Archives For ACCA

SH  01

By Sarah Hathaway, head of ACCA UK

We teamed up with the New Statesman to discuss this subject matter at the three party conferences – see a link to the report at the bottom of this blog, but here is my takeaway.

I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who does not think business cares about politics; politicians set the framework in which business operates, a working relationship is paramount. But do politicians care about business; does it only care about a certain type of business? This was the broader theme for the discussion.

The last few years have been difficult; the pressure on the public purse was always going to lead to trade-offs and some issues taking prevalence. And our members support austerity (mild or severe) if imposed at the right pace.

However if recovery is to continue, access to finance is key. As an organisation that supports members from small to large businesses, we recognise that their needs are distinct but that they are also intertwined; businesses do not operate in silos, they are party of a larger supply chain. We are keen to push all three of the parties to continue to champion alternative forms of finance and access to it. We know from our members that this is crucial and the small business bill has taken steps to improve this. There is some evidence that all parties recognise the importance of it but it’s about making sure the practical regulation works for business.

The issue of Europe was unsurprisingly part of the debate at Conservatives; as a global organisation we recognise the need for stability, that’s what our members want and that’s what is needed for businesses to attract long-term sustainable investment. Why would we cut ties with our biggest trading partner? That’s not to say reform isn’t needed, but reform from within not from the outside.

Of course discussing Europe involves a debate around immigration; that debate must be an honest one. We have a skills gap and so while we are working to plug that over the medium-term, we still need to fill it in the short-term. We believe all parties need to recognise that and taking students out of the net migration figure and treating them as a talent pipeline for business will help achieve that.

Ultimately politics involves trade-offs and risks, much in the way business does, but it is about calculated risk, evidence and taking a long-term view.

Politics is at its best when it recognises that it doesn’t have all the answers and that it shouldn’t try to. Instead as with any good relationship, the success comes through hard work, collaboration and concession on both sides.

To download a copy of the report click here.

SH  01

By Sarah Hathaway, head of ACCA UK

For those of you who have not yet seen, ACCA UK has launched Who accounts for social mobility? This paper was based on a survey of our members and students. Firstly thank you to all of you who took the time to take part in the survey your feedback was very insightful and highlighted what diversity there is among both students and members, across geography, age, gender and background.

Open access is at the heart of what ACCA believes; an open society is a fair one. We conducted the survey to get a greater understanding of whether what we are doing to encourage this is working, and to get a clearer picture of what you think. From the results, and other research and initiatives we are involved in we believe the government and business is not doing enough to ensure that everyone can get to the top.

Last Monday the government’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission launched its annual State of the Nation Report which looks at the UK as a whole to see whether the government is doing enough to ensure it reaches its child poverty targets and that social mobility is improving. Unfortunately much like our report, the Commission found the government to be lacking; we do face losing a talented generation if we do not do more.

The government claims to be focused on an inclusive growth agenda, but studies demonstrate that western countries with low social mobility have lower economic growth. If both the government and the opposition do not begin to take social mobility more seriously, we will become a permanently divided nation. To start with we would like to see a commitment from all three of the political parties to end the abuse of unpaid internships and ensure that businesses are advertising them freely and fairly to all. We were concerned to see that 43% of those who took our survey said they were unpaid, it simply isn’t good enough and both government and business must end this practice.

Secondly we would like to see a commitment to more effective dissemination of careers advice through the education system. As our own social mobility research shows, very few accountants find their way into the profession via their school or university. Improving teachers’ and careers advisers’ understanding of accountancy would make a significant contribution to improving access to the field, thus increasing social mobility.

Ahead of the UK general election in May, we will be working with the government and the Commission to look at what we believe should be done and how we can contribute. We are going to be hosting several roundtable discussions in Scotland, England and Wales working with a whole host of organisations to look at what is required to make sure that no one feels there is a glass ceiling.

Do keep an eye out on Twitter, Linkedin and Google+, as well as here, where we will keep you updated on our progress.

Brian Cox has got it easy…

accapr —  19 September 2014 — Leave a comment

JP  03

By Jason Piper, manager for tax and business law, ACCA

The recent launch of the OECD’s proposals for the BEPS project resulted in a deluge of response, commentary and reaction.

Too much is ill, mis or uninformed, and often from people who ought to know better. There’s a rush to present simplified answers, to try to clear everything up with a couple of soundbites and a nod to popular opinion.

But it’s not simple.

People say “oh, it’s not rocket science”. As these things go, rocket science is actually a comparatively simple bunch of equations. Rocket engineering on the other hand, now that’s difficult. Any 6th form physics student can (or at least, should be able to) do the theoretical calculations on how much fuel you need to get a given payload to escape velocity. But actually designing the pumps, tanks & nozzles to get the stuff to burn, let alone actually building them (hands up anyone with the knowledge of metallurgy to understand precisely which alloys you should be using where?) is a different matter, and only the most gifted and dedicated of amateurs have even a hope of getting a rocket to actually work (and even then they’d be the first to admit their debt to the professionals who build the parts).

Tax is much the same. Should everyone pay a fair amount of tax? Well that’s so trite it barely even deserves to be a question.

What is a fair amount of tax? You might as well ask what’s the right shade of blue, or how tall should a politician be.

Laws are the next best proxy we have to fairness when it comes to tax. But then the laws are (to put it mildly) complicated. And Brian Cox can point to planetary movements, reel off the equations, and explain what’s happened. When someone asks why a baseball pitch doesn’t work the same way, that’s easy – baseballs are operating in an atmosphere, and under another heavy gravitational field. And there’s no real mileage in trying to establish the physics of what would happen to a baseball in space, or a planet in the earth’s atmosphere and gravity, because the two scenarios are implausible. And there’s no need to worry about how a watermelon would operate at high altitude, or a whale sized object on the edge of the atmosphere, because such things don’t exist. There is no gentle graded curve between the tiny everyday objects that we all handle and work with and the vast numbers and forces which operate in astronomical models. There’s a clear break between them; no need for complex transitional calculations.

But tax isn’t like that. There’s no legal difference between the structure your window cleaner can set up to run his business and the one that a multinational might use to handle its international treasury function. There’s no difference in principle between the calculations that a business handling nuclear waste reprocessing does to work out its tax liability and those that a corner shop might do. And the tax system isn’t just trying to run one set of equations at once; it’s got two or three sets to cope with (companies, partnerships, limited vs unlimited liability variants, sole traders – they’re all valid forms of business, and it’s open to business to mix and match the legal forms to get itself the best result.) So it’s a bit like having planets that can behave like baseballs if they want to.

And the best bit is that the tax system isn’t like physics, which gets done to us and we just have to try to work it out from the evidence. The international tax system is something we’ve done to ourselves (albeit perhaps indirectly, in that it’s actually the work of elected politicians).

Now, I have to say that if we were in a position to be able to revise the equations that govern the temperature that the sun burns at, or the force exerted by gravity, I’d probably advise caution in the choice of those writing the new rules. I’d certainly want them to have a pretty firm grasp of astrophysics; a background in marketing or even an advanced degree in economics just wouldn’t quite be what I was hoping for.

But when it comes to the tax rules, there is a nasty tendency for the value of knowledge and experience to be ignored. I’m sure it would be terribly helpful to have the sun coming out at night instead, when the light would be more useful. Clearly weakening the force of gravity would make us all lighter and put diet clubs out of business overnight. Spinning the planet’s axis of rotation through 90 degrees would put London in the tropics and make for much warmer winters; bound to be a good thing.

It’s fairly obvious that actually none of those would be terribly good ideas, and no half-sane scientist would ever fall for them. But of course that’s another advantage the physicists have; they can be reasonably certain that their system works and they’re not at serious risk of breaking it. Tax systems aren’t like that. The British one was described this week as “complex, confused, irrational, punitive and in urgent need of root and branch reform”. And that got it a rating of 21st out of 34; quite what they’d have to say about the US system (33) or the French (34) is anybody’s guess. And yet unsound proposals get put forward for tax all the time in the comments columns of the internet, and explaining why they won’t work can require a degree of engagement and willingness to learn that all too few seem prepared to put in. I’d love to help more people understand the basics of tax system design, it’s really important stuff. I’ve tried to do some of it here: http://bit.ly/TaxSimplicity

But please, don’t ask me to condense 746 pages of BEPS documentation into 140 characters. It’d be about as much use as posting  and if you know what that means, you don’t need me to explain it.

(It’s the Tsiolkivsky Rocket equation, for which I must thank Randall Munroe, of XKCD – see http://what-if.xkcd.com/7/ )

SH  01

 

By Sarah Hathaway, head of ACCA UK

Last week I had the honour of being part of the judging panel for the British Accountancy Awards 2014. Since the Awards were re-launched four years ago, ACCA has been proud to be involved as the lead partner and we are pleased to have seen a year on year increase in terms of both the number and quality of entries received.

The most interesting and important categories for me have been those which recognise the ‘Independent Firm of the Year’ across the UK’s various regions. These provide a valuable opportunity for smaller practices to demonstrate how they have both adjusted to and thrived during what have proved to be challenging times for our economy. I was also a judge in 2013 and I continue to be delighted to see great examples of the focus, drive and innovation that has led to increases in turnover, profit and – most importantly of all – client satisfaction.

If you are part of a practice which has a good story to tell, please seriously consider entering in 2015. For a flavour of what it’s all about, why not consider attending this year’s awards’ ceremony in London on Tuesday 25 November? You will be able to meet some of the short-listed firms, individuals and previous winners. I promise you will be inspired!

For more information visit www.britishaccountancyawards.co.uk

Nikki Walker

By Nikki Walker, diversity and inclusion expert, More2Gain

What springs to mind when someone says Finance Director? Or Diversity Director for that matter? Very different skills and personalities, I am sure, based on some fairly ingrained stereotypes. But, actually, does anyone really care?

I certainly did. When I moved from being a Finance Director to Head of Diversity & Inclusion, EMEA, at Cisco Systems, I found myself battling a tidal wave of stereotypes and bias.

“What on earth are you thinking of?” was a typical reaction from many of my finance colleagues. Followed closely by, “I’ll give you three months before you are begging to come back to the real world of finance.”

And from my new diversity colleagues, both internal and external, I also encountered a fair amount of scepticism. “Why would a finance person want to do this job? She hasn’t even worked in HR! Will she really be able to get to grips with this?” And this, no less, from diversity professionals!

And so I found myself in the rather novel position of having to defend my choices, prove I hadn’t taken leave of my senses and overcome some pretty ingrained views about the value and abilities of two very different professions – from both sides of the camp.

This is a real pity and a missed opportunity. Because it is when we work together and blend different skills that we achieve the best solutions. Whether it was offering a fresh pair of eyes, critiquing strategies or applying “forensic commercial” analysis to combine many strands of employee data and surveys, the new insights I shared helped leaders understand the opportunity they were missing shape thinking and bring about lasting change.

The very fact that I was an “outsider” gave me a huge advantage, enabling me to challenge orthodoxies and come up with new perspectives and solutions. My finance and commercial skills enabled me to anchor the case for change in measurable business benefit.

I also learned a huge amount from spending time with people whose viewpoint is not “centred on the numbers.” In short, I realised how much I had to offer… and how much I had to learn. A journey that is still ongoing now that I have changed careers again to run my own inclusion and diversity consultancy, More2Gain, focused on helping organisations realise the power of Inclusion and Diversity,

And so I would like to leave you with a final thought. In finance, we focus heavily on measuring “returns.” Well, I can say with absolute certainty, that there are rich returns to be gained (for you and your organisation) whenever you connect with people outside of your group.

So reach out to your diversity colleagues and offer to help. Partner with them to jointly seek out new ideas. Be bold, make new connections, use your finance skills and help to advance diversity and inclusion in your organisation. Whatever you do next, do not allow convention and stereotypes to hold you back. I didn’t and I really am the richer for it.

ACCA, in collaboration with ESRC (Economic Social Research Council) and Brunel University, has launching a paper about diversity in business – read it here.