ICAI Membership fees - Value for money as a member in business

Konkers

I'm a chartered accountant with 10 years PQE working in an Irish PLC. Each year since qualifying I've paid my ICAI membership fee (this year €565). Each year my payment gets to the ICAI later and later in the year. Today (yes I know, very late) I paid my annual subscription for 2013. This week I received two phone calls (I’ve been ignoring the monthly notices), 1 today and 1 last Monday, from the membership office of the ICAI informing me that the council meeting to strike off members who have not paid would be held today and if I wanted to avoid this fate I would have to pay up (by Friday last per last Mondays voicemail and within the next half hour per todays voicemail).

I rang the lady who left me the voicemails and was told over the phone if I did not pay I would be struck off. I asked what the implications were. She said it would mean I would not be a member. So I asked if that means I would no longer be regarded as a chartered accountant. She said that if anyone rang up and asked if I was a member they would be told that I had been struck off. I asked if an explanation would be given i.e. I stopped paying the fees but I was a qualified chartered accountant. She said that for data protection reasons they could not disclose the reasons. I told her that I would give the ICAI permission to disclose this and then that would not be an issue. She said that they did not have the facility to do this.

I expressed my total and utter disappointment with the benefits I get for this €600. I asked if I could be put in contact with the other members who were in a similar position to myself. She said she could not disclose other member details. She did say that I could send her an e-mail to the council secretary and set out my views with him. I asked how many members paid this fee. She said that there was 22k. I was flabberghasted. That’s 11m in fees per annum at an average of €500 per head!!!!!!!

In all fairness she was very nice but in the end all she wanted was the money and she got it……...the threat od being left out in the cold was enough.

I’m wondering if there are other business members who have similar views on this to myself? Post here or PM me if so.

I will be campaigning my immediate network also.

Gaillimh1976

Agree it's incredibly poor value for money. Work pay mine so have not had the issues with late payment, but 100% agree with the rest of your post.

douglastubbs

yep - work pay for fees but it is poor value and if work did not pay not sure I would maintain it. Perhaps using the linkedin group to highlight the issues but it may be a waste of time (IMO) as the institute need every penny to pay for the offices on Pearse Street whilst they have laid off a lot of staff and offerings are getting even worse than they were. There are plenty of Accountants who no longer pay subs but if you are working in a technical area you probably need it. Also, would question the amounts mentioned by Institute.

Konkers

Another thing that I thought was outrageous was being told I would have to pay 877 euro once off and all unpaid annual subs to be readmitted.

It's a total money racket.

Konkers

No she was not far off. had a quick gander over the annual report. Total income of 26m ( subs and other). Over 11m in employment costs. We have over 21k members worldwide of which 6k are in practice and over 13k are in business.

Jim2007

Well if you feel strongly about it, why not go to the AGM and bring the topic up?

smcgiff

Have you had a gander at their accounts? What are their reserves like? What are the executives being paid?

Basically, do they need to receive this amount of fees from their members?

Konkers

@ jim2007.

Jim, this is something that I would like to do, however nothing will happen if it's just one person putting this perspective across. Add in a 1000 or so other members who feel this way and are prepared not to pay the fees and the council will have to rethink their approach. What changes they would need to make????? I could not hazard a guess.

@ smcgiff
Have a look yourself and let me know what you think. The annual report on the website.
http://www.charteredaccountants.ie/en/General/About-Us/Annual-Reports/

jonnybravo

Think the vast majority of accountants would agree with you. If you throw in the charges for CPD then your talking a lot of money per year.

I think the biggest issue in getting collective action on this would be that the vast majority of subs are paid by companies so accountants themselves aren't affected by the cost.

Konkers

yes jonnybravo you are absolutely right.

I'd like to think that I pay a portion of this fee for the good representation that the ICAI gives its the profession & its members at a national and industry level.

However we also represent ourselves on a daily basis wherever we work. And to that end a key element of this would be recognising where there is a shortfall in value for money.

Where best to do this but our own back yard?

(trying to rouse the troops..................)

smcgiff

Konkers wrote: »

@ smcgiff
Have a look yourself and let me know what you think. The annual report on the website.
http://www.charteredaccountants.ie/en/General/About-Us/Annual-Reports/

3 more great years like 2012 and they'd be insolvent. Better keep paying those membership fees!

cson

smcgiff wrote: »

3 more great years like 2012 and they'd be insolvent. Better keep paying those membership fees!

Call me heartless but 650k to Charity is insane when you're running a deficit that's almost exactly that figure.

Jim2007

cson wrote: »

Call me heartless but 650k to Charity is insane when you're running a deficit that's almost exactly that figure.

From what I recall the money paid out in charity comes from a restricted fund to which members contribute at their discretion in addition to their membership fees. I think the suggested contribution is about €100 pa. This money is not available to the Institute for it's general operations.

And having met some of the people who have benefited from this fund, I for one am happy to continue contributing to this cause.

Konkers

smcgiff wrote: »

3 more great years like 2012 and they'd be insolvent. Better keep paying those membership fees!

I would not agree with that point of view. Whats the point in paying the fees begrudgingly and not knowing what the ICAI are doing to improve the offering and arrest the slide you point to?

cw girl

I agree with OP. My company has paid this up to this year, however a change in my job means that I'll have to pay next year (if I can afford).

Kjay

Agree with the above. Institute is operated in interest of big firms of practicing accountants and looks after their vested interests. Also, have concerns about the integrity of the Institute and direction the profession is going. Where were the accountants in sounding alarms over the, at best, reckless business practices used in the pursuit of unsustainable growth, especially in the banking and property sector? The answer, I fear is countering their fees......and maybe, as with A Andersen and Enron, aiding and abetting.....

Jim2007

Kjay wrote: »

Agree with the above. Institute is operated in interest of big firms of practicing accountants and looks after their vested interests. Also, have concerns about the integrity of the Institute and direction the profession is going. Where were the accountants in sounding alarms over the, at best, reckless business practices used in the pursuit of unsustainable growth, especially in the banking and property sector? The answer, I fear is countering their fees......and maybe, as with A Andersen and Enron, aiding and abetting.....

Are you a member of the Institute? And if so what have you been doing to prevent this from happening, have you been speaking out? have you attend the AGMs and challenged what was being proposed? Did you stand for election or support the campaign of some that did?

mydiscworld

http://caisubscriptionmanagement.newsweaver.com/membersubscriptionrenewalnotice/140u0d65y4l

Subscription fees for 2013 - 2014

Chief Executive's message

In recent years you have given us two very strong messages: you wanted lower
subscription fees and you wanted your institute to be more relevant to your
business needs. In response, our Strategic Plan targets a reduction of
subscriptions by 20% by 2016 and so far we have been successful in reducing fees
by 12% over the past three years.



For 2013, while the extremely difficult economic circumstances preclude a
further reduction, I can confirm that for 2013 to 2014 the Institute will
keep subscription rates level at 2012 levels. After 2014, it is our
intention to return to the gradual reduction of membership subscriptions.
During this time, my commitment to you is to further improve levels of service
and value. In some cases, this will mean providing additional supports at no
extra cost; elsewhere it means making existing services more relevant to greater
numbers of members.

v638sg7k1a92bx

There seems to be a misconception that the CAI are somehow biased towards members in practice, I've worked in practice and you can never get an answer from CAI regarding a technical query. They don't even reply or answer email or telephone calls.

I think the whole thing is going down the pan. They had a lease on a premises in Ballsbridge which expired and subsequently tried to merge with CPA (which would have been a good thing IMO) and incidentally CPA owned their property in Dublin 2, that fell through and CAI developed their premises at the height of the property bubble slap bang in the the city centre which is also very awkward to get in and out of in terms of transport and parking. Now they're servicing a loan of €26m as per their Balance Sheet, €2m in interest alone (as per their cashflow), they have land and buildings valued at €45m per fixed assets which seems grossly overstated to me if that just relates to the property on Pearse St (correct me if I'm wrong). In effect they're saying that the premises we built circa 2007 is valued at €45m but the loan is only €26m. Sorry but isn't the exact opposite usually the case for people/businesses who developed during the boom i.e. the loan is usually greater than what the property is worth? I think there's a potential huge impairment on that property that the CAI haven't recognised because to do so would mean that the institute is insolvent and running an annual deficit!!!

smcgiff

Garrett Miniature Flutist wrote: »

There seems to be a misconception that the CAI are somehow biased towards members in practice, I've worked in practice and you can never get an answer from CAI regarding a technical query. They don't even reply or answer email or telephone calls.

I think the whole thing is going down the pan. They had a lease on a premises in Ballsbridge which expired and subsequently tried to merge with CPA (which would have been a good thing IMO) and incidentally CPA owned their property in Dublin 2, that fell through and CAI developed their premises at the height of the property bubble slap bang in the the city centre which is also very awkward to get in and out of in terms of transport and parking. Now they're servicing a loan of €26m as per their Balance Sheet, €2m in interest alone (as per their cashflow), they have land and buildings valued at €45m per fixed assets which seems grossly overstated to me if that just relates to the property on Pearse St (correct me if I'n effect they're saying that the premises we built circa 2007 is valued at €45m but the loan is only €26m. Sorry but isn't the m wrong). Iexact opposite usually the case for people/businesses who developed during the boom i.e. the loan is usually greater than what the property is worth? I think there's a potential huge impairment on that property that the CAI haven't recognised because to do so would mean that the institute is insolvent and running an annual deficit!!!

Perhaps they paid for it partially out of retained earnings.

There's no obligation to revalue the asset. And would make little sense if they have no intention of moving.

Odats

I don't think it is Value for Money. I only pay it to keep my letters. Had an issue with CAI when they changed their student course fee structure back in 2008 when I was studying for my 2009 FAE's. Was stung for 15% of the course fees as employer wouldn't pay under new ruling and because their was a new trainee joining on the new structure I had to stump up even though I paid my €800 odd registration in 2006 on commencement of training contract. I think it was another €800 so basically held a gun to my head pay up or don't get qualified.

I think they could do more. I would of liken them to keep the US GAAP course going as would of having an interest in that.

JD Dublin

smcgiff wrote: »

Have you had a gander at their accounts? What are their reserves like? What are the executives being paid?

Basically, do they need to receive this amount of fees from their members?

Its a long time since I did the exercise, but I think you'll find the average salaries are very high. i.e. take the salaries figure for the Institute and divide them by the numbers employed to get an overall average. Given that there are quite a number of clerical staff in the institute, there are some nice salaries being paid to the higher-ups in there.

JD Dublin

cson wrote: »

Call me heartless but 650k to Charity is insane when you're running a deficit that's almost exactly that figure.

That's fair enough, but consider that the charity donations are sometimes to less well-off members, who have fallen on hard times. This includes members who are no longer able to support themselves through illness, bereavement, perhaps one of their children is sick and their spouse incapacitated. Does that change your view? It certainly did change mine when I questioned an Institute person about this very point many years ago

Jim2007

JD Dublin wrote: »

That's fair enough, but consider that the charity donations are sometimes to less well-off members, who have fallen on hard times. This includes members who are no longer able to support themselves through illness, bereavement, perhaps one of their children is sick and their spouse incapacitated. Does that change your view? It certainly did change mine when I questioned an Institute person about this very point many years ago

And as I already pointed out:

Jim2007 wrote: »

From what I recall the money paid out in charity comes from a restricted fund to which members contribute at their discretion in addition to their membership fees. I think the suggested contribution is about €100 pa. This money is not available to the Institute for it's general operations.

And having met some of the people who have benefited from this fund, I for one am happy to continue contributing to this cause.

JD Dublin

Jim2007 wrote: »

And as I already pointed out:

yes Jim, I responded to the earlier post before reading your one.

porsche959

Garrett Miniature Flutist wrote: »

There seems to be a misconception that the CAI are somehow biased towards members in practice, I've worked in practice and you can never get an answer from CAI regarding a technical query. They don't even reply or answer email or telephone calls.

Perception is probably based on most if not all of Council being in practice.

Garrett Miniature Flutist wrote: »

I think the whole thing is going down the pan. They had a lease on a premises in Ballsbridge which expired and subsequently tried to merge with CPA (which would have been a good thing IMO) and incidentally CPA owned their property in Dublin 2, that fell through and CAI developed their premises at the height of the property bubble slap bang in the the city centre which is also very awkward to get in and out of in terms of transport and parking. Now they're servicing a loan of €26m as per their Balance Sheet, €2m in interest alone (as per their cashflow), they have land and buildings valued at €45m per fixed assets which seems grossly overstated to me if that just relates to the property on Pearse St (correct me if I'm wrong). In effect they're saying that the premises we built circa 2007 is valued at €45m but the loan is only €26m. Sorry but isn't the exact opposite usually the case for people/businesses who developed during the boom i.e. the loan is usually greater than what the property is worth? I think there's a potential huge impairment on that property that the CAI haven't recognised because to do so would mean that the institute is insolvent and running an annual deficit!!!

I'm inclined to agree the proposed merger with CPA was a good idea, but at the end of the day the membership voted it down. Overall, rationalisation of professional institutes within the profession is long overdue though IMO.

By the way the Linkedin group for CAI has had some interesting and contentious discussions on the issues you raised regarding the finances of the Institute - things seem to have gone quiet on there of late though.

v638sg7k1a92bx

smcgiff wrote: »

Perhaps they paid for it partially out of retained earnings.

That's just management speak, you cant pay for anything with retained earnings. Unless CAI had millions in the bank then that's the only way they could pay for it out of "retained earnings". That's also unlikely considering that they have the asset valued (assuming at cost) at €45m and the loan value is €26m then they would have had to come up with circa €20m in cash which is highly unlikely and that's also assuming that there has been no impairment to date!

smcgiff wrote: »

There's no obligation to revalue the asset. And would make little sense if they have no intention of moving.

What about FRS11 Impairment of Fixed Assets and Goodwill? True and fair view...

smcgiff

Garrett Miniature Flutist wrote: »

That's just management speak, you cant pay for anything with retained earnings. Unless CAI had millions in the bank then that's the only way they could pay for it out of "retained earnings". That's also unlikely considering that they have the asset valued (assuming at cost) at €45m and the loan value is €26m then they would have had to come up with circa €20m in cash which is highly unlikely and that's also assuming that there has been no impairment to date!



What about FRS11 Impairment of Fixed Assets and Goodwill? True and fair view...

The important point here is where does the €45m valuation come from? Is it historic or have they revalued it when times were good. If revalued they should keep it up to date.

It's a bit suspect the difference between the carrying amount and the matching loan amount.

I've not seen the accounts I'm just going on the figures quoted on this thread.

homer911

Sorry for dragging up an old thread, but I'm in the position this year of paying the fees myself. I haven't been employed as an Accountant for many years and don't need the qualification for my role and am most definitely unemployable as an accountant at this stage, but I'm still a little reluctant to surrender membership after studying hard for it for a number of years. I was told by the Institute that I might be entitled to reduced fees if my gross income is under €38k but they were not remotely interested in discussing a non-practising rate.

I thought about transferring to another accountancy body where the fees would be cheaper but they all seem to be around the same. If surrendering membership and wanting to rejoin, you have to pay a rejoining fee (currently €877) and make good the years of fees missed - what a rip off

It looks like its "adios" for me. Fees this year are €565 which is over €1k of gross income with nothing in return

mydiscworld

homer911 wrote: »

Sorry for dragging up an old thread, but I'm in the position this year of paying the fees myself. I haven't been employed as an Accountant for many years and don't need the qualification for my role and am most definitely unemployable as an accountant at this stage, but I'm still a little reluctant to surrender membership after studying hard for it for a number of years. I was told by the Institute that I might be entitled to reduced fees if my gross income is under €38k but they were not remotely interested in discussing a non-practising rate.

I thought about transferring to another accountancy body where the fees would be cheaper but they all seem to be around the same. If surrendering membership and wanting to rejoin, you have to pay a rejoining fee (currently €877) and make good the years of fees missed - what a rip off

It looks like its "adios" for me. Fees this year are €565 which is over €1k of gross income with nothing in return

I'm in a very similar situation with CPA. €584 for 2017 (up €43 on 2016).

In a different role now and can't see myself ever going back. I have only paid last few years because of the slog it was to pass in the first place.

I've tried asking my employer to pay but it's tricky and I'll pay BIK for over 300 of it anyway and feel like I owe favours.

A non-practising rate would be great. But I guess many would chance their arm to get this rate despite still practising to some degree.

Wonder I they'd consider a payment play maybe, pay per month so less painful than all up front.

homer911

mydiscworld wrote: »

I'm in a very similar situation with CPA. €584 for 2017 (up €43 on 2016).

In a different role now and can't see myself ever going back. I have only paid last few years because of the slog it was to pass in the first place.

I've tried asking my employer to pay but it's tricky and I'll pay BIK for over 300 of it anyway and feel like I owe favours.

A non-practising rate would be great. But I guess many would chance their arm to get this rate despite still practising to some degree.

Wonder I they'd consider a payment play maybe, pay per month so less painful than all up front.

Part of the problem is the definition of "non-practicing" - for many accountants this means not being in an accounting firm - and most accountants are inevitably non-practicing. The problem is that many accountants end up in non-accounting roles and the relevancy of the qualification fades away when experience and other qualifications are more relevant

A subsequent conversation I had with them made it pretty clear they would rather have no fees than reduced fees (probably for fear of opening the flood gates to other applicants)

Jim2007

mydiscworld wrote: »

Wonder I they'd consider a payment play maybe, pay per month so less painful than all up front.

You're an accountant surely you can organize yourself to have a couple of hundred available when needed!

mydiscworld

Jim2007 wrote: »

You're an accountant surely you can organize yourself to have a couple of hundred available when needed!

It's not about having no money to pay it, it's about not getting any use out of the nearly 600 fee. So if you did have to still pay it, if you could spread the cost out over the year, the pain would feel less psychologically

Jim2007

mydiscworld wrote: »

Jim2007 wrote: »

You're an accountant surely you can organize yourself to have a couple of hundred available when needed!

It's not about having no money to pay it, it's about not getting any use out of the nearly 600 fee. So if you did have to still pay it, if you could spread the cost out over the year, the pain would feel less psychologically

It is either worth something to you or it is not.  I don't see any reason why the institute should carry extra admin costs for you or would you be willing to pay say an extra 100 for instalment payments.

homer911

I think its more the issue that the Institute is charging a high level of fees and in many cases these fees are not being paid by an employer (therefore the cost is over €1k of gross income) and if paid by the employer, there will by BIK implications where the qualification is not strictly needed for the role. either way, its going to cost the individual a significant sum for something they are getting no value for - its not like a degree or a masters qualification which you have for life for no additional cost, you have to keep paying for this monicker!

myshirt

I have to say, I have never seen the institute more engaged and proactive then when it comes to chasing you for money.

Laser vision focus. They seriously are effective operators here.