This is when Kris's Desperation pricing comes into play Phil.

lol that reminds me of that joke,

Man walks into a shop and asks how much the light bulbs are,

"7 quid" came the reply,

"7 quid? but x down the road sells em for 3 quid but he's got none in"

"well they're only 3 quid here when we've got none in" came the reply.


But yeah, i know what you are saying Phil, even in industry it seems that jobs are being advertised for Bookkeepers at just above minimum wage, yet the job descriptions are bordering, teetering and even edging into Accountancy.

No wonder we all get confused as to where the line is drawn between Bookkeeping and Accountancy.

Neil.

As accountants, we don't actively go looking for bookkeeping work, but it comes down to people's perceptions. Some people are happy to have both a bookkeeper and an accountant, some only want to deal with one outfit and think that things will be more efficient that way.

As to the comment about businesses doing their own bookkeeping, the biggest hurdle tends to be cost. Apparently, bookkeeping is easy and anyone can do it, so it comes down to whether you're going to be cheap enough! I am, of course, being facecious, I've seen the mess that people make when they do their own tax returns, which is, after all, just a case of putting a few numbers into a few boxes.

Thanks for all the comments folks and I appreciate your benefit of the doubt Shaun. If I was tell you that I file all my clients' self-assessments on time, have no rejections, can do the same with Statutory Accounts and have won repayment disputes with HMRC for amounts between four and six figures, I'm sure all observers to this topic can draw their own conclusions as to whether I can fulfill my role.  I'd perhaps take polite issue with the term "cheap accountants", although I'd grant you "cheap" is more a 'does what it says on the tin' term, than the ubiquitous and, pretentiously euphemistic "affordable". I completely agree, Shaun, with the issue of people wanting their books done on the cheap, or by themselves, and then cocking it up.

I am actually going to a Business Expo next month, which is aimed at people who work from home. I intend to promote my practice there as "Bookkeeper and Small Business Accountant" - as there are no other stands from the Accounting Industry there - so I will try and remember to share my experience on here.

QBM - I think you "undersell" when you say tax returns are just a matter of of putting a few numbers into boxes. You and I know that that's true when it comes to software, but there is an important underlying knowledge of what goes where and serious implications if it goes in the wrong box, not to mention our knowledge of tax legislation that determines what is what isn't allowable expenditure etc. I agree with your "facecious" remark completely tho'.

Kris - thanks again - see my remarks on ICB forum.

I guess its all about making people realise the true value of bookkeepers - and this discussion is helping me to crystallise that. So thanks all.

-- Edited by PhilMarshes on Sunday 23rd of September 2012 11:10:12 AM

Hmm, my ICB post seems to have gone (or maybe I didn't press the send button). Anyway, it wenet something like:

Thanks etc - and I agree with much of what you say Kris - but one has to identify the obstacles before you demolish them.

Re you latest point: I have two Practices, one licensed by the ICB and, another by the ICPA (Certified Practising Accountant) - I deal with Statutory Accounts through the latter, which is actually no business of the ICB.

-- Edited by PhilMarshes on Sunday 23rd of September 2012 12:46:18 PM

...tho' in fairness to the ICB, they are not the only professional body to do this, the more recent posts show the ACCA does this as well (and I'm pretty sure the ICAEW does).

Shaun - agree with almost all you say, with the exception of protecting the word "accountant" - I do not support that for, inter alia, the same reasons you cite as opposing the protection of the word "bookkeeper". An interesting and quite emotive debate this one: Vince Cable was lobbied by the ACCA a few years back to get a bill though parliament that would protect the word "accountant" - thankfully this failed - but the argument from the Accountancy Bodies (and VC) was this the public needed to be protected from unqualified and uninsured practitioners.

Firstly, "qualified" does not just mean qualified by the examinations that are set by those professional bodies that are granted their privileged status by The State - it can also mean qualified by experience: a dictionary definition of qualified goes something like "possessing the necessary skills and knowledge to perform...etc". Secondly, if being uninsured is the issue, then why not just legislate to ensure anyone calling themselves an accountant carries PI?

Taking that into account and the following article:

http://www.paulgosling.net/2008/12/protecting-accountants-from-accountants-accounting-business/

the revelation should become apparent that this was/is less about "protecting the public" and more about choking off the supply of accountants in order to raise the fee income of ACCA and ICAEW branded firms - which of course means higher prices for consumers...and that's "protecting the public"?

I can see the value in standard-setting for, perhaps all, professions, but this needs to be carefully balanced to enable those who are perfectly capable and competent to be recognised and allowed to continue practising and not used as a pretext for stifling competition for the benefit of the fewer at the expense of the consumer.

This is already the thin end of a widening wedge - there's been an explosion in recent years of "instutionalising" an increasing number of professions, trades and vocations. There's already a "Car Wash Association" can you believe, whining about "unregulated hand car wash operators"....you can see where this can end up...£10 less a week for the poor lad who just wants to wash his neighbour's car for a bit of pocket money...

-- Edited by PhilMarshes on Sunday 23rd of September 2012 12:49:40 PM

Thanks Shaun

Nice to be received and welcomed so well.

Our respective breadth of certifications will, I'm sure prove very interesting.

I'm also IoD and CMI, for what its worth  - not bookkeeping or accountancy ones, I know, but the experience I have had in enabling me to attain those, may prove relevant every now and then.

-- Edited by PhilMarshes on Sunday 23rd of September 2012 07:48:28 PM

Surely you identified the obstacles in your opening post. As for the two professional bodies, i wasn't aware you could do that, learn something new each day.

Kris

Yes - I did, er that's the point...?

The ICB, in my view can be very heavy handed and imperious in the way they treat their members sometimes. Some of what they say, I perceive as quite artful and seems to be designed to make people believe something that is not entirely true, such as this issue with Statutory Accounts. Another example is they say on their website (or they used to) that practising bookkeeping without an ICB licence is illegal - this is false - what is illegal is to practice without registering with a Money Laundering Supervisory body (of which HMRC is one) - so I could actually practice bookkeeping through my ICPA practice (which is regsitered for MLR with HMRC) and not bother paying the ICB their £75.00 each merely for the privilege of using their Crest.

Or you could practice without either, just having HMRC supervision for MLR. I knew that bit, I was maybe confusing it with ACCA reg 8.

I did give ifa a call shaun, I need to send them an application, cheque and details of my previous qualifications then they'll let me know if they can hep.

Kris

Shaun

Thanks for your mention of the IFA - yes I have considered taking one or more of their qualifications (in preference to more ICB ones actually).

When you say the ICB are looking to get the word "bookkeeper" defined by statute, are they looking to get the word protected, do you know?

PhilMarshes wrote:

---

Do we mean here that Accountancy bodies are in some way better/higher than bookkeeping ones and then infer that the same applies to members of the respective professions?

---

Hi Phil,

hope that this reads as constructive discussion rather than in any way aggressive which is not my intent but always good to clear that up vbefore launching into possibly heated debate.

Yes to the above statement. To some extent. I'm not saying that there is anything inferior about the people with the qualifications. Take this site as a good example. We have ACCA, ICB, ICAEW, IAB, AAT, IFA, ATT etc. be they students or practicing members all talking as equals (don't think that we have any AIA or CTA's yet).

I would not for one moment put myself over Bill (Wella) or Kris or many others or the site because of the exams that I have passed.

What I am saying is that in the greater scheme of things accountancy qualifications are higher than the bookkeeping ones.

---

I would beg to differ - here, I *will* take my hat of to the ICB as I think they have got it right in promoting bookkeeping as a valuable profession that is *distinct from* and not *lower than* accountancy.

---

Agreed, bookkeeping is a valuable profession but the issue is that the higher the ICB level of qualification the more it becomes accountancy rather than bookkeeping.

One can get from scratch to AICB status and open a practice in less than a year (sometimes a lot less). Comparritively to gain a practicing certificate with the ACCA will take seven to twelve years. (based on 5-10 years for the qualification plus two years relevant post qualification to be considered for a practicing certificate).

The ACCA paper F3 alone incorporates everything in the ICB syllabus for all levels. (And papers F1 to F3 incorporate the entiety of the AAT syllabus).

Considering the above statement in relation to ACCA paper F3 (or the old 1.1) ICB is not different, it's just a lot less.

---

The skills set of accountants vs bookkeepers are different, but overlap and, my experience tells me that there are many accountants who don't have the first clue when it comes to bookkeeping

---

I got 99% in ICB level I and 98% at level II using only ACCA study materials for the old paper 1.1. Do you feel that ICB members would be able to take ACCA paper F3 using only ICB study materials?

Surely that shows that paper F3 is all of the same plus more.

An issue that I've mentioned on the site before is that I fundamentally disagree with professional bodies giving unwarranted exemptions as unfortunately with some Universities bookkeeping is an option on their accountancy courses but then the professional bidies give exemptions from the low level papers (which is where bookkeeping is enshrined in ones thinking) based on having a degree meaning that it is quite possible to become qualified without understanding bookkeeping.

I had exemptions available to me but chose not to take them (ACCA exemptions you have to pay for the exam and get a guaranteed pass... Where's the fun in that!).

I also have an issue with unqualified accountants working in chartered practices as accountants meaning that the perception from the general public is that the practice is chartered, the accountant works in the practice , therefore the accountant must be chartered!

If people are unqualified then that's fine if your a good accountant but don't hide behind chartered status that you haven't earned.

I fully agree that there are bad accountants out there the same as there are bad bookkeepers (don't get me onto the bookkeepers who learn Sage without the manual side of things... Think firework and blue touch paper).

---

I grant you though, that there does seem to be a perception that Accountancy Qualifications are "higher" than those of "just bookkeepers", no doubt a perception that continues to be cultiavted by CCAB bodies but one that I'm sure we'd all agree needs to be changed. ICB and IAB to their credit, promote bookkeeping as an alternative to accountancy, at least for sole traders.

---

But that statement rests on the perception of bookkeepers working as accountants rather than as pure bookkeers which would only go up to trial balance.

If you think that the professional bodies have a downer on bookkeeping you should get a handle on how they think of each other.

Pecking order is definitely with ICAEW / ICAS / CTA at the top of the tree with ACCA / CIMA next level down, then IFA. AIA, ATT, then AAT which is really the bridge between bookkeeping and accountancy.

Following your logic it would seem that bookkeeping was a completely seperate tree rather than the base, actually the very roots or foundations to use another analogy of accountancy.

 

Please don't constru any of the above as ICB or bookkeeping knocking. It's simply a defence of accountancy being perceived by some as no better but different which is like saying a BMW M3 is no better but different than the base BMW 1 series. They both do their job well, both will get you from a to b without problems, the M3 does everything that the 1 series does but people are happy to pay more because they know how much more it can give them on top of everything that the 1 series can.

There are many out there working as bookkeepers who are more than capable of being accountants. And there are many bookkeepers who fulfill the role of accountants in the SME sector. The key is though that whether called a bookkeeper or an accountant they are working as an accountant.

So yes, to my mind in the pecking order accountancy comes above bookkeeping.

 

kind regards,

Shaun.

Great response Phil and glad my post came over as it was intended.

Can't see anything in there that I disagree with.

Yes, all of us here (Neil (Spam kebab) excepted for now) cover the whole spectrum of services from carrier bag to final accounts which is not something that I would like to move away from.

Actually, I think that we're a very good example of why this forum works. Nick's CIMA, Kris is ICB, Neil is PQ AAT, You are ICPA (and ICB), I'm IFA and PQ ACCA.

What other site would have that sort of mix all chatting together in freindly open debate on this subject matter

Think that you'll enjoy it over here Phil.

All the best,

Shaun.

lol Kris,

I think that the heads of bookkeepers, students and end users impaled on spikes at the entrance to Aweb may prove somewhat offputting to some.

On the whole qualifations thing they were asking at school the other day what ones parents did and my boy (whose almost 14) got slightly mixed up saying that I was working towards being a Chartified accountant.... If the ACCA take that one up you heard it here first.

@Kris - you are free to base your business model on people not being computer literate.

[Type corrected due to not being computer literate]

In your example the car owner would have 5, 10 or 20 bills from all the other mechanics for £200 being 10 hours work at £20 for not fixing the car. My guess is that he/she would be happy to pay the £500 from the Value Pricing one especially as the price would be agreed before he/she did the work.

@Shaun - the rate of change is increasing but I accept it may take 10, 20 or 30 years for what I say to be the norm.

-- Edited by BobHarper on Monday 24th of September 2012 02:07:11 PM

Morning Bob,

that link is going to make people even more confused as the add ons include Crunch (which even more confusingly has almost exactly the same icon as Crunchers) and Xero which is I believe more Crunchers than the Crunch in the links.

I appreciate that you keep talking about getting one's branding / corporate identity, etc. out there so the issue over Crunchers / Crunch branding must be causing major headaches at the Crunchers secret strategy bunker.

There seems to be quite a few of these receipts processing companies around but they suffer from a couple of major issues. The first being that they tend to be in India or Pakistan meaning that either one entrusts their clients receipts to the postal service (who even managed to lose some of my documents between my office and Birmingham last week!) or one scans all of the receipts simply moving the sorting, collating and inputting to photocopying. (Sure that's why the good people on here all paid so much to study their craft).

Where I find myself in agreement and I'm sure that you will conclude the same by reading the entirety of this thread is that all of the contributors to this thread offer the full accounts service.

The discussion turned from the headline subject to what is a bookkeeper or more to the point where does bookkeeping stop and accountancy begin as the lines are very blurred.

Some bookkeepers are able to make a living going no further than trial balance but I would say a growing number (as this thread testifies) already offer the full service to clients but have retained the title of bookkeeper rather than accountant due to the bodies that they belong to.

That said, you cannot get away from the fact that there will always be major demand for bookkeepers (although maybe not so much as the number of new bookkeepers available).

Small / Micro businesses need good quality bookkeepers who offer the full accountant service at a cheaper price. Mid size businesses need both employee's and temporary bookkeepers to ensure that their records are kept up to date. Proper Credit Control departments need people who know their way around the ledgers without paying an accountant to do Credit control work.

However, I feel that Crunchers is taking the Micro business need for accountancy services from their bookkeepers and extrapolating that as though such were the only option for bookkeepers which of course it is not.

It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that some people are very happy with offering services up to trial balance, VAT and Payroll work and I see no reason to burst their bubble with frighteners of the role of bookkeeper disappearing which it isn't and won't.

What does not to my mind exist is the bookkeeping service as pure bookkeeping for the Micro business who very much either use a bookkeeper, an accountant or do it themselves. They do not tend to use more than one of those options.

Then again, it is not the Micro businesses that advertise for AAT qualified bookkeepers on the Reed website and whilst there are way too many applicants for every job (over 900 for an accounts assistant job in Wolverhampton within 2 hours of posting!!!) there are still thousands of bookkeeping jobs in the UK in the SME sector.

If we go quite specific though and change the Crunchers statement to that bookkeepers working with Micro businesses need to change in order to offer the full service then I am in agreement with that as its a small market with a lot of competition.

But of course, as mentioned above. All of the contributors to this thread already offer the full accounting service in that sector as that's the field that we have decided to work in and we appreciate that is what the clients in that arena need.

Just felt that I needed to emphasise this as a lot of bookkeepers and students read these threads. Far more than contribute on the site and I don't want people feeling that they have wasted their money buying courses for an industry that no longer exists as that is very far from reality.

kind regards,

Shaun.

@Shaun - the role of bookkeeper won't disappear IF the definition of a bookkeeper evolves and changes. But, a business based primarily on processes is not viable for start-ups because the Internet is removing the need for this and driving down the costs below manual work.

@Shaun - bookkeepers can evolve and change without becoming accountants in the sense of doing year-end accounts and tax. For example, they can be technology experts, financial managers and/or business/trusted advisors with business planning etc (more like management accountants).

The Internet opens the market so people can use low cost labour and services like Receipt Bank which (in my mind) is closing the door on traditional bookkeeping.

Technology will soon "talk" and data will flow direct (one businesses sale is another's purchase) - data already flows direct (e.g. Xero and bank feeds).

As regards outsourcing, research shows that for every job lost more than one is created. We need to embrace globalisation and develop (protectionism never works) and my guess is you buy plenty of things with an overseas input. Bookkeeping and accounting jobs are not immune.

Protectionism never works... Mmm... That's only true if everyone drops protectionist barriers.

The situation that we currently have is that the world is milking the UK.

I work closely with outsourcing companies and I lose track of the number of times that outside the office Indian workers have ridiculed the UK.

In India one of their banks offshored IT development and it caused a national strike of the Indian Banking sector.

Just to emphasise for anyone else reading this, please do not misconstrue this discussion with any form of racism which I absolutely abhore. To quote the Godfather, this is just business, it's nothing personal.

I can hand on heart say that in my experience offshoring never works. Conversely where the Indian workers have been integrated en mass into UK businesses provided that they work with, rather than separate from the existing staff I have seen this work well (and badly but that was more down to the unrealistic expectations of UK managers assuming 1:1 correlation between UK and Indian staff but one needs to appreciate that the Indians work in a different way and management need to appreciate those differences).

Computer systems of different businesses have been talking to each other for decades. Look at the integration on deregulation of the Electricity industry. Its not a new concept and I had a lot to do with developing systems of different businesses that talk to each other.

What you are talking about is a ground floor revolution in thinking along the lines of the the development of the Credit card industry (something else that I had a hand in but only with chip card technology so I was a late comer to that field). The thing is that there has to be more of a driver to get everyone to sign up for it whilst I appreciate that the likes of Xero are building on that idea with the concept of build it and they will come. That has to be perceived as a very risky strategy based on everyone signing up for the idea rather than simply ignoring it and carrying on with things as they are now.

Everything that exists at the moment works. There will be improvements in small incremental steps to that over the next 20-30 years but I am not seeing that there will be any big bang bookkeeping is dead unless scare mongering makes people believe that such will be so.

With bookkeeping it is a profession still open to anyone willing to put in the time and effort into learning the subject (I would separate that from simply passing the exams). People cannot give that up and move to management consultancy which is a business in many ways closed off to those not brought up in that environment (I'm putting both of ourselves in that category Bob as we've both had big five exposure (appreciate that's now only big four)).

Doors that are open to us are not open to all and people cannot give up bookkeeping for a door that is firmly closed to them.

I think you choose to miss the point Bob. I suppose it's easier to change reality than ones viewpoint.

I think the point it, though bob, while HMRC require this financial information by law, businesses need to continue to produce it. It's irrelevant whether it's the most worthless waste of time on the planet, it's off to the pokey if you choose not to do it. And that means putting the figures where they are supposed to be and not where the owner thinks they ought to go.

To be fair Bob, I'm not sure the thread is about value, I see it more about the blurring of the role of bookkeepers and accountants. I do agree that we need to add value, but I disagree that the value is always to be found in non-financial numbers. Though I'm happy to wait until next week when you will see the value in something else.

Your sense of how to add value at this time may be true for a small number of business owners. My clients tend to see value in the speed of the work, the accuracy, the ability to have a coffee and a chat about their business, dealing with a human.

Lets face it, Crunchers saw value in being bookkeepers, then accountants, then alternative accountants, now some kind of consultants. Don't you worry that the franchisees will start to get dizzy?

Not upset at all Bob, the problem with forums is that it's sometimes easy to confuse how something has been typed because you can't hear the tone or see the body language.

While speed, accuracy and coffee may be minimum entry points to you and I, there are still many out there who don't meet this yet.

I can see a value in videos, still not sure about seminars, but I still prefer the one to one time with my clients. I accept that this is not possible when practices get bigger but I find it's one of my strengths at the moment and it helps me keep my feet on the ground. Every one of my clients are different and have different needs, issues and aspirations. To try to group them together and address these as a group would be to fail them in my opinion.

Most decent bookkeepers are seen by their clients as trusted advisors, to use it as a USP for Crunchers is just really spin.

Personally, I don't think the end is in sight for us "alternative bookkeepers" and while I can make my living with that, I'll leave the spin doctor antics to others.

Kris

BobHarper wrote:

---

@Kris - can I take it that you are positioning yourself as an "alternative bookkeeper"?

---

That must be Peasie, he's got a sheep as his Avatar!