Worth doing the ICB? (Already studying aat) - The Book-keepers Forum (UK)

RnB books · Member

Worth doing the ICB? (Already studying aat)

newleaf · Veteran Member

Hi I am just re-taking the ICB course, i originally got to associate level back in 2008 but due to family commitments decided the time was not right for to start my own bookkeeping business at the time. I do have around 20 years of doing accounts, bookkeeping and payroll for various business i have owned so have opted to self-study.

I think the ICB is a very good qualification especially if you are intending to become self-employed and depending on how far you take it will serve you well with setting up a bookkeeping business and offering accounting services for small businesses.

However I believe the AAT is a more recognized in industry and in particular accountants so if were considering employed work then this would be of more benefit. I am also of the opinion that if you progress all the way and became MAAT which allows you to set up in practice and as i understand it call yourself an accountant, although on the low rung of the accountant tree. It by all accounts seems a very worth while qualification to have but i would imagine take considerably longer to achieve than ICB.

If you are already studying AAT then i would be tempted to self study for the ICB as it will be a lot cheaper for you and you will be able to set up in practice a lot sooner that way. I would continue to study for your AAT though as in the long term i think it would be of greater benefit.

Not sure if you did ICB first whether you would gain any exemptions from AAT but might be worth investigating if you could do it that way and use it to leap frog in at a higher level say level 3 or 4. I'm sure others will be able to give more info on this.

For me ICB will cover most of my needs but might consider progressing onto AAT at a later date or ATT.

Richard

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Hi Rosie,

you only need to fill in the referee's section if you are applying for exemptions which you are not.

talk in a min,

Shaun.

-- Edited by Shamus on Saturday 30th of March 2013 05:43:11 PM

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Hi,

whenever you are torn between qualifications just do a search of the Reed website for jobs advertising for the qualifications that you are comparing. (try ICB. IAB, AAT, PQ for starters).

As indicated by Richard ICB is a very good qualification for self employment but is not generally a qualification sought for by employers,

In answer to the question about exemptions, what you need to do is the skills test which doing ICB will have prepared you for (also use the BPP revision text for AAT units 1-4 to brush up) so whilst not exemptions as such ICB should allow you to leapfrog AAT level II and start at III.

I think that AAT and ATT would be good Richard as they are very complimentary qualifications.

I do like the way that ATT breaks tax down into units rather than throwing everything at you in a single exam.

kind regards,

Shaun.

RnB books · Member

Thankyou for the replies.

I intend to follow AAT through until i'm chartered but given my personal responsibilities I wanted to start a bookkeeping business from home for the next few years. However when I started looking into it i'm worried that qualifying as an accountant will not cover what I need to know to be a bookkeeper. My mum who I will be doing it with me was a bookkeeper for years but it was over 10 years ago.

After reading through your replies and everything online I'm leaning towards trying to achieve a high enough status through ICB that is gives me a practise license, and base my bookkeeping business on this. While still of course pursuing my aat through college (one day a week).

Thanks again for the replies. I am getting very confused with the ICB sign up process so if anyone is a member please give me a shout!

Rosie

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Until the ICB publish their raw data rather than only their statistics based on such ignore everything that the ICB says about accountants not being able to do bookkeeping as its a complete load of twaddle.

Using only ACCA materials (from the old paper 1.1) I passed the ICB level I with 99% and level II with 98%.

Bookkeeping is the foundation stone of accountancy and the two can no more be seperated than a tree from its roots.

All bookkeepers are to my mind entry level accountants.

What is your question about the ICB signup process?

kind regards,

Shaun.

p.s. I am not anti ICB. I hold them in the highest esteem as they have given entry to a profession to a lot of people who would otherwise have had difficulty entering it and the instill a sound knowledge base in their members. Just sometimes they (as with other bodies) say and do things that I do not agree with (and I'm sure that the feeling is reciprocated).

RnB books · Member

Yeah there is no doubt I could sit the first 2 exams within minutes of registering and pass on the basis of what I have learned in AAT level 2 accounting. However I then have to wait until next september to start level 3 whereas I could get to a stage with ICB where i could be a practising bookkeeper a lot quicker. Teaching me the direct skills that I need for my business without the accountant stuff (that I do love and want to learn but isn't as practical and hands on).

When i'm fully aat qualified (level 4) I do think it will outweight ICB but for now ICB may be beneficial.

The ICB online student application asks for references, not sure exactly what references they are after? I'm a student after all, i've never worked in accountancy. Had a few days work experience and that's it.

Thanks again,
Rosie

YLB-HO · Guru

Have you considered IAB? IAB & AAT both give exemptions for each others qualifications.

Colleges are now offering IAB payroll, since AAT stopped. IAB payroll qualification have exemptions for CIPP.

-- Edited by YLB-HO on Tuesday 2nd of April 2013 05:29:05 PM

NickCraggs · Guru

Shamus wrote:
Until the ICB publish their raw data rather than only their statistics based on such ignore everything that the ICB says about accountants not being able to do bookkeeping as its a complete load of twaddle.

I would argue that part of level 2 ICB and much of level 3 ICB is actually accounting, rather than bookkeeping. I agree about accountants not being able to pass the ICB exam is "dubious" at best. Anything in the ICB ayllabus is covered by the AAT, and if an accountant went straight to ACCA/ACA, they would still know about double entry etc, and should be able to pass, even if they dont get 100%.

However, the ICB is a really good option to quickly set up in practice, and are doing some really good work in getting bookkeepers recognised.

When you are AAT qaulified the AAT will open more doors for you but for now the ICB is a really good option.

Spamkebab · Expert

Show me these doors you speak of Nick lol.

NickCraggs · Guru

Yes, dont forget the IAB, they are well worth considering along side the ICB.

ICBUK · Guru

Hello all,

Not wanting to start the old debate on accountants/bookkeepers, smile the ICB does not say they cannot pass simple bookkeeping, but that many of them do not.

Also as mentioned before the ICB has accountants advising it, many of which admit they have not done any bookkeeping for many many years and are very against just letting in all accountants under the assumption that they know/remember bookkeeping.

AAT is not included here, ICB sees AAT as bookkeeping through to accounting technician, if you have done AAT within 2 years you can apply for exemptions based on these qualifications.

I personally think the statistics (like all statistics) could be skewed because back when MLR came out there were a lot of accountants who qualified 20-40 years ago and have only done top end corporation tax, and failed the ICB entry examinations because they simply had not done anything like that for many years.

The ICB does have very high standards, pass mark being 75% - 100%, so it doesn't take a lot for you to miss the mark. It just further shows the high standard of ICB members biggrin

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Hi Nick,

whilst the IAB may be worth considering in some instances (self employment pre MAAT) I see no point in considering ICB in addition to the AAT qualification.

ACCA for one do not recognise the ICB qualification for any exemptions from the professional qualification where they do recognise IAB.

In Neils case I actually see no benefit to taking IAB as having it will open no more doors than the existing qualification and not give any additional exemptions if he decided to move up the tree which I know that he is considering as an option.

This isn't anti ICB. They have a good qualification which suits many but in the case of someone with AAT I can see no instance where also being ICB would prove more, or even as beneficial than being IAB for them.

I think that the one thing that ICB does seem to have over IAB is ease of access as it definitely seems that there are a lot more training providers offering ICB than IAB... Maybe time for me to start a training arm to my business to start to redress matters, lol.

Right just off to B&Q to buy some sandbags for myself and Frauke to shelter behind when Dave, Brian, James, Sonya and yourself read that reply.

kind regards,

Shaun.

NickCraggs · Guru

Hi Shaun,

The way i was coming at it, was that Neil could get a practice set up quickly with the ICB, whilst continuing studying, and then when qualified with the AAT set up as a member in pratice with the AAT. Other than the setting up as self employed quickly aspect, i do agree, maintaining two different membership, and sitting more exams, would be a waste of time and money.

Nick

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Hi James,

Well, I could lead with if the ICB accountants are unable to do basic bookkeeping then maybe you should get better accountants rather than taking their advice.

A higher pass mark does not neccessarily mean that someone getting 100% under one body knows as much as someone getting 50% under another bodies qualifications.

ACCA pass mark is as you know 50% but you are not expected to reach 100% as the exams are not intended to be completed but rather are pressure tests woth a lot of the answer receiving no marks at all but still being necessary to draw the correct concliusions.

ACCA do not allow enough time to do one question properly let alone four or five.

The difference is that to pass in that sort of environment the knowledge must be ingrained rather than having to think about it. The thinking is applying the knowledge to the scenario.

It does seem that when deciding on the exemptions that the ICB use the exception as the rule.

If you put a hundred qualified bookkeepers and a hundred qualified accountants in a room with a test based on AAT you would see no real difference until AAT level IV when the accountants would streak out ahead.

But there will be bookkeepers in there who keep up with the accoutnants in the same way that there will be some accountants who fail at the bookkeeping.

The only time that I would agree with you over accountants not being able to do bookkeeping is where over generous exemptions are given based on university qualifications meaning that some people from some selected universities started accountancy at the professional rather than skills level missing bookkeeping altogether. If these people ended up working in industry rather than practice then they might never be exposed to double entry.

A lot of these people come through the big four.

Regardless of their lack of double entry knowledge do you really want to allienate people from that background from direct membership? Those are the people who could do more to get your qualification recognised in industry and practice than anyone else.

Those are the people who, maybe because they are bringing up a family turn to the ICB expectant that their background will give them full exemptions and red carpet to membership. When they are disappointed in their expectations, when they return to the full work environment and are in the position to employ people again they are unlikely to prioritise the members of an institution that considered top level accountancy qualifications of so little worth.

You talk of high standards but what higher standard is there than knowing what is right and wrong in preparing the accounts and tax computations which at the higher levels is the work that bookkeepers are expected to perform for clients.

So there's another thought. If accountants cannot do bookkeeping basics give make then do levels I and II but give them full exemptions from levels III and IV which is where ICB starts to venture into accountants territory.

I don't think that we will ever agree on this as our perspectives are so completely opposed.

kind regards,

Shaun.

p.s. The ICB statistics upon which their opinions were formed included AAT as accountants. In changing the status of AAT to bookkeepers can I take it that the AAT data has been removed from the data population of accountants in the statistics.

For the ICB statistics to have any meaning you must publish the data. For example, were the statistics based on qualified accountants, part qualified accountants, practicing accountants, which bodies? One can do anything they like with statistics. The only facts are pure data and even then such must be taken in conjunction with the questions asked, size and distribution of the population, etc.

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Hi Nick,

yes, see what you mean.

I was coming to the question from the perspective that I know that Neil is looking to work in practice / industry rather than going self employed.

If Premier were looking you might even be able to get a great little resource there as a distance learning tutor! (just a suggestion).

kind regards,

Shaun.

TRAINING LINK · Senior Member

Training Link used to provide IAB courses but there was not enough interest in them to continue down this path, even one of the IAB award winning Training Providers Woodgrave Tutorials is now providing ICB courses and I should imagine this will be down to demand as much as anything else. ICB are sometimes not recognised by other bodies because of nothing more than politics and not being OFQUAL but if I know anything about Garry Garter then its only a matter of time before this is addressed.

I know we all have our personal opinions and mine is the ICB do a fantastic job in promoting the profession of Bookkeeping Principles and travel far and wide spreading the word, and its not just about gaining their qualifications and resting on your laurals but CPD is also a massive factor and ICB expect all members to show continual professional development even if all their qualifications have been achieved.

Stats are always debateable and like Shaun says mean nothing without raw data but regardless of stats for me the ICB are seen as the major promoter of the Bookkeeping profession and until I see otherwise have my full support regardless of the company I work for.

Dave

NickCraggs · Guru

Hi Dave,

We were down in the temporary ICB towers last month and Gary Carter said that they are not going for OFQUAL accreditation, but admitted that their stance on this does change everyweek. They are, however, looking at SQA, up in Scotland, which might help them to be recognised a bit more by other bodies.

I do agree that they are a very visible and vocal supporters of bookkeepers

TRAINING LINK · Senior Member

Hi Nick

Yes I saw your post on the ATP forum on the ICB website which you posted the question regarding OFQUAL and SQA. The main thing to remember is ICB are recognised by HMRC and reality is this is all that matters.

Dave

Georgie · Guru

You can charge more if you are AAT qualified...

TRAINING LINK · Senior Member

Shamus wrote:
Yes, I knew that it would take you to see the sense of this Dave.

Only by people such as ourselves using the banks can bankers get those bonuses in order to be able to afford to buy new Aston Martins which is the only way to drive the economy forwards and pull us out of this recession.

Do you realise that even as we speak there are bankers out there who are down to just one bottle of Crystal an evening! What next, will we expect these poor selfless souls to start drinking Moet!!!

Good god are there no bounds to the depths to which people are pushing poor bankers!

On that note Shaun I am changing my name to Lloyds TSB Nat West Santander Barclays Esq by deed poll in the morning and then demanding my bonus off Gary Hupston in the afternoon!

I only hope he doesnt tell me to NORTHERN ROCK off lol

Dave

Oops no bonus for spelling my bosses name wrong (hence the edit)

-- Edited by TRAINING LINK on Wednesday 3rd of April 2013 09:12:35 PM

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

I think thats more down to the confidence of the person with the qualification than the qualification itself Georgie.

There are plenty of AAT, ACCA and CIMA bods out there who cannot find work or are in minimum wage roles.

Luck comes into the equation almost as much as the peices of paper that we hold.

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

TRAINING LINK wrote:
The main thing to remember is ICB are recognised by HMRC and reality is this is all that matters.

Yes, maybe, but not quite as simple as that Dave.

HMRC has to adhere to financial reporting standards which are set by the FRC working closely with the main accountancy bodies (per the requirements of the companies act).

If the financial reporting standards required that accountants needed to possess a certain level of recognised qualification then HMRC would have to implement that regardless as to who they are prepared to recognise themselves.

The thing is that the FRC will not implement that as it flies in the face of the previous administrations policy and the current Government show no signs of changing that stance (although, if there were a lot of high profile cases threatening confidence in the accounting profession that attitude could quickly change).

So, basically, whilst your statement is factually correct for the ICB it simplifies a somewhat more complex situation that exists behind the scenes where HMRC is implementing the decisions of others, not thinking up their own rules no matter how they may portray their role.

If I were the ICB I would be looking at Ofqual recognition as an insurance policy against any potential change of attitude. But, that's just my attitude to risk and others have different ones. (You can only Avoid, Transfer, Reduce or Accept Risk. I try to avoid it).

kind regards,

Shaun.

Rhianrach · Expert

Shamus wrote:
(You can only Avoid, Transfer, Reduce or Accept Risk. I try to avoid it).
kind regards,
Shaun.

It's an awesome game though, one of my favourites, this thread is making me want to go out and buy it smile

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

lol.

I prefer Monopoly though... We have our own rules including taking out loans with rates that you negotiate and which if the person is desperate make the rates for payday loans seem reasobable.

Other players can also offer loans at less than the bank is offering.

All in all it basically just makes sure that the family doesn't talk to each other from one Christmas to the next.

Rhianrach · Expert

And teaches them that banks are evil furious

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

No, no, no... Banks are your freind. They selflessly devote their time and money for the betterment of their clients and the safe keeping of their clients wealth with hardly a shilling used in the process.

ok, even I cannot keep a straight face when saying that.

Maybe I should have gone for the analogy that banks are not evil in the same way as a gun is not evil, it's the person wielding it that you need to be wary of.

TRAINING LINK · Senior Member

Shamus wrote:
TRAINING LINK wrote:
The main thing to remember is ICB are recognised by HMRC and reality is this is all that matters.
Yes, maybe, but not quite as simple as that Dave.
HMRC has to adhere to financial reporting standards which are set by the FRC working closely with the main accountancy bodies (per the requirements of the companies act).
If the financial reporting standards required that accountants needed to possess a certain level of recognised qualification then HMRC would have to implement that regardless as to who they are prepared to recognise themselves.
The thing is that the FRC will not implement that as it flies in the face of the previous administrations policy and the current Government show no signs of changing that stance (although, if there were a lot of high profile cases threatening confidence in the accounting profession that attitude could quickly change).
So, basically, whilst your statement is factually correct for the ICB it simplifies a somewhat more complex situation that exists behind the scenes where HMRC is implementing the decisions of others, not thinking up their own rules no matter how they may portray their role.
If I were the ICB I would be looking at Ofqual recognition as an insurance policy against any potential change of attitude. But, that's just my attitude to risk and others have different ones. (You can only Avoid, Transfer, Reduce or Accept Risk. I try to avoid it).
kind regards,
Shaun.

Hi Shaun

I agree and from what Nick says ICB are no longer looking at OFQUAL but this is one of the reasons ICB get knocked and not celebrated for what they have done for the Bookkeeping profession, as an outsider looking in I have seen huge improvement in the institute and not being recognised by OFQUAL should not in my opinion take away from the goals ICB have achieved and still aim to achieve, as you know I am just a ICB course advisor nothing more and nothing less and my job is to simplify reasons why a potential student should join the ICB, and not overcomplicate, but that said I do look at how other organisations that are recognised by OFQUAL promote the profession and in my humble personal opinion it is a no contest. Now to Monopoly lol

Dave

TRAINING LINK · Senior Member

Shamus wrote:
No, no, no... Banks are your freind. They selflessly devote their time and money for the betterment of their clients and the safe keeping of their clients wealth with hardly a shilling used in the process.

ok, even I cannot keep a straight face when saying that.

Maybe I should have gone for the analogy that banks are not evil in the same way as a gun is not evil, it's the person wielding it that you need to be wary of.

So its the people who use Banks are the evil ones lol, and the ones that dont use banks are depriving shareholders of bumper bonuses? I think I finally get it now lol.

Dave

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Yes, I knew that it would take you to see the sense of this Dave.

Only by people such as ourselves using the banks can bankers get those bonuses in order to be able to afford to buy new Aston Martins which is the only way to drive the economy forwards and pull us out of this recession.

Do you realise that even as we speak there are bankers out there who are down to just one bottle of Crystal an evening! What next, will we expect these poor selfless souls to start drinking Moet!!!

Good god are there no bounds to the depths to which people are pushing poor bankers!