To celebrate the return of Neil to the site and to go fishing for Nick and Kris, time I think to get back to asking some fundamental questions.
I've mentioned it before in passing that I've felt for some time that ICB is attempting to sneak up on territory starting at AAT.
The latest announcments from the ICB relate to members passing advanced bookkeeping and accounts (congratulations to those who passed by the way) and in the same newsletter is an announcement about a new formations portal for members wishing to help busnesses to incorporate.
So, considering the above is the ICB (despite its name) actually a bookkeeping or an accounting qualification. (Remember that bookkeeping ends at trial balance).
If as I think most will agree that it's now heading into being an accounancy qualification do you feel that it is time that
(a) They changed their name to something more appropriate (similar to how the IFA changed from being the Institute of Bookkeepers)
(b) They became officially recognised and bound by IFAC regulations
(c) They stop trying to make bookkeeping (as opposed to bookkeeping and accountancy) a protected profession.
Just to clarify for those out there who believe that every time I mention ICB I am somehow attacking it, nothing here is in any way attacking them, they are legitimate questions about where the future of the body is seen as I do not think that the ICB see the work of its members stopping at trial balance but the work of a bookkeeper does.
Have fun with the above questions,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Using the Wikipedia definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookkeeping - then the ICB qualifications go into the realm of the Accountant. I think to truly enter the world of the Accountant (instead of a little raiding party on the borders) - You would have to have completed the ICB Financial Manager Qualification - which gives you exemption from ACCA F3 in Financial Accounting.
However, it is a long way from a full accounting qualification with the ACCA - ie F1 to F2 then F4 to F9 and then five from P1 to P7 !!
As you probably realised from your reference to ACCA I was using the commonly held accountants definition of the bookkeeping role which is bookkeeping to trial balance, VAT and Payroll.
the exemptions that you refer to from the ACCA qualification have recently been updated slightly. The current exemptions are :
LEVEL IV CERTIFICATE IN ADVANCED BOOKKEEPING AND ACCOUNTS - Gives exemption from F3 Financial Accounting LEVEL IV CERTIFICATE IN MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING - Gives exemption from F2 Management Accounting
Worth noting that F2 and F3 are fundamental entry level papers. When they were 1.2 and 1.1 respectively they were two that you needed to pass before you were transferred onto the ACCA qualification at 2.1 (skills level).
At the P level its broken in two.
P1 to P3 is the core that must be achieved in its entirety (which at least these days doesn't mean in a single sitting!).
P4 to P7 are the specialisation papers and you pick any two from four (the specialisations are Advanced Financial Management, Advanced Performance Management, Advanced Taxation and Advanced Audit) so there are only actually five papers to sit at the P level rather than the seven that it initially seems.
Its that raiding part of your reply that is the key. There is no denying that at the higher level the services now being offered are firmly accountancy related rather than bookkeeping undermining the ICB's niche claim of being a specialist bookkeeping qualification, and as such, isn't it time they changed their name to something more relevant to their new direction.
kind regards,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
I do think that anything past trial balance is into accountants territory but the lines are now very blurred. Most accountants do some form of bookkeeping at some point but they dont feel the need to change their title.
To be fair to the ICB, the IAB also has syllabus which goes into tax and final accountants, so the post is relevant to them as well.
Nick
__________________
Nick
Nick Craggs FMAAT ACA AAT Distance Learning Manager
Ah, but.... That arguements flawed in that whilst an accountant will do bookkeeping that is because bookkeeping is the foundation stone of accountancy. (so accountancy includes all bookkeping)
conversely you can keep financial records without understanding accountancy so it is not a two way thing.
Whilst IAB may be as guilty of such infringement on some counts they are not currently (to the best of my knowledge) telling their members thats its ok to help the self employed to incorporate their businesses.
p.s. good to see you Nick, hope that all's well for you.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Everything is really good at the moment, just sooo amazingly busy at the moment! The job keeps me busy 7 days a week, and then i haven taken on a number of new roles on the AAT council, which I am quite chuffed to be doing, but considering I work from home I spend a lot of time in London.
So if you are saying bookkeeping is the foundation of accountancy, does that not make bookkeeping part of accountancy, and there is no such thing as bookkeeping? Everyone is an accountant to some degree, and it just some people go further on the accountancy spectrum than others? Although are we in danger of getting into semantics?
I am big believer of what it says on the tin, i.e. you can call yourself what you want, but if you are doing final accounts and tax returns, you are an accountant.
I wasn't aware the ICB were doing that. I always thought the ICB wouldn't let their member give tax advice but could do the returns. Which seemed a bit odd, because someone could ask you if they were better off using 45p a mile or claiming the expenses, and you couldn't answer but you could put it on the return. Advising people to incorporate is completely the other way!
Hope you are keeping busy, and the family is well!
Nick
__________________
Nick
Nick Craggs FMAAT ACA AAT Distance Learning Manager
Interestingly enough, although I do tax returns, I don't consider myself an accountant. An accountant to me is able to look at ways to reduce their tax bill, whereas I just go on the paperwork given me and produce the final accounts from that. If I think a client could save money by using an accountant, then I will tell them.
However I am happy to advise on the 45p mileage, so maybe I am an accountant after all. Wah hey!
__________________
John
Any advice given is for general guidance and professional advice should be sought applicable to your circumstances.
ICB level 4 gives a member the qualification to do statutory accounts. I believe that there is also a separate self assessment tax qualification, but I am not a member any more so not sure.
But is it right that they offer a statutory accounts service if the arguement for differentiation is that they are a bookkeeping qualification and bookkeeping stops at trial balance.
I think that the ICB is simply confirming what we have been saying all along in that the whole concept of differentiation is flawed and all that really exists is accountancy and the level IV qualification simply confirms that reality.
Of course, I think that the level IV qualification needs to be a lot longer as I'm seeing nothing in the syllabus available online relating to specific accounting standards, notes to the accounts, ethics, etc.
I know that the arguement will be that the ICB is not like the accountancy qualifications further up the tree.... I don't see that arguement though. It shouldn't make any difference the qualification that one holds. the same accounting standards apply whether they are applied by a chartered accountant or a certified bookkeeper. If one is providing the same service then one should not be able to differentiate between the two.
The ICB is aiming to compete directly against the AAT where the AAT have the syllabus content of ethics and accounting standards right.
Of course, even AAT shy away from the darker side of matters such as group accounts and financial instruments but they do cover all of the basic standards in some depth which is enough to service the majority of SME's which is the ICB's target market.
If anyone wants to disagree with me and tell me that the IFAC code is covered in depth and name the specific standards covered by the level IV syllabus I will gladly stand corrected.
Syllabus content aside though such should not detract from the general discussion that the ICB qualification is now aimed at being accountancy and not bookkeeping.
Unfortunately pretending to be a bookkeeping only qualification and the voice of bookkeepers is what differentiates its offering over the competition.
Oh, whilst I remember, I found a mention of the ICB on the FRC website
"Our meetings with bookkeepers were with members of the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers (ICB) who run their own public practices. These individuals may well not be representative of most bookkeepers; for example, local newspaper advertisements for bookkeepers are more likely to ask for experience in a particular accounting software package than a formal bookkeeping qualification. Members of the ICB typically prepare the accounts for their clients to a trial balance stage and then pass the information to a professional accountant to compile the statutory accounts".
So even the FRC believe that the ICB stops at trial balance!
Even though that documents now a few years old that short 50 page document is well worth a read as its as true to day as when it was written.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
The ICB recently withdrew the level 4 personal and business tax exams whilst they re-write them so perhaps the new syllabus will cover the items mentioned above.
Not so great if you were about to sit the old exams though as it looks like they will be unavailable for 2/3 months.
I'm going to fire this one right back, Shaun. Is it time that the BKN (Book Keepers Network) changed it's name to something more in keeping with the breadth of membership it has? Much of the stuff dealt with is not, by the definition you agree, bookkeeping.
Having said that, what's in a name? The ICB have some more fundamental issues that they need to overcome before worrying about which name they go with. I've been hearing from a lot of bookkeepers recently who are upset by the ICB trying to break into the US. It's been mentioned to me that while there are accountants in Preston who have never heard of the ICB then it's work has hardly even started in the UK.
I do not believe that bookkeeping exists as a seperate profession at all and I always refer to this site as BKN rather than book-keepers network in the same way that IMI, ICI and IBM are businesses based on those letters rather than what they were initially acronymns for (Imperial Metals Industry (who I worked as a management consultant for... As far from metal bashing as you can get!), Imperial Chemicals Indurstry, International Business Machines).
My issue with a name is where differentiation is attempted on a flawed basis.
I'm going to have to post this then restart Firefox (maybe my machine) as it seems to have it's knickers in a twist. I'm typing away but on the screen one character appears, 1 to 2 seconds later another character appears. I've been sitting here for over a minute waiting for it to get to the end of the sentence that I had written.
Feel free to respond whilst I get it sorted out. We'll continue the discussion about international expansion in a mo... And its not just the ICB.
Laters.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Right, I'm back. Sorry about that. It was SQLServer hogging all of the RAM.
Where was I. International expansion.
Yes, ACCA seems to have hit a bit of an issue there as well in that lots of people in India and Pakistan have studied ACCA but their expectation was that it would open doors to move West where it doesn't.
Similarly ACCA taken in the UK does not open doors to America (requires CPA), Canada (seems like an accountnancy profession closed shop) or Australia (have a big sign on the door saying that they're already full of accountants).
I think that CIMA have had a little more success with their qualification going cross borders as it is less perceived as being tied to local GAAP where the ACCA one whilst a truly global brand seems to be a mark of quality for the country that its taken in rather than a door opener.
ICB heading over to the US is in some ways a natural progression if they can argue that they are successful in their own territory then it may open doors that need to be opened when the home territory is ten levels past over saturated.
They are after all a business and they have to keep expanding their horizons. I suspect that was also the reason for more emphasis on moving the qualification towards accountancy. Which of course comes with the obvious risk that if you take the incumbants on on their own turf its not going to end well for you unless you are a strong player coming to the table.
My view there is that the move towards offering the full range of accounancy services was inevitable but the hand is being played a few years too soon as they are still not widely recognised in the UK by either accountants or business.
Then, if they did try to become noticed by accountants in the UK would such admitance of intent towards competition as seems to be the current approach really work in their favour?
Interesting times.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
