tax directly and get refunds sent directly to the client.  Simples.

Going on CPD doesn't mean that they're relevant or that the person attending is even listening - can be a "tick box" exercise to keep ACCA/ICAEW happy!

A small/one man band lives (and dies) by it's reputation.  If it gets a bad name or the clients are unhappy, it won't get the referrals and repeat business that are the lifeblood of the smaller practice.

So, points 4-7 are completely irrelevant for a small/one man band type of practice who typically has small/one man band types of client.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DavidGilligan:
avatar
By qad999
25th Jul 2014 23:12

You need to be regulated , otherwise get another job

Ken Howard wrote:

qad999 wrote:

DMGbus wrote:

A firm of accountants free of the shackles of ICAEW can state this fact to its advantage

"We are NOT a member firm of ICAEW, this gives you the client a number advantages, for example...

We work for you not for ICAEWWe can produce meaningful accounts for limited companies instead of overly complicated formats advocated / policed by ICAEWWasted effort on ICAEW compliance jobsworth paperwork and rules regarding unnecessary paperwork can be re-directed into really useful enhanced services for you our clients

plus

4. We are "Free" not to take out PI insurance .. so you are Free to sue us without a cats chance in hell

5.We are not subject to any ethical rules and  are free to intermingle your "client" money with ours, including reducing our overdraft if we are short one month

6. We are Free not to keep up to date in our professional field and there is no one to check up on us

7. In a nutshell We are free to do whatever we want and you will be none the wiser.... until something goes wrong 

How many claims are ever paid out via PI insurance for small/one man band practices?  I'd suggest very very few because their clients will tend to be small and simple.

How many smaller firms actually deal with client's monies at all?  We've never held any client money - a small/one man band type of practice doesn't need to - just tell the clients to pay the tax directly and get refunds sent directly to the client.  Simples.

Going on CPD doesn't mean that they're relevant or that the person attending is even listening - can be a "tick box" exercise to keep ACCA/ICAEW happy!

A small/one man band lives (and dies) by it's reputation.  If it gets a bad name or the clients are unhappy, it won't get the referrals and repeat business that are the lifeblood of the smaller practice.

So, points 4-7 are completely irrelevant for a small/one man band type of practice who typically has small/one man band types of client.

 

You are just grasping at straws....making absurd statements about statistics which you cannot support and provide no authority for 

 

the thrust of your argument is   "you can rely on Honest John for "self-regulation" ..... trust me....I wont steal your money , I will insure myself ,and so on ...  

 

that is surely a  joke

 

Its what we expect from second hand car salesmen but not people  providing services like this to the public

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Callan Group
By stephenward69
18th Jul 2014 21:51

Thanks everyone
Thanks guys.

Read some of you on another post and think already had my own answers. Think Paul answered it best as a 'Qualified accountant' and there those who still retain membership and think its a badge of honour for those who still argue you can't call yourself qualified if you've given up your membership. Passed exams means qualified to me. Anyhoo's. Those who disagree will jump in here but not interested in them as not what this post is about. I agree with everything you have all posted above. Just looking for opinions. At 40ish and no where near two million turnover I am quite fortunate to have a strong business, good staff, strong infrastructure to allow firm to continue to grow. The ground work and structure has been put in place but during those times your sitting surveying what you are building you can't help but wonder. But as someone said, if your growing massively, do I have the time to think about it. Absolutely not, so thanks everyone. Onwards and upwards for us unqualified accountants.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By WhichTyler
19th Jul 2014 09:52

@DMGBus
Please can you clarify what you mean by: "We can produce meaningful accounts for limited companies instead of overly complicated formats advocated / policed by ICAEW"?

Are you saying non ICAEW don't have to follow GAAP/FRS?

[Edit: and Companies Act]

Thanks (1)
Replying to lesley.barnes:
By johngroganjga
19th Jul 2014 07:54

Agree

WhichTyler wrote:
Please can you clarify what you mean by: "We can produce meaningful accounts for limited companies instead of overly complicated formats advocated / policed by ICAEW"?

Are you saying non ICAEW don't have to follow GAAP/FRS?

Agree with this - or to put it another way ICAEW don't set accounting rules or formats. That's done by the legislators and the standards setters. But, as you say, in any case the formats and standards apply to all, whether qualified or not.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Chris.Mann:
David Winch
By David Winch
19th Jul 2014 09:25

Applying to all

johngroganjga wrote:
as you say, in any case the formats and standards apply to all, whether qualified or not.

So too do the requirements of MLR 2007 & PoCA 2002.

David

Thanks (0)
avatar
By DMGbus
19th Jul 2014 09:54

@WhichTyler

I expect that ICAEW members / CCAB members had influence on Companies Act disclosures and accounts formats that can be out of touch with client needs.

ICAEW likes to consider itself a policing authority (via Practice Assurance - the rubber sole brigade for ICAEW member firms) and that includes seemingly enforcing blind obedience to formats as specified without consideration for readability of the accounts.  ICAEW to its discredit recommends EXTRA not legally required pages be prepared and included in the annual accounts and further that accounts be called Financial Statements.

Some ICAEW members like to be finger waggers that say "no you can't do that" when it comes to simplifying accounts with really sensible (and still Co.s Act compliant) matters such as:

Have dividends shown on the Statutory P&L pageHave reserve movements on the Statutory P&LWhere feasible combine the detailed T&P&L a/c with the Statutory P&L a/c

These "finger wagger" attitudes (if obeyed) are counter productive to providing meaningful accounts to micro business owners.

OK, not so readable to PLC auditors or the higher echelons at Moorgate Place, but then they really are out of touch with the needs of micro businesses aren't they?  They count for nothing - they are the lowest of the low in the context of client service.  The customer comes first.  The client is king.  

Business owners are more important than ICAEW (any moorgate morons disagree with this?).

Readability of accounts is more important that blind obedience (any dissenters?).

Some accountants work for business owners (rather than seemingly for ICAEW) others don't.

A motto that I conjured up about 25 years ago was "Tax and Accounts Made Easy" - easy for clients NOT easy for ICAEW / CCAB.   I work for clients who are business owners, I do NOT blindly obey ICAEW or CCAB edicts.

The highest priority is the business owner, the lowest priority is CCAB / ICAEW, long may this be the case.

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Brend201:
avatar
By HUGH W DUNLOP
01st Aug 2014 08:58

Companies Act disclosures

Surely the biggest influencers on the Companies Act and corporate governance was The Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators? In fact at one time,
I believe, only members of this body were allowed to be company secretaries of FTSE firms. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By WhichTyler
19th Jul 2014 11:59

So are you saying...

... that anyone can tweak the format to improve readability (as long as they stay within CA/FRSSE), but ICAEW members can expect a slightly harder time as they might have to justify it when it comes to Practice Assurance ? Or that you choose which bits of the standards you adopt?

[Edit: I've just read some of your previous posts on the topic, and it seems you do take care, particularly on the dividends/P&L point to meet both standards & readability. I'm not suggesting that you are arbitrarily ignoring them]

Thanks (0)
avatar
By DMGbus
19th Jul 2014 14:51

Readability tweaking easy

With knowledge and effort it is easy to tweak Ltd Co accounts to make them readable for micro company owners.  

Some have the knowledge others don't.  Some have the drive and enthusiasm others don't.  Some take the easy route, others don't.  Some put clients interests lower down on the list of priorities, others don't.   Some are ICAEW driven, others are customer drive.  

As ICAEW is, effectively, a tarnished brand, ICAEW influence and blind obedience to it is a lower priority than the really important priority of considering client interests.

Some (probably vast majority) of accountancy firms will say "why bother?" (can't be bothered, too much trouble, lets take the easy route).

My reply to that question is this: "It is an imperative that the accounts are understood by the business owner ... less pages = more readable = more understandable"   "How can a business owner sign off a set of figures that are, to a micro business owner, incomprehensible through being in an illogical read-through format ad containing too many pages?"

I sympathise with ICAEW firms who have to worry about justfying any minor deviation from the ICAEW prescribed recommended formats, this is the price to pay of belonging to a tarnished membership organisation benefits come with disadvantages.      ICAEW should concentrate instead resources on their "rogue trader" members (Bank audits?).

Thanks (0)
Replying to doubletrouble:
avatar
By qad999
24th Jul 2014 02:54

oh dear...... DMGbus

someone's ruffled your feathers... the big issue with me is that non icaew /acca  "accountants" as they call themselves ... don't require pi insurance .. that is a danger to the public.. as for the rest of your post  .. I am afraid it is drivel .. you can put the reserve and dividend notes where you want .. I do not believe an icaew inspector would question this , they might comment......perhaps you are not telling us everything ?

Just comply with the Companies act .. yes some of it is stupid .. but its no hard .. and it is the law ....you can always prepare more meaningful management info for your clients if you wish

The big plus for ICAEW is that members of the public are protected .. yes there will always be rogue members ( in the same way you get rogue solicitors).. that's the important point

I can relate some horrendous stories about unqualified  "accountants"  in this city ,.. stealing from clients , regularly preparing 2 sets of accounts  (one for hmrc , one for bank) .. luckily jailed for a long time

 

Your post tarnishes you..... not the ICAEW,, for all its faults I will defend it .. because it acts in good faith .. and you are a  loose cannon dealing with the public.. I hope you have  pi insurance  ( I am sure you do)

Thanks (0)
Replying to doubletrouble:
avatar
By qad999
24th Jul 2014 02:56

bad

DMGbus wrote:

With knowledge and effort it is easy to tweak Ltd Co accounts to make them readable for micro company owners.  

Some have the knowledge others don't.  Some have the drive and enthusiasm others don't.  Some take the easy route, others don't.  Some put clients interests lower down on the list of priorities, others don't.   Some are ICAEW driven, others are customer drive.  

As ICAEW is, effectively, a tarnished brand, ICAEW influence and blind obedience to it is a lower priority than the really important priority of considering client interests.

Some (probably vast majority) of accountancy firms will say "why bother?" (can't be bothered, too much trouble, lets take the easy route).

My reply to that question is this: "It is an imperative that the accounts are understood by the business owner ... less pages = more readable = more understandable"   "How can a business owner sign off a set of figures that are, to a micro business owner, incomprehensible through being in an illogical read-through format ad containing too many pages?"

I sympathise with ICAEW firms who have to worry about justfying any minor deviation from the ICAEW prescribed recommended formats, this is the price to pay of belonging to a tarnished membership organisation benefits come with disadvantages.      ICAEW should concentrate instead resources on their "rogue trader" members (Bank audits?).

 

maybe you are just bad at explaining things to clients ?.. just  apossibility

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thomas34
19th Jul 2014 15:14

John/WhichTyler

The ICAEW don't set the rules but they do interpret them and via Practice Assurance (if it's still called that these days) expect their interpretation to prevail.

DMGbus has accurately given examples of where a legal disclosure may be deemed unacceptable by the monitors.

After many opportunities via successive FRSSEs the question of dividends to directors in their capacity as shareholders has not been mentioned but the ICAEW insist on their disclosure. Section 413 CA2006 and its predecessor CA1985 specify quite clearly what transactions should be disclosed and no mention is made of dividends. 

The ICAEW decided that since directors' shareholdings are no longer disclosed in the directors' report that they should be disclosed in the notes to the accounts. Whilst in many cases the directors' report would have given accurate dividend figures for each director, it would have been impossible where there was a change in shareholding or dividend waivers were applicable. Their reasoning was therefore flawed.

To the OP, I consider myself "qualified" - 50 years experience come this autumn including 35 years as a former CA and still reading the legislation rather than blindly accepting what the experts say.

 

Thanks (0)
Logo
By marks
20th Jul 2014 00:55

why bother

Your obviously doing something right so why bother whether you are CA qualified or not.

I am currently non qualified and a member of ICPA.

I have went from zero clients to 150 in a couple of years.

Most people probably dont know the difference whether you are qualified or not as they probably wrongly assume that an "accountant" has some sort of qualification though as we all know this isnt the case at the moment.

In the two years I have worked for myself only had 2 people have asked about my qualifications.

Most people just want the following

1. To meet their obligations

2. To minimise their tax

3. To pay a reasonable fee

4. Reassurance that everything is being done as it should.

Anyhow your logo is quite clever in that it is similar to ICAS' CA practice logo and some people may think that it is?

Out of interest what is "grown massively in the last couple of years" to you in terms of client numbers and GRF?

Mark

 

Thanks (3)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By qad999
24th Jul 2014 02:59

What is ICPA ?

marks wrote:

Your obviously doing something right so why bother whether you are CA qualified or not.

I am currently non qualified and a member of ICPA.

I have went from zero clients to 150 in a couple of years.

Most people probably dont know the difference whether you are qualified or not as they probably wrongly assume that an "accountant" has some sort of qualification though as we all know this isnt the case at the moment.

In the two years I have worked for myself only had 2 people have asked about my qualifications.

Most people just want the following

1. To meet their obligations

2. To minimise their tax

3. To pay a reasonable fee

4. Reassurance that everything is being done as it should.

Anyhow your logo is quite clever in that it is similar to ICAS' CA practice logo and some people may think that it is?

Out of interest what is "grown massively in the last couple of years" to you in terms of client numbers and GRF?

Mark

 

 

 

sorry but what is ICPA ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Kaylee100:
James Reeves
By James Reeves
24th Jul 2014 04:55

What happened to initiative?

qad999 wrote:

sorry but what is ICPA ?

Is it really beneath you to type four letters into google?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Red Leader:
avatar
By qad999
24th Jul 2014 23:27

what is ICPA ?

some google results

International  Corrections & Prisons  Association

International Cast Polymer Association

 

the point was I'd never heard of them

now found it .. so you just pay a fee, fill in a  form  and thats it ? .. hardly of any real value

 

I think I'll start my own .   IAAB.......International Accounting & Auditing Body

Just send £500 application fee , include  an interesting story about yourself...pay £300 subscription pa... and you're in

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to pauljohnston:
By ShirleyM
25th Jul 2014 08:24

Doesn't it give the client some security?

qad999 wrote:

some google results

International  Corrections & Prisons  Association

International Cast Polymer Association

 

the point was I'd never heard of them

now found it .. so you just pay a fee, fill in a  form  and thats it ? .. hardly of any real value

 

I think I'll start my own .   IAAB.......International Accounting & Auditing Body

Just send £500 application fee , include  an interesting story about yourself...pay £300 subscription pa... and you're in

 

 

ICPA members are obliged to have 5 yrs practice experience, and get PII as part of their subs, and they are also provided with CPD. It also gives the client a professional body to complain to if they believe that standards have not been upheld.

Don't you think that is worthwhile?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Simon Davis:
avatar
By qad999
25th Jul 2014 23:36

not many people have heard of it

ShirleyM]</p> <p>[quote=qad999 wrote:

some google results

International  Corrections & Prisons  Association

International Cast Polymer Association

 

the point was I'd never heard of them

now found it .. so you just pay a fee, fill in a  form  and thats it ? .. hardly of any real value

 

I think I'll start my own .   IAAB.......International Accounting & Auditing Body

Just send £500 application fee , include  an interesting story about yourself...pay £300 subscription pa... and you're in

 

 

ICPA members are obliged to have 5 yrs practice experience, and get PII as part of their subs, and they are also provided with CPD. It also gives the client a professional body to complain to if they believe that standards have not been upheld.

Don't you think that is worthwhile?

[/quote

 

however most of us would certainly encourage people to be a member of a  professional body particularly when you are dealing with the public,

many here would disagree for some reason

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
22nd Jul 2014 17:01

Get Chartered

Why not join one of the organisations that allows you to describe yourself chartered? There are plenty of them about and entry requirements can be quite light.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
Callan Group
By stephenward69
22nd Jul 2014 17:11

Interesting
Thanks. Which ones are there as ACCA won't let me practice and study

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By qad999
27th Jul 2014 23:47

light and worthless

chatman wrote:

Why not join one of the organisations that allows you to describe yourself chartered? There are plenty of them about and entry requirements can be quite light.

 

exactly... "light" and therefore by definition worthless

Thanks (0)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
22nd Jul 2014 17:14

.

It might help at the start (a bit) in terms of credibility and support (I got quit a lot when I asked the ICAEW) but as an FCA 10+ years in it makes diddly squat difference now.

 Perhaps 1 in 20 clients know that you can even trade without exams.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By chatman
22nd Jul 2014 17:19

Prohibition of Working whilst Studying

Ah yes, I didn't think of that. That narrows it down a lot. I came across one called the Institute of Chartered Accountants of the Commonwealth a while back but I just tried to Google it now and couldn't find it. What about CIMA? Do they prohibit you from working whilst studying?

Thanks (1)
Replying to andy.partridge:
Callan Group
By stephenward69
23rd Jul 2014 18:56

Not sure

Good afternoon.

I'll give them a try but think the opinion here is what's the point. Personally I would just like that badge as whilst I'm not qualified, I've worked for biggest firms in Glasgow, was always hopefully respected for quality of my work and suppose there's always the little bit inside you which would like a little badge to wear. Silly but a lot would like something less than strain of Chartered which means something. There are people out there setting themselves up as accountants who have never worked in an accountancy environment and just think this is a good idea and how to make money. So you have people like me, who have missed the boat a little, have 20 years of big firm experience before setting up, the CA's look down their nose and are no better than many of us unqualifieds. I respect they have passed exams but there should be a option for the rest of us who just missed their time but have a lot to offer.

Reputation, referrals and client happiness shows what you can do but anyone could pull out a couple of good testimonials.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
23rd Jul 2014 20:24

Better badge to have

Get a Blue Peter badge - they're held in higher regard and Blue Peter doesn't charge you annually, even when they decide to change their logo! 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By qad999
24th Jul 2014 02:32

stick with ICAEW

I went down your thought process route a while ago and stuck with them .. why... the perceived savings are nil.. you still need to register for MLR and pay the  fees, also consumer credit licence comes free with ICAEW , there might also be an impact on PI premiums  , and many lenders are dubious

 

the main problem is ICAEW are useless at promoting their members .. you will do a better job at selling it yourself .. dont be shy .. tell your clients the truth that all accountants aren't the same , at least with ICAEW there is a minimum standard ( compulsory PI etc) and if you fall below it you get stuffed. The practice assurance regs & annual return arent that onerous after all .

 

Think about it .you must have put a lot of effort into getting the qualification  and now you want to throw it away .. because of an annual return and a 1/2 day check every few years ?

 

Ive had both Practice assurance and audit  visit .. yes it was a waste of my time (and they will always find some minor thing because thats all they do and besides they  couldnt run a business like yours , (as the inspector admitted to me )

 

remember you put up with  hmrc every day!!!! ... so you can easily accomodate the  icaew

 

( I am not beng paid by them to write this)

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By DMGbus
24th Jul 2014 08:58

Good at explaining things to clients

In my opinion every tax advisor should strive to be good at explaining things to their clients.

Thankfully, I believe that many advisors (myself included) DO achieve this objective.

Problem is that some bodies are seemingly expert at over-complicating things thus, effectively undermining the objective.   Personally I have a preference for simplification as this benefits clients.  A 4 page set of accounts will certainly be more meaningful than a 14 page set of "Financial Statements" to a business owner who is not an accountant (but conversely I'd expect a "Big 6" auditor to prefer the 14 page version and have some difficulty comprehending the preferable concise version).     When I see ICAEW / CCAB advocating excessive numbers of pages in accounts I often think "are these people their just to keep themselves in a job, do they purposefully over-complicate things, is there an unwritten intention to create a mystique about accounts, just maybe financial interests of some (at the expense of business owners) are at play here".

Some of us have our clients best interests at heart, others have self-vesting interests.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
24th Jul 2014 23:05

Who wants big clients?

I would rather not have any client over £5k in fees, preferably around the £2k mark.

The problem with big clients is you bank on the income and if they go it leaves a gaping hole, plus you are unlikely to achiever the same £/hr on them as the more modest ones!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Alexdon
26th Jul 2014 09:08

Qualification?

Why has this thread degenerated (as have others) to a slanging match between non-qualified and the ICAEW. There appears to be some discrimination against other professional bodies such as ACCA, ICPA et al, they are being left out. Keep it fair let's have a go at them as well.

As far as the ICAEW being "Tarnished" it is a large institute and therefore by definition it will have some bad apples as does any other group, society or institute.

 NOTE 1. In the interest of fairness, and the rules and recommendations of my professional body, I must declare an interest in this debate as being  a member of the ICAEW.

Thanks (1)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
26th Jul 2014 19:08

My final word

@qad - you have been in practice for 30 years and have had experience of a handful of "bad" qualifieds and far more "bad" unqualifieds, I have been in practice for 33 years (as both FCA & FCCA) and have experienced equal numbers of both.

You say that we need to be regulated, you are holding onto the state of play 30 years ago, get into the 21st century, the majority of us, don't do anything that special any more, I'd rather my car mechanic be regulated and certainly wouldn't let a heating engineer in to service my boiler if s/he wasn't regulated but what I do...don't be silly.

So you stay regulated, you clearly "need" it but keep double checking that old ivory tower, it's not as sturdy as it used to be.

 

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Alexdon
26th Jul 2014 20:13

May I say to all.........

Build a bridge and Get over it.......then continue as you think best or suits you best.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cparker87
26th Jul 2014 20:49

Standards
We all know that our job requires a standard. An ACCA or ICAEW (or others) is certainly an indicator of a standard. That person had the nouse to pass some exams, and had at least three years experience with a qualified firm.

Thirty years on and greying, that might not mean much. What it does mean though, is that you had a solid foundation in your profession. Many of the habits that the "non-members" on this thread extol as virtues that they have are derived from the requirements of membership of a professional body.

Ironically, even Steve who claims that a professional qualification is an irrelevance also employs many individuals who are professionally qualified. I wonder why that is? I wonder if the job specs that he wrote specified ACA/CTA/ACCA qualifications as a prerequisite. I wager that they did, because when you meet someone with those badges, you have a (justified) expectation that they know their job.

Having just looked at ICPA their extent of auditing their potential members seems to extend to a drop-down checkbox indicating length of experience in profession. It is not a professional body. It makes no attempt to quality control it's members.

Let us hope that in thirty years the profession is not directed by life long ICPA members whose only qualification was to fill out an online form.

I do think that we need to be regulated. I don't think this current CCAB / fragmentation of professional bodies is the way to do it. I think things will improve over time. However, as a minimum, I think anyone holding themselves out as an accountant should have PI insurance.

My final thought on the thread so far is to ask how you have a prescribed recommendation? I mainly work to the FRSSE and Co Act as surely we all do?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By User deleted
26th Jul 2014 21:51

Can't agree Paul ...

... we are preparing and submitting tax returns for people, HMRC are getting tougher and tougher or tax errors and the consequence of an accountant being clever to save tax for a client can have serious financial consequences on the clients finances and only those suitably trained with that training maintained should be able to do this.

As a realist I know this will never happen though!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Ken Howard
27th Jul 2014 08:09

My comments are based on the here and now

In a perfect world. I'd also want proper regulation of "accountants", but we have to deal with reality of here and now which is that an ever larger number of people aren't qualified, the general public tend not to know and tend not to care (as long as it's cheaper for them), so in that context, I question the importance and relevance of being an FCCA.  In the current world, I don't think it would make a jot of difference to my practice and my clients if I didn't renew, and that''s probably the course I'm going to take.  What really pushed me over to the "dark side" was a so-called compliance inspection by the ACCA which was nothing but a pointless tick-box exercise that didn't look at a single file (I don't do audits) but which caused me a lot of stress and wasted time just so that they could tick their boxes.  ACCA inspectors aren't capable of reviewing, say, tax files, so just what's the point of them if they're not checking our work?

I found out that my ACCA qualification meant nothing a few years back when I went to a Business Link seminar that was aimed at signing up accountants as their consultants for one of the Govt small business initiatives.  I managed to get over my disgust at the way they recommended that we double our rates for Business Link clients as the Govt would pay 50% of the costs, so the clients would pay the same, but we'd get double!  But the killer was their "accreditation" process which basically ignored the accountancy qualification and instead was that we had to provide them with examples of our "consultancy" work, contact details of previous clients, referrals from "reputable" associates such as a lawyer or IFA, etc - their approval process was exactly the same whether we were qualified or not - so even govt bodies don't "respect" a member of a recognised accountancy body.

I suspect the same will happen if HMRC end up regulating tax advisors, like the FSA regulated IFAs - HMRC will ignore our regulatory body and force us to jump through their hoops to "join their club" in the same way as the unqualifieds.  Of course, like the FSA/IFA situation, initially, it'll be fine, but sometime down the line, either HMRC or the FCA (if they take over regulatory duties), will start to bring in exams (just like IFAs had to go through), and the ACCA/ICAEW qualification will eventually mean nothing - it will just end up a "trade body", just like the ICPA, when dealing with HMRC.  

The real problem is the fragmentation between the chartered bodies and the ACCA (and to a lesser extent with CIMA too).  They're too busy playing "my dick's bigger than yours" between themselves when they should be looking forward, seeing how things are going to change, and working together to protect the "chartered" brand and keep their influence.  Sadly it won't happen.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
27th Jul 2014 08:40

The benefit of ICPA

The reason many qualified people discard the ACCA, ACA & CIMA membership and join the ICPA is that the ICPA actively help small practitioners, and you get something useful in exchange for your subs.

The ICPA has lots of qualified's as members, so maybe the professional bodies should be asking why .... and do something about it!

EDIT: I was also disgusted with Business Link and the misuse of government funds by encouraging accountants to charge inflated prices which results in the client's business not benefiting at all.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
27th Jul 2014 10:56

Horses for courses

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but how do you measure competence? 

I, and no doubt others, have seen qualified accountants make a complete pigs ear of simple jobs (because they didn't have experience in those particular tasks) and in those instances virtually all practice accountants would have given a better service (qualified or not) because it's their bread & butter jobs and they have tons of experience. There are good and bad on both sides of the fence, so qualifications alone isn't enough. Having relevant experience and the confidence to say 'no' to work beyond your experience and competence is far more valuable. Weakness, and greed, makes people take on work for which they are not competent, and this applies to all accountants, qualified or not.

I always equate accountants to mechanics. If you wanted a simple repair or service on a Fiesta you would be happy to use 'the guy down the road'. If you had an extremely valuable motor you would probably prefer (and be wiser) to engage a qualified engineer/mechanic who has experience with those vehicles.

Small business are generally very simple in their needs (yes, I know there are exceptions) and some could do a fair job on their own without any accountant. The mechanic guy down the road is probably just as good (if not better) for your little Fiesta as he will be dealing with Fiestas day in and day out and will know the foibles of the vehicle and what to watch our for. If any accountant (qualified or not) took on any job (even the Fiesta's) without the relevant knowledge and experience, then they are the ones giving accountancy a bad name and that has nothing to do with qualifications.

I think experience and competence is far more valuable than a qualification.

That's my two pence worth, for what it's worth.

Thanks (0)
Replying to NewACA:
avatar
By chatman
27th Jul 2014 11:04

At least qualifications can be seen

ShirleyM wrote:
how do you measure competence?

qualifications alone isn't enough.

Agreed, but they are a good start, and they are able to be used (to some extent) by prospective users of the service. How can a prospective client assess an accountant's experience?

Thanks (0)
Replying to doubletrouble:
avatar
By qad999
27th Jul 2014 23:49

benchmark

chatman wrote:

ShirleyM wrote:
how do you measure competence?

qualifications alone isn't enough.

Agreed, but they are a good start, and they are able to be used (to some extent) by prospective users of the service. How can a prospective client assess an accountant's experience?

 

exactly its supposed be a benchmark .. an "indication" of a minimum standard

Thanks (0)
Replying to NewACA:
avatar
By cparker87
27th Jul 2014 13:02

.

ShirleyM wrote:

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but how do you measure competence? 

With great difficulty in an on-going setting. The sheer breadth and depth of what Accountants may come up against in their work makes that a very difficult task. Whilst customer service is important, they are not best qualified to ensure that you are meeting legislative and regulatory standards; that can only surely come from your peers who know those standards as you should.

I think the current approach is a sensible one. It ensures that the person has the capacity and ability to meet a high standard and then you make efforts to ensure that that person continues to meet those standards through their working life whether by continued examinations or by imposing a training and record-keeping structure. 

I very much agree with your mechanic analogy. However, without those qualified mechanics servicing the more expensive and complicated vehicles are leading the way in that industry and those mechanics dealing with the Fiesta may well have started out in that larger Garage but wanted a simpler life. There is nothing wrong with that and they are good mechanics for it. 

In any case, that mechanic has to ensure that the Car meets the MOT standard each year. I expect that, similarly with the CCAB bodies and accounting and tax policy, larger Companies are looked to by VOSA and Government when setting standards as to what should be tested, particularly with the computerisation of vehicles over recent years. As I recall, it was only a few years ago that the MOT Standard was altered. 

I think that the first step for the industry is simple. PII must be a requirement by law. 

 

Thanks (0)

Pages