Michael Izza appointed new ICAEW CEO. By Dan Martin

For exceptional dedication and a job superbly well done since Anstee/ICAEW Council had [nearly] all the power.

You are a clever chap, so please delete or amend your first sentence below.

I just hope that senior (or any) people from all the accountancy institutes will comment on your views.

Many of us will have had expert training by, or know, unqualified accountants of high ability; certainly by comparison with the majority of those now qualified.

Subscript:

On reflection; Governments should take note of all worthwhile views, from any individual or group. That is not to say that they should actively seek 'unqualified' opinions on specialised matters.

AIA members support merger with ICAEW. AIA member become very happy because auditing body merge auditing body.

AIA members sure support goals of ICAEW certainly well enough. Then, both very happy people together after merger.

Great!

Somebody want to verify the fact on this mode of entry to the profession of the ICAEW? Tell us more, everyone :
"Simon Cheung, 04 July 2006 @ 17:00 PM

Backdoor Members of ICAEW
Can anyone tell how many new members ICAEW has successfully recruited from fellow CCAB institutes?"

If the Vice President is an "opposition", then there shall be lots of competition to breed excellence in this professional Institute.

Every move of the President shall be checked, so is every move of the Vice President.

Good Luck ICAEW and the future forward.

I saw this new thing up - 22-Nov Three to contest ICAEW vice-presidency. By Dan Martin.

So much talk and hearing all these good times here, how do you do if you all say so much also go contest ICAEW vice-presidency? Good talk and promoting all the while there, if you just say "SORRY BUDDIES, I NO SUPPORT CONSOLIDATION" then let the public see all the votes you get after this famous speech saying ceremony.

If get a lot, then you get it right, alright! If you no get votes, then you no good and not members want you to do altogether, correct?

Mark - it's good to see someone endorsing the new man but remember he has to win the trust of 130K members, not just one or two. The only way that happens is through action accepted by the majority as being in members' best interests.

The fact he made a great COO is no guarantee he'll do just as well as CEO.

Given what happened under Anstee's tenure, Michael has a lot on his plate.

Give Izza a mark out 10 for each quality given above then compute the product of your three marks.

The Maximum result is 1000 and the minimum is 0. I score zero because I award him 0 for judgment.

Play the game, just submit your provisional score here. You can then update it at any time if your opinion changes

To have the endorsement of Mark Lee and Paul Druckman will not impress tens of thousands of ICAEW members. They were both ardent supporters of Anstee.

Perhaps Paul can explain what the benefits are and when they kick in.

Play the Izzaq

http://home.inklingmarkets.com/market/show/2423

Ken Frost

http://www.icaew.info

These words caught my eyes :

1) "I have my own style which is different to Eric's. As for how I perform, that will be up for others to make judgements in time."

2) "...is whether legal status should be given to the term 'accountant'" followed by "The fact that people can set themselves up on the high street and call themselves an accountant is wrong."

3) "...accountancy organisations have the power to "make the government change its mind". "

4) "...hearing from ICAEW members over the next few months" followed by "....I am very much in listening mode. I want to hear from as many people as possible about what they want,"

5) "... he is "pro-consolidation in line with the Council's policy"."

Just a thought, with due respect, would Izza care to give his views on the thread "Time to go legal"? I have given a summary of what should be carefully thought of before legalising 'accountant'. We should still "take care" of those capable and experienced "accountants" in the "high streets" who aren't members of CCABs/RQBs, by providing them with a "conversion scheme" to qualify them as 'accountants' under the legalised term. If this category of accountants are really good, they should be able to complete the final examinations of CCAB/RQBs or the "special conversion scheme".

I support the consolidation plan, but the consolidation should include a plan to have different accounting "streams" existing after the consolidation and to elaborate what was suggested in a much earlier thread by a Malaysian UK grad is that after the consolidation of, say, CIMA, CIPFA, ACCA, AIA, ICAs, there shall be unique accounting streams such as "management accounting" stream, auditing stream, financial accounting stream, taxation stream, etc existing in the consolidated body. Like bodies comes under the like streams, thus, ACCA, AIA, ICAs, CPA, etc shall fall under the audit stream.

I would like to see Izza's style of leadership and the running of the prestigious ICAEW. I believe Izza, as COO would have seen a lot of how things were run prior to the retirement of the CEO, I am sure. I hope to see Izza's effective plans being carried out. On this note, can we all get to see ICAEW's 7 year strategic plan?

ICAS, ACCA and CIMA will not play the merger game, ICAI are probably not interested and CIPFA have shelved reconsideration for five years.

Another ICAEW vote would, almost certainly, end in the usual failure -especially with any of the lesser institutes.

I have known Michael since he started at the Institute, at around the same time I became actively involved. He is not only a good guy but he has proved time and again over the years that he is on top of his remit. He will have to make changes to become the Chief Executive, but knowing the man I am confident he will be effective and successful. The fact that Michael runs the marathon annually shows the mettle of the man!

I see Mark Lee's and Paul Druckman's endorsement of Michael Izza's qualities and I respect their judgement. However, I would urge a note of caution for Michael in any future emphasis on externalising out of the UK. ICAEW is in its current difficult position because its eye has been off the ball for the last 20 years and we have not been training enough students to ensure continuity, never mind expansion.

ICAEW press releases claim proudly that 3,000 students qualify each year, but this number can't even keep pace with members dying and retiring. Qualifications for non-members or training in China and Russia are possibly useful, but peripheral, activities - what we must have is a major expansion of training places in UK firms. Only this will enable us to maintain the "gold standard" that everybody likes to talk about.

I might consider it if I knew what you are on about? please explain.

Can this also be a discussion without personal attacks or I for one will not want to be involved.

Yes, you are right that I am being a bit "touchy" - based on previous experience I guess!

It is difficult to respond to specific questions as I am a past President nowadays. I just think that if Michael says he will do something he has always come through for me in the past.

I do think think it is important for us to recognise that although we may personally not agree with all the prioirties, there is a rigourous process at the ICAEW and the agreed way forward is not without robust debate.

Many decades ago, the ICAEW and SIAA merged. I can't see any reasons why this premier Institute can't do it again and I support fully what Mike Cox said about consolidation.

Let the premier Institute (ICAEW) do it. I am sure it can; of course, this must be after some very careful thoughts and study. I am sure Izza would have analysed the failure points of earlier merger and come up with a much better strategic plan to ensure success. Thus, some sort of strategic plan is needed. Take a look at CIPFA - it has laid out its strategic plan so well and begin achieving its objectives one-by-one.

A "consolidated Institute" under the guidance of ICAEW would assure and ensure us of the quality of the exams and other matters relating to the profession. Only then, will we not get to read all kinds of "arguments" about 'dubious' exam standards of other "equivalent" Institutes as we have read in earlier threads, if accountancy exams are run by one powerful premier Institute - the ICAEW.

Any work requiring professional opinions should be legalised. I am in support of Mike Cox again for saying that.

My condemnation is neither more nor less personal than your praise.

As I recall, it was you who wrote of benefits kicking in - so you should have some answers not mere propaganda. What will Izza do so effectively and successfully, and when? Who now wants to even consider a merger, apart from,apparently, the ICAEW? Why is size more important than quality? Why is a new logo desirable?

Who else thinks it bravery to run (or jog) a marathon? Didn't the Zulu warriors do that, and more, much more?

As a member who left practice 20 years ago, I read this article with some interest. Some, but not a lot .....

According to the most up-to-date statistics I could find on the ICAEW website, around 54% of members work in business, with 24% in practice of one sort or another. Yet the emphasis of the Institute - and of Mr Izza, on the basis of this article - remains clearly geared towards the practising accountant. The three specifics mentioned in this article could all be said to be more relevant to the practice world - the consolidation of the accountancy profession, legal status for the term "accountant", and accountancy organisations' relationships with HMRC.

And what has the Institute done for the member in business? Well, according to Mr Izza there have been "significant strides" - not terribly specific, and the only concrete thing he mentions is the introduction of business alerts. Very nice, but hardly earth-shattering - and some might say the least that a member should expect from his or her professional body.

From where I sit, and apart from the mailings I receive as a member of the Finance & Management Faculty, the majority of the correspondence I receive from the Institute is geared around persuading me to join one or more additional faculties - each of which will add another £75 or so to my annual subs.

As for consolidation .... well, it seems to me that nothing could indicate more strongly how out of touch the Institute is with its membership. I don't know how many votes we've had since I first became a member, but not one of them has been even close to succeeding. As a result, it's particularly underwhelming to see that this remains high on Mr Izza's agenda; the accounting profession may need to speak with more of a unified voice, but it should be self-evident that members of the ICAEW, as a body, don't see mergers as the way forward.

But hey .... some things never change .....

You do not begin to understand Izza, Anstee or the ICAEW Council. They only want to consolidate with minnows and thus retain power. Did you not read Anstee's inane and insane comments on ACCA is a different model [to ICAEW] but CIMA is not?

Further, which other body is prepared to merge with ICAEW?

Also, the Chartered Institutes surely have the highest examination standards, and to raise the standards of ACCA and CIMA, now or in the near future, would be unfair on some 100,000 or more of their currently registered students?

Voluntary consolidation is a figment (however desirable) of your imagination.

This is a question to Paul Druckman.

I am struggling to find anything that might constitute a personal attack on you, although there does seem to be a questioning of your judgement in supporting the previous CEO (or perhaps the policies he prosecuted?).

Would you like to be more specific?

Alright then, how about having the following motion be put forth to members of all RQBs/CCABs :

1) consolidation
2) legalising 'accountant'
3) hear the woes of members commenting about their own professional Institutes

Next, who shall head the consolidation exercise....followed by more motions to come also.

........some things never change....

I agree with Mike Buxton that voluntary consolidation of the accountancy profession is unlikely to arise in the near future. It is a source of frustation to me that the vested interests who wish to preserve the status quo are allowed to do so even though a consolidated profession is in the long term public interest and in the UK's strategic interest as a world power.

ICAEW wants consolidation on its terms which is not acceptable to the other bodies. All of the bodies should realise that they operate on the basis of delegated self regulation from government which could be taken away. . If government wanted to avoid the huge waste of resources involved in the duplication of examinations, syllabi lack of a coherent voice for the profession etc they could take action.

I have reminded IAASA in Ireland that the statutory forum of prescribed bodies should be the only voice listened to by government and am dismayed to find CCAB-I continues to submit an annual budget recommendation report to government, thereby circumventing the statutory forum. The Irish government shoulld refuse to accept any submissions except from the statutory forum.

I shall raise this matter with the appropriate government ministers in due course. Whatever about the United Kingdom, in the Republic of Ireland it is ridiculous to have 9 accountancy bodies for a population of some 4million people.

Government will and action is now needed to force common sense upon the vested interests and replace delegated self regulation with statutory regulation. One cannot be a trade association on the one hand and a regulator on the other!

I believe the Irish government in particular should refuse to accept any submissions other than from the statutory forum. This would force the existing 9 bodies to co-operate on important initiatives for the good of the accountancy profession which CCAB has consistently failed to do.

Mike, If as you say ICAEW is unwilling to enter a dialogoe as equals then proud bodies like ACCA CIMA CIPFA etc will not respond favourably. ACCA will overtake ICAEW by 2008, so ACCA will become the leading body in Europe by membership and according to the recent POB Report by membership growth rate and gender balance also.

I am extremely disappointed at the meekness of POB. The UK deserves better and POB's replacement with a statutory authority is now needed. This statutory authority could establish a forum of all the RQBs and RSBs and ordain that HM government will only view this combined forum as a specialist source of advice on auditing and accountancy matters. CCAB would be sidelined and the member bodies of this forum wpuld be required to agree a number of representatives on the FRC. This would force the bodies to talk and behave as equals.

ICAEW will have to become less arrogant in its process of communications , not that the other CEOs and Presidents are noted for their humility.

The prize of a consolidated profession for the United Kingdom going forward is surely a prize which is worth behaving in a conciliatory manner for. The failure of the recent merger with CIPFA can surely be traced to poor communications and lack of consultation..

Improved Communications and consultation with respect for all stakeholders in the accountancy profession should be the top priority for Mr Izza.

Members of all the UK accountancy bodies should lobby the Right Hon. Alastair Darling MP for him to create a statutory POB similar to IAASA in Ireland.

ICAEW ACCA CIMA AIA and CIPFA are all members of the Irish forum of prescribed bodies and have witnessed its proposal for legal recognition of the term accountant and its fostering of dialogue between the 9 prescribed bodies.

It is an excellent model which could work well in the UK compared to the existing meek POB.

Mike, you may want to strongly suggest that the respective CEOs of the merged entity be appointed CEO of the merged entity for a period of 2 years. For instance, if ICAEW merged with CIMA, AIA, CIPFA, ACCA, then in the first year of the merger, let ICAEW CEO be the CEO of the merged entity for 2 years, followed by CEO of, say, CIMA, be the next CEO of the merged entity on the 3rd and 4th year, and so on.

How about this, Mike? Maybe, you could be the next CEO of the merged entity? Then, we can support all your logical and resonably justified rational ideas in the making of a much much more solid ICA body in this world.

Hi Mike, please do let us know more of coveted, world renown decorations, titles and designates.

How about inviting more to join this forum? We all have heard much from the Ginger group too, but let's get to hear more from members of the professional accounting fraternity on their VIEWS.

ABout remunerating the top man in the top most prestigious professional institutions - I suggest a basic salary for the two year period and achievements of the Institute's goals and objectives be remunerated accordingly with the benefits derived, and this could be on the 3rd year or even 4th year after the CEO left. There's a lot on performance measurement articles in cimaglobal.com.

In comments made on consolidation, contributors have not looked at the European Union perspective. If the United Kingdom wishes to drive events in Euope and globally then a consolidated profession is needed to match the resources of the AICPA and CICPA.

The CICPA have established a uniform CPA examination to be offered in Europe. ICAEW has developed conversion mechanisms for accountants from a number of countries yet within the UK there is no mechanism for members of bodies like the AIA - an RQB -to progress to ICAEW membership. ICAEW should be congratulated on its pathways initiatives as it alone is trying to consolidate the UK profession. Pathways should be extended to members of all RQBs and ICPAI. Codification of the profession which ICAEW is seeking may resolve this.

ACCA by 2008 is likely to become the largest accountancy institute in Europe and dialogue between ACCA and ICAEW is long overdue. Could a revamped CCAB which includes all RQBs not become the for-runner to a super council for an integrated profession. If not how valuable is CCAB. Has the time come for HM Government to impose a statutory supervisory authority on the profession thereby setting up a statutory forum to replace CCAB as has happened in Ireland cf www.iaasa.ie

Michael Izza like Eric Anstee realises the waste of resources involved in having at least 6 accountancy bodies in the UK - 9 if Ireland is included. They are visionaries.

Consolidation is inevitable if the UK accountancy profession wants to preserve its leading role and not if the UK is content with letting AICPA and CICPA take over the reins. The choice is ours.

Do you not think, it would be difficult to arrange paid appointments for two year periods.

I could not find you on the Internet - please tell us about your professorship and your background.

Izza to Perkins. "Replace those red, white and blue circles on your kite with something more appropriate. Then get up in it and prang it. We need a futile gesture at this stage of the war."

SO good to hear here, already have great leadership and styles people in ICAEW.

Then, what about this to be true and carried out - people like Mike, Izza, Paul, Prof TOTs, Alastair, so many to be true here, can help out AIA or not?

AIA highly recognised in 1994 already because RQB already given to them, and today, no recognition got yet as in so little countries.

So, how do you all think suddenly if I say merger !!! Merger AIA with ICAEW and become international by its name as The Institute of International Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, because of merger, AIA can release international name to it.

Good for this things already happened to be talked here :
"All those who want the best for the Institute want to make sure members are listened to and I think that you find that there is unlikely to be a better advocate of this than Michael Izza."

Did all councils and administrators and accountants of AIA listen to all AIA members wanting to say so much all the while to be heard, like make very sure 'members are listened to'.

Izza, as COO, bears massive responsibility for the Durgan debacle. He is implicated at least as deeply as Anstee and Morris in what was, at best, crass incompetence (and at worst, also intrigue and deceit).

Izza became a senior employee of ICAEW in January 2002. Durgan's famous acquisition of EWI and Foulks Lynch was national news in May of that year - how could any Chartered Accountant (especially when knowing Durgan professionally) have forgotten that by 2006?

Izza should go now, and he should take his new logo with him as severance pay.

PS Druckman made press comments on the Durgan fiasco earlier this year. It would, however, be amazing if Druckman could say anything of interest now; but perhaps there is a man who can?

I hear what Alastair has to say and he has a point.

There is a formal structure to listen to members through District Societies and in addition there have been a variety of initiatives to make sure that the management, the office holders and the Council hear the views of members. I am convinced that there are other ways to help the process of “hearing” but I think you are more worried about “listening”!

One of the problems is that volunteers especially feel they are members in their own right and therefore “represent” the membership. I go back to my earlier point in this debate about the variety of views from members, thus it is not easy to gauge the best way forward. There is also the argument that those actively engaged are better informed to make decisions for the Institute as a whole and although this will be an unpopular view it surely must have some merit.

All those who want the best for the Institute want to make sure members are listened to and I think that you find that there is unlikely to be a better advocate of this than Michael Izza.

I think those who knock a man they probably do not know and are making acusations based on what they hear in the press and should be careful. Michael is a professional and his behaviour, as far as I am aware, is/was completely honourable. Lets stop throwing stones and be supportive, our Institute (for those who are ICAEW members) and its members surely need to work together to enhance the position for all of us.

Michael has many views of the profession that are his own and will come to the fore as time goes on. He has been central to the strategy that was instigated by the arrival of Eric Anstee and they should both take credit for giving the Institute as a body real focus during the last 3 years. I do think it important to not keep going back to the consolidation issue of the UK profession, this was only one piece of a wide ranging strategy. Michael will bring a different slant to the implementation of this wide ranging strategy and I look forward to his leadership as I bow out of being such an active participant in the Institute.

I would also like to bring up the manificent role that the army of member volunteers contribute to the Institute and the profession. The time given by those who are not funded amazes me and we should salute them.

Since Izza arrived:

ICAEW student numbers have fallen substantially.

ICAEW staff numbers have risen substantially (ABG disposal wef 1/1/02-Izza Joined 2/1/02)

ICAS student numbers have risen substantially.

ICAS staff numbers have remained at less than a third of the ICAEW.

ICAS were infuriated and the FCA CEO of CIMA openly said Anstee is the pits (or words to that effect).

Even today Media Strategy list ICAEW as a client.

800 ICAEW members resigned in a single calendar quarter.

It is Izza and your Council who rabbit on about future consolidation.

You tell us the truth of the Durgan debacle and who leaked the story to the press and why.

I think a CEO/Presidential popularity "haven't we done well" poll amongst the volunteers would be interesting.

Churchill, Hitler and ... in a brewery, are words that spring to mind.

Alan, I do not believe all I read; even when quoted as verbatim.

Tens of thousands of members do not even agree with the present agenda; so the priorities are not the priority.

What changes is Izza considering. Robust discussion is best served by full light, not darkness or one-way mirrors.

To meddle is futile - if members want a new logo, OK - but what an arrogant start by a man who wants to listen.

Izza talks of style, the use of which was well demonstrated by Anstee, but it is substance which really matters.

It is clearly not necessary to know a person to agree or disagree with them; or even to question their every word.

As I recall (and can check) it was reported that an ICAEW spokesperson said there would be a detailed analysis of the abortive "consolidation" expenditure in the 2005 Accounts.

I did not find it there; but it is important because without that analysis who can be confident that £1.42M might be even a reasonable approximation of the full cost.

Was this a misunderstanding, more incompetence or something more sinister? Whatever the cause it can surely be published now.

I was taken by your last paragraph.

"I do think think it is important for us to recognise that although we may personally not agree with all the prioirties, there is a rigourous process at the ICAEW and the agreed way forward is not without robust debate."

I believe that there is some justified criticism of the way in which the ICAEW council appears to not listen to its members. A good example of which is that the members have consistently rejected merger, yet the ICAEW continues to pursue merger - even after the last debacle.

"Robust" debate is a good thing, but equally so is "listening to" and "responding to" members?

It's supposed to be IZZA's day today. instead it will be a dark Brown day.

If a qualification is well respected and recognised by the ICAEW, then there shall be world-wide recognition of this qualification, unless I am proven to be otherwise, especially so when someone quoted ICAEW's very strict stance when it comes to recognition, which I personally agree.

Congratulations, Chong Bao Jan. I salute your experience and position as AUDIT MANAGER having subordinates holding ACCA, ACMA, AIA, ICSA, ASCPA and other highly recognised bodies. You must be a man of quality.

I would like to pose this question to Chong Bao Jan - perhaps, Chong can tell us how, by holding the IFA qualification, enabled him to rise to a top management position with subordinates holding highly recognised qualifications under his supervision. This is something worthy of knowing, something extraordinary, something great with high respect and dignity earned as in the first place, employers must also need to be convinced that a person's background such as IFA is able to take on senior jobs to provide that required customer satisfaction. The point here is everyone can say that they can do the job, they have the means to get things done, they are skilled, they are capable......etc. Just how did Chong managed to do that?

Imagine the stories that I heard - some "deemed inferior" qualification holders can't even get an interview in the first place.

Chong, I really really respect your position of exaltation in this respect, especially when you are able to prove things beyond what the "normal mindset" of a person would have set out to achieve.

Ai Ling, 26 December 2006 @ 02:57 AM

Great Simon says
Thank You Simon, your great advice do us very surely good.
Better get AIA because still more easier than Ireland CPA as can surely pass. CPA Ireland very high class examination standard. Look at CPA past years questions on the website - you see how high class the questions are all the while.

In the context of examination standards and passing, I hope AIA put up for everybody to see its examination standards of passing in the past years questions for everybody's assessment and opinion giving.

So, what all you waiting now for what? AIA is the way, sure correct to say this great advice, Simon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon Cheung, 22 December 2006 @ 10:50 AM

Prof TOT (Sr)
No worries
I am sure ICAEW back-door access will be extended beyond CCAB to members of GAA, thereafter to AIA, CPA Ireland etc. so as to accomplish its aspiration to remain the largest accountancy body in Europe. (e.g. Keeps its membership base ahead of immediate rival ACCA).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor TOTs (Sr), 22 December 2006 @ 07:21 AM

The choice between ACCA and ICAEW
I agree with Matthew that finishing ACCA would be a better choice of the two.
You complete ACCA first, then go for ICAEW membership, ie to say.

ACCA route is a faster and flexible one compared to ICAEW's rigidity maintained from prehistoric times. That's right! How can we forget dinousaurs once roamed earth? Yes, you can when new blood takes over and erased all the pasts. Open your door to direct membership without conditions but only to reputable bodies like CCAB, CPA Ireland, etc ICAEW, for membership expansion. Copy what ACCA did or your membership base will remained with little expansion.

Ever thought how dinousaurs got extinct? Yeah, the "smaller versions" took over - lizard, iguanas, chameleons....... ie from BIG to small.

Institute of Financial Accountants Membership??

J F Kwateng, 09 June 2001 @ 11:03 AM
English Chartered Accountants' body (ICAEW) respects and recognises IFA
ICAEW has specifically outlined academic requirements(IFA included)employers should expect. Please have no illusion. When it comes to recognition ICAEW is very strict.

Chong Bao Jan, AFA, AMIA, 28 May 2001 @ 04:32 AM
IFA is accepted by employer
The question of acceptance or otherwise pertaining to IFA qualification falls NOT on IFA but on your professional exposure.
I have been in an AUDIT FIRM for more than 10 years and currently holding a position as AUDIT MANAGER . I have ACCA, ACMA, AIA, ICSA,ASCPA and other highly recognised bodies under my direct supervision.
I am of the opinion that qualification is just the starting point and not the means to acceptance by employers - we must work toward acceptance based on our practical/professional abilities to put satisfaction in our works.

Where now to able to be found those things mention? IFA got already Chan testimony in IFA journal and website or not?

Please show me the testimony.

Matthew, what do you think alright to do or not to do here - take the printout of this discussion and send to ICAEW for claims of testimony and exemptions. I think of asking 2 paper only to do in ICAEW if got IFA associate passes. Can or not Matthew?