The way ACCA "people" work
Londina
Registered Posts: 794 Epic contributor 🐘
I'm working in a practice and half of my colleagues are ACCA qualified.
I noticed they all work in a particular way, they are very meticulous, they treat a normal preparation of final accounts as if it was an audit, they are obsessed with big excel reports and paper evidences (by printing and wasting lots of paper!), basically quite unpractical people!
Is this way that the ACCA qualification teach how to be an accountant? Because if this is the method, I am glad I did only the AAT!!!
I noticed they all work in a particular way, they are very meticulous, they treat a normal preparation of final accounts as if it was an audit, they are obsessed with big excel reports and paper evidences (by printing and wasting lots of paper!), basically quite unpractical people!
Is this way that the ACCA qualification teach how to be an accountant? Because if this is the method, I am glad I did only the AAT!!!
0
Comments
-
Nothing wrong with being meticulous and keeping evidence to back up decisions, maybe you'll be glad when the first PI claim comes in.
No that isn't something that is specifically in the ACCA syllabus!
Frankly I find the whole post a little strange - sorry - I don't have time for another tiresome ACCA vs AAT debate.0 -
Eh I'm ACCA, but I'll reply once I've printed out this thread and carefully thought out the reply!0
-
Hi Londina,
If you have ever had an ACCA Monitoring Visit/ICAEW QAD visit then you will appreciate the reasoning behind being so meticulous. Both ACCA and ICAEW demand extremely high standards and you cut corners at your own peril. I have met practitioners when I have been lecturing who have suffered quite sizeable fines through corner-cutting or not producing working papers. Indeed only yesterday was I reading through the disciplinary pages of a professional body's magazine concerning a practitioner who suffered a fine and a reprimand because they claimed to had done the work, but had not documented it.
As a partner in an ACCA regulated firm, I EXPECT all staff within the practice to produce working schedules to support the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements - audit or not! Our files have to be able to stand up to scrutiny because Regulators will review both audit and non-audit files which is probably the reasoning behind your colleagues being so meticulous in their approach. We also have our accreditation from ACCA to maintain which is something we would not have achieved had we not produced files of a sufficient standard.
Another reason may also be your firm's quality control policies. Certainly in my firm I review files on a six-monthly cycle and a sample of audit files are reviewed externally annually - the reviewer needs something to review, as well as Annette's point about a PII claim landing on your desk - I'm sure your partner in charge would have something to say about that!
Kind regards
Steve0 -
I'm glad i'm not the only one puzzled and annoyed by this thread!
I had to take a deep breath and count to 10 last night to stop myself posting a reply that would have probably got me a ban!
Whats an acca "person" anyway??0 -
I'm glad i'm not the only one puzzled and annoyed by this thread!
I had to take a deep breath and count to 10 last night to stop myself posting a reply that would have probably got me a ban!
Whats an acca "person" anyway??
I wasn't annoyed. I think its good to learn the differences between the different accountancy bodies.0 -
What a weird thread this is. I have just started work in practice and we put files and papers together for everything because that's what we have to do.
Londina if you worked in our practice you would come accross the same way of working as your people so maybe you should be questioning the standard of your work.0 -
I'm "only AAT" and I like to keep thorough records of working papers and do checks when preparing sets of accounts. No, it's not an audit, and I don't know how to audit, but I like to check that what I'm preparing is correct within reason. I print stuff out a lot of the time because I find it easier to work with, but often leave stuff on an electronic copy only as well (fully backed up). Not only does it help in the case of a practice assurance visit or a PI claim, but if you hand the file over to another member of staff, or simply don't really remember the job from last year, you have detailed notes that help the continuation of the file year on year. I'm probably not as meticulous as some (very meticulous) people, but I like to think I'm pretty thorough. I've just handed over some jobs to the new accountant who works here and she said my files are clear to work from, so I think it's ok
Londina, I'd be interested to know what level of working papers and checks you prepare and keep in your work.0 -
Qualified or not, keeping all work documented and prove of why things have been done, has always been important to me, no matter where I work.
Having done a lot in payroll in bigger practices in the past, the first thing you learn is to document what you do. We have had claims from one of my customers who had a tax investigation and ended up with 300,000 euro to pay on payroll alone (I don't know about the accountancy side of things, as I wasn't involved in that). The company tried to blame the payroll part on me and without my proof and documenting, my company would have had to pay this. I was not regulated by a professional body for the work I was doing, but I doubt my company would have liked me if they had to pay this.
Lately I have been doing all the research and post payments to the proper customer accounts, which is in industry, it's all small amounts, but I still document and find proof where I can. At one point I asked permission from my manager to post a few payments, which I knew were right, but I couldn't proof it on the system. The email back from my manager gets added to the file with the postings. Not because I'm worried it will be questioned, but because if in half a years time someone asks me why I posted it there, I can't remember what I did.
Having it documented on paper makes sure I can find it back when I need it and gives me the opportunity to show why I did something when someone questions it.0 -
I am AQCCA qualified and I also treat preparation of a final accounts as if was an audit because I know that in a few weeks the accounts will be subject to a full blown audit.
By being meticulous and insisting that my team keep good quality working papers in an audit file, I save time during the audit, reduce audit fees and have a good relationship with the Auditors. It also saves embarrasing questions from my Director if I get a critical management letter, and even more to the point, it is me that has to stand in front of the Resources Committee and the Full Authority defending any criticisms from the Auditor.
All this can be saved by doing my job properly.0 -
Although, Londina does make a valid point with the printing. These days it is somewhat wastefull to print an electronic document, to then file it away!
If you have a well organised fileserver with a solid back up system, its more secure to store documents there.0 -
Some people took it personally and didn't understand the point I wanted to make from this post.
I am not saying that you shouldn't take any paper evidence, I keep a schedule myself of any year end journals, bank advices, important emails, notes...etc
But these ACCA qualified (ok I don't use people...) I'm working with they like to follow from A to Z every single thing (being picky), when sometimes you can use a bit of common sense and reach the same result.
I don't need to print a A4 paper when there is just one row in the document and I don't need to print every single thing and create a 4 inch folder, the more things are prepared and less easier will be for another person to go through the accounts and understand what's going on.
If the company you are working on is a small one and don't require any audit, why treat it like if it was?
For example the approach that Monsoon takes for me is more reasonable and at the end of the day the AAT qualification is way more practical than chartered.
My boss and clients are happy of my work and they said my documents are clear and prepared in a concise way.0 -
-
Bluewednesday wrote: »I knew it - as predicted an 'AAT is better than chartered' debate. I am glad of your vast experience of this matter.
Quite!
AAT is not better than chartered. For goodness' sake, chartered is a more advanced qualification, it's much harder to complete and it's disrespectful for anyone to say the AAT qualification is 'better'. I think the AAT is great, but I wouldn't dare consider it equal or better than another qualification that is factually more advanced. For goodness' sake.0 -
I was once turned down for a job as an Accountant by an ACA because the AAT qualification is more technical/practical than a chartered qualification. I agreed with him. It is no slur on either body but they set out to achieve different things in parts of their syllabus.
Incidentially I am not any form of chartered accountant but I am a member of two other chartered bodies so I do feel I can comment from both sides of the fence so to speak.0 -
I'm glad i'm not the only one puzzled and annoyed by this thread!
I had to take a deep breath and count to 10 last night to stop myself posting a reply that would have probably got me a ban!
Whats an acca "person" anyway??
Yes, me too!!! I drafted a reply and then thought better of it and deleted it.0 -
wildgoose1uk wrote: »I was once turned down for a job as an Accountant by an ACA because the AAT qualification is more technical/practical than a chartered qualification. I agreed with him. It is no slur on either body but they set out to achieve different things in parts of their syllabus.
Incidentially I am not any form of chartered accountant but I am a member of two other chartered bodies so I do feel I can comment from both sides of the fence so to speak.
I don't agree with this. I've just finished AAT and now doing ACCA and don't think AAT is more technical than ACCA. In fact I would say it's quite the opposite. I work with 6 other trainees who have all done AAT and they agree that ACCA is more technical and practical than AAT. I am not dissing the AAT because I worked hard to get it but the OP is very misguided.0 -
Ok... for technical read practical.
Don't really know what the current syllabus is as I completed AAT in the 90's and the job I referred to was in the early - mid noughties.
When you come to do the financial reporting module of the ACCA syllabus let me know how many of the students that have not done AAT are competent at double entry.0 -
-
wildgoose1uk wrote: »yeah.... misguided.... that must be me. With my FMAAT, ACIS, MCMI and MSc in Corporate Goverance I just pale into insignificance beside someone of yor stature.......
I was not referring to you when I said OP I was referring to the starter of this thread.0 -
Perhaps what Londina is getting at is that the strict procedures needed for medium and large companies are not really needed as much for the local part time hairdresser turning over £20k? But that her colleagues seem to be going into the same level of detail? A 4 inch thick file for the hairdresser is probably OTT - but then it's better to have too much detail than too little. If the clients in question are more than just small sole traders, then a greater level of detail is definitely required.
As I understand it, AAT is more 'practical' in that it's more suited to a bag o' receipts, sole trader accounts and tax return for the local plumber, and less suited to audit, companies with £10m turnover and complex structures etc. In that sense, chartered quals are more 'technical', in that the nitty gritty content of the syllabus is more technical and advanced. 'Practical' of course depends on the application! AAT on its own is not practical for looking after Tesco's annual accounts...!
I often hear people saying that a chartered accountant who's worked in a large firm with large businesses may be lacking in the experience to start their own "small" practice and deal with the aforementioned hairdressers and plumbers, because they are worlds apart on a practical level.
There does seem to be a different approach - but then I think part of that is down to the strict requirements of experience required by chartered bodies to gain full membership, versus the more flexible stipulations of the AAT. In the former, all members will come out in a similar form, as they have to train with a certain type of firm (as I undertstand it) and so will seem as from the same mould in many ways. With the AAT, you could have your experience as 5 years in a high street ICAEW firm, or 2 years self employed bookkeeping experience teaching yourself as you go along, both will get you full membership of the AAT.0 -
I don't agree with this. I've just finished AAT and now doing ACCA and don't think AAT is more technical than ACCA. In fact I would say it's quite the opposite. I work with 6 other trainees who have all done AAT and they agree that ACCA is more technical and practical than AAT. I am not dissing the AAT because I worked hard to get it but the OP is very misguided.
I did start off writing a ACCA vs AAT comparison. But I think the problem is labeling someone a AAT or ACCA person, its only one element of our accountancy training, much of what we do still comes from working practices of our employers or colleagues...0 -
I agree with PGM.
Also post qualification CPD which complements your line of work becomes increasingly important the longer you are qualified.
When I passed my ACCA exams ( a long time ago ) I could have had a decent stab at preparing the financial statements for a large plc. Since then my work has been in the SME sector so now even though I am ACCA qualified I would really struggle. IFRS...whats that all about ??0 -
IFRS = Internation Football Refereeing Standards of course!!........ LOL0
-
wildgoose1uk wrote: »I do feel I can comment from both sides of the fence so to speak.
As can someone who is AAT and ACCA, which a lot of these posters are.0 -
Bluewednesday wrote: »I knew it - as predicted an 'AAT is better than chartered' debate. I am glad of your vast experience of this matter.
Bluewednesday I have NEVER said that the AAT is better than chartered, don't use me to spark a debate:and at the end of the day the AAT qualification is way more practical than chartered.0 -
I can only think the opening poster has started this thread to delibarately wind up as many people as she/he can. And to be fair, done a pretty good job of it.0
-
-
I can only think the opening poster has started this thread to delibarately wind up as many people as she/he can. And to be fair, done a pretty good job of it.
That thought did cross my mind too!
I don't think your qualification, regardless of what it is, makes any difference to your style of working. I think your own personality dictates your attitude towards your work.
I work in a team that consists of qualified and non-qualified staff members, and we all work in different ways, it's ludicrous to suggest that a certain qualification teaches you to work in a particular style.0
