When I made my post, "American Institute of Certified Public Accountants," I was unaware of this article, "CGMA ploy brings Cognitors back as CoGMAtors; is AICPA 2.0 next?" which appeared March 1, 2012 on the Accounting Today web site.
The authors of this article clearly and succinctly express my views and concerns on this issue. Unfortunately, my agreement extends to their assertion, "Do not expect the Elite to repent and resign, no matter how embarrassing the situation. They are entrenched and got there by wittingly or unwittingly sacrificing some or all of their self-respect. Surely they would deny it, but their actions reflect these three premises: The institute exists for their benefit, they deserve to be on top, and they can do no wrong."
I also agree with this suggestion, "Do not resign your AICPA membership. Although you may be thoroughly
repelled, even disgusted, the institute needs as many principled members
as possible to vote this scheme down and provide real leadership." Unless a critical mass of caring, concerned AICPA members come together to restore the focus of that organization to serving its CPA membership and the profession of public accounting, nothing useful will be accomplished. Bailing out of the AICPA, as desirable as that may be, will do nothing to slow the "Elite's" devaluation of Certified Public Accountant as a meaningful professional certification. In fact, CPAs who are not members of the AICPA should seriously consider joining and adding their voice to those who oppose the course being taken by the current leadership.
Showing posts with label AICPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AICPA. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
I’m a member of the AICPA. I get really useful, relevant materials that greatly assist my practice of public accounting. I also get cheap insurance. So despite what I say below, I don’t believe the AICPA is all bad.
The AICPA's mission is to provide members with the resources, information and leadership that enable them to provide valuable services in the highest professional manner to benefit the public, employers and clients. In fulfilling its mission, the AICPA works with state CPA organizations and gives priority to those areas where public reliance on CPA skills is most significant.”
The mission statement used to be to provide CPAs with resources, etc. but no more. Since you do not have to be a licensed CPA to be a member of the AICPA it is not surprising that “CPAs” was changed to “members” in the first sentence . The last sentence of the current mission statement reads like an afterthought.
The “AICPA Values and Vision Statement” doesn’t mention CPAs at all. The first sentence reads, “The AICPA is the premier national professional association in the United States.” While that may be true, it used to read, “The AICPA is the premier national professional association in the United States of Certified Public Accountants.”
Over the past few years, a member of the AICPA could acquire another AICPA issued professional designation by claiming to have the required experience and paying a few hundred dollars. Part of the marketing campaign was to get in early so you wouldn’t have to take the exam which would become mandatory for the new designation in the near future. Examples include Certified Information Technology Professional (CITP) and Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF). With the newest “certification for dollars” (Chartered Global Management Accountant), people don’t even have to be AICPA members to get a few more letters to tack on behind their names.
Voting membership is now available to non-CPAs who have done everything (gotten the education, passed the exam, obtained the experience) but have never bothered to actually get licensed as CPAs. This is purely an effort to gain members and to increase revenue for the AICPA. It has nothing to do with serving what, so far, is still the core constituency of the AICPA, Certified Public Accountants.
I am not the only CPA member of the AICPA who believes the top management of the AICPA has forgotten its original mission, its primary reason for existing. The primary mission of the AICPA was and should be to help CPAs be better CPAs. Another important function was and should be to enhance and protect the CPA brand. I, for one, do not see "certification for dollars" sold by the major CPA professional organization as protecting the CPA brand or assisting CPAs in being better at what we do.
I'm not sure if I'm being cynical or just fatalistic when I ask when is the Institute going to put forth the idea of changing the organization's name to something like Global Institute of Accountants (GIA)? Since you no longer have to be a CPA to be a voting member, or even an accountant, it appears to me to be a real possibility.
If the AICPA were really concerned about the profession of being a CPA we would be seeing more focus on business ethics, as one example, than on growing our membership by adding non-CPAs to the rolls. As another example, if the AICPA were really concerned with enhancing the CPA brand then, the first, iron clad requirement for all these new certifications would be possession of an active CPA license. That latter used to be the case but the CGMA is the first exception.
So what do I recommend? First, the Virginia State Board of Accountancy should revise its rules so that only AICPA members who are licensed CPAs are allowed to use the phrase “Member of the AICPA” on their signage, business cards, advertising etc. A similar rule should be put in place for membership in other organizations using CPA or Certified Public Accountant in their names. Failure to prohibit such use could easily create the impression that those non-CPAs were licensed Certified Public Accountants.
Second, I suggest anyone seeking professional services use professional designations only as a first filter in making a choice of provider. If the AICPA will give you a credential simply because you say you have the necessary training and experience, then what are some other designations worth?
As I said in the first paragraph above, the AICPA is not all bad. In fact, it is a good organization of high value to CPAs. It should be noted that most of the useful work is done by volunteers and by AICPA staff who are well below the policy making level in the organization. I am concerned, however, that the Institute is heading down a path that will make it less useful to Certified Public Accountants. Its injudicious approach to membership requirements and manner of granting other certifications will make it less credible as an organization to government, business and the investing public.
The AICPA's mission is to provide members with the resources, information and leadership that enable them to provide valuable services in the highest professional manner to benefit the public, employers and clients. In fulfilling its mission, the AICPA works with state CPA organizations and gives priority to those areas where public reliance on CPA skills is most significant.”
The mission statement used to be to provide CPAs with resources, etc. but no more. Since you do not have to be a licensed CPA to be a member of the AICPA it is not surprising that “CPAs” was changed to “members” in the first sentence . The last sentence of the current mission statement reads like an afterthought.
The “AICPA Values and Vision Statement” doesn’t mention CPAs at all. The first sentence reads, “The AICPA is the premier national professional association in the United States.” While that may be true, it used to read, “The AICPA is the premier national professional association in the United States of Certified Public Accountants.”
Over the past few years, a member of the AICPA could acquire another AICPA issued professional designation by claiming to have the required experience and paying a few hundred dollars. Part of the marketing campaign was to get in early so you wouldn’t have to take the exam which would become mandatory for the new designation in the near future. Examples include Certified Information Technology Professional (CITP) and Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF). With the newest “certification for dollars” (Chartered Global Management Accountant), people don’t even have to be AICPA members to get a few more letters to tack on behind their names.
Voting membership is now available to non-CPAs who have done everything (gotten the education, passed the exam, obtained the experience) but have never bothered to actually get licensed as CPAs. This is purely an effort to gain members and to increase revenue for the AICPA. It has nothing to do with serving what, so far, is still the core constituency of the AICPA, Certified Public Accountants.
I am not the only CPA member of the AICPA who believes the top management of the AICPA has forgotten its original mission, its primary reason for existing. The primary mission of the AICPA was and should be to help CPAs be better CPAs. Another important function was and should be to enhance and protect the CPA brand. I, for one, do not see "certification for dollars" sold by the major CPA professional organization as protecting the CPA brand or assisting CPAs in being better at what we do.
I'm not sure if I'm being cynical or just fatalistic when I ask when is the Institute going to put forth the idea of changing the organization's name to something like Global Institute of Accountants (GIA)? Since you no longer have to be a CPA to be a voting member, or even an accountant, it appears to me to be a real possibility.
If the AICPA were really concerned about the profession of being a CPA we would be seeing more focus on business ethics, as one example, than on growing our membership by adding non-CPAs to the rolls. As another example, if the AICPA were really concerned with enhancing the CPA brand then, the first, iron clad requirement for all these new certifications would be possession of an active CPA license. That latter used to be the case but the CGMA is the first exception.
So what do I recommend? First, the Virginia State Board of Accountancy should revise its rules so that only AICPA members who are licensed CPAs are allowed to use the phrase “Member of the AICPA” on their signage, business cards, advertising etc. A similar rule should be put in place for membership in other organizations using CPA or Certified Public Accountant in their names. Failure to prohibit such use could easily create the impression that those non-CPAs were licensed Certified Public Accountants.
Second, I suggest anyone seeking professional services use professional designations only as a first filter in making a choice of provider. If the AICPA will give you a credential simply because you say you have the necessary training and experience, then what are some other designations worth?
As I said in the first paragraph above, the AICPA is not all bad. In fact, it is a good organization of high value to CPAs. It should be noted that most of the useful work is done by volunteers and by AICPA staff who are well below the policy making level in the organization. I am concerned, however, that the Institute is heading down a path that will make it less useful to Certified Public Accountants. Its injudicious approach to membership requirements and manner of granting other certifications will make it less credible as an organization to government, business and the investing public.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Personal Financial Planning
Here's a useful, though admittedly just a tiny bit self-serving, post on the AICPA's Insights blog.
A good investment advisor will consider the life goals of his or her clients and present alternatives directed at achieving those goals, even if the advisor's compensation is commissions on the sales made to the client. Sometimes though even an outstanding fee-only and commission based advisor will overlook an important tax factor affecting one or more of the available investment alternatives.
Much of financial planning by individuals or businesses revolves around the tax impact of various alternatives. Is is important to have those alternatives evaluated by a tax professional who does not have a vested interest in the final choice made by the investor. If you are already having your tax returns prepared by a licensed professional (CPA or Enrolled Agent), then discuss your investment plans with him or her BEFORE signing anything. If you don't have a CPA or EA and your thinking about investing what seems to YOU to be a lot of money, then find one. Most of us will provide a free half hour of general discussion of your tax situation.
A good investment advisor will consider the life goals of his or her clients and present alternatives directed at achieving those goals, even if the advisor's compensation is commissions on the sales made to the client. Sometimes though even an outstanding fee-only and commission based advisor will overlook an important tax factor affecting one or more of the available investment alternatives.
Much of financial planning by individuals or businesses revolves around the tax impact of various alternatives. Is is important to have those alternatives evaluated by a tax professional who does not have a vested interest in the final choice made by the investor. If you are already having your tax returns prepared by a licensed professional (CPA or Enrolled Agent), then discuss your investment plans with him or her BEFORE signing anything. If you don't have a CPA or EA and your thinking about investing what seems to YOU to be a lot of money, then find one. Most of us will provide a free half hour of general discussion of your tax situation.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Tax Practice Improvement Committee
I've been appointed to the AICPA's Tax Practice Improvement Committee. As the name implies, our mandate is to find ways for CPAs in tax practice to improve their operations by delivering better services to their clients in a cost effective manner. I attended my first meeting of the committee yesterday in Washington, DC.
Four working groups were created yesterday. I'm on the Technology Working Group with Ed Zollars of Phoenix, AZ (Thomas, Zollars & Lynch) and Michael Gebura of Cleveland, OH (Grant Thornton).
I'm looking forward to this.
Four working groups were created yesterday. I'm on the Technology Working Group with Ed Zollars of Phoenix, AZ (Thomas, Zollars & Lynch) and Michael Gebura of Cleveland, OH (Grant Thornton).
I'm looking forward to this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)