SO CIMA and the US institute the AICPA are courting. Will they consummate the relationship or turn each other off?

Moving swiftly on from mating metaphors, the current details of the agreement between the two bodies unfortunately leaves questions rather than answers.

Having run through several hundred words of the joint CIMA/AICPA press release, plus a 15 minute conversation with CIMA chief Charles Tilley, hard details are scarce.

Describing the deal as "promoting excellence", encouraging working together to produce "thought leadership" doesn't really point to a wodge of hard and fast details about what real benefits this agreement will provide the institutes and their members. In fairness, the deal still requires both sets of council to vote in favour.

My feeling is that the deal is a marketing opportunity - in the short term at least.

To invent a new set of designatory letters for members of the AICPA and CIMA with three or more years' experience doesn't exactly set the world alight.

As with all "strategic partnerships" the potential long term effects are more interesting - immediate impact is unlikely.

While the ICAEW continues to promote itself internationally, it still has an image as an institute with an audit focus, despite it being the most prevalent qualification among FDs of large listed companies.

Perhaps the latest deal will provide CIMA with some kudos in being tied in with THE institute in the US. The AICPA provides kudos to its management accounting members as 'international'.

Unfortunately, without a formal institute merger there's little likelihood of huge productivity - a case of bringing captive pandas together rather than rabbits.

AS TECHNOLOGY correspondent and cub reporter for Accountancy Age back in 2003, Paul Williams was one of the first accounting IT experts I bumped into.

The meeting was fortuitous for me. He was pleasant, very helpful, and I found over the ensuing months that he always willing to help explain the twin terrors of technical accounting issues and IT jargon.

So I was very saddened to hear of his sudden death, in January, of a heart attack.

Paul was a very important figure in the accounting IT industry, taking senior responsibilities at the ICAEW's IT Faculty, ISACA, ING, and on behalf of the Department of Health, to name but a few.

Also a keen commentator in the media, Paul was a willing participant, and a credit, to his industry. He took part in judging the IT entrants to the Accountancy Age Awards in 2004.

Accountancy Age's condolences go out to his family, friends and work colleagues.

An obituary will appear in the March/April issue of Chartech.

CIMA'S DITCHING of its membership of the CCAB, the body that represents the UK institutes, is the latest in a long line of problems flagging up diverging interests within the profession.

The Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies should present the UK's profession as one. Unfortunately the CCAB, which is meant to represent a united front for the UK accounting profession, has too often highlighted its schisms.

In 2005 the CCAB was near collapse post-failed ICAEW/CIPFA merger. ICAS and the ICAEW had stored between themselves such bad blood that the CCAB seemed unlikely to continue, with then ICAEW chief Eric Anstee talking of "realigning" its funding of the body.

The issue was resolved, and the CCAB bodies held hands to stick up for changes to 'work in progress' accounting rules that threatened cashflow in firms.

The CCAB has also worked together around money laundering rules guidance (as opposed to 'how to launder money', of course), and tried to get the term "accountant" recognized in law - which failed.

And...that's about it, publicly anyway. The meetings between the chiefs and presidents of the institutes (ICAEW, ICAS, CIPFA, ACCA, ICAI and CIMA) remain under the radar.

To say that CIMA thinks the body has become irrelevant in general is perhaps a bit too far. But not by much. CIMA itself talks of the body's "diminishing relevance" to its members.

CIMA is pushing the global finance chief route. That's the most senior part of its membership, and to whom other members aspire. To justify its existence it believes that's where it must focus its lobbying power. The CCAB, it argues, is too focused on audit.

So does that make the CCAB irrelevant altogether??

Well CIMA's move certainly does it no favours, and it could be argued that the institutes get together on so few issues that it hardly seems worth it anyway.

Ironically the term 'CCAB' is well recognised within statute, so lawmakers will have to get out their correction fluid.

The only way for the institutes to truly have a single voice is through a single institute, and that seems farther away than ever.

The CCAB, or whatever it decides to call itself going forward, will no doubt speak up when it needs to.

But representing such a divergent audience, it seems as if the CCAB will always highlight differences in the profession rather than consensus. And as an accountant in business, practice or the thrid sector within those institutes, you're unlikely to get the sum being greater than its parts.

ANY CHANCE I GET to write about football is gratefully received. Obviously, writing about accounting doesn't give me too many options to do so.

But there is a very contentious issue surrounding the future of football that could, in part, be influenced by numbercrunching.

Respected football journalist Keir Radnedge has penned a fascinating article describing the ebbs and flows of who holds the power in the modern game.

The top 200 European clubs have banded together under a body known as the European Clubs Association.

During its meeting questions were asked about how UEFA president Michel Platini's brainchild - the financial fair play rule- would work in reality.

Platini intends clubs will manage their finances responsibly, effectively "breaking even".

But how will financial fair play be measured, and what punishments meted out, were the ECA's concerns.

The answers are unclear. One problem - and the reason I'm writing this - is that accounting standards differ from country to country, an issue flagged up in Radnedge's article. Using incomparable numbers to gauge whether a club has met UEFA's requirements will be extremely difficult.

Is IFRS the answer?? Maybe that's a red herring. Separating out the "club's" performance from that of its holding company seems the most important thing to achieve, rather than what statutory set of standards clubs file their accounts under.

Perhaps we need football accounting - a set of recognised, simple KPIs that Platini can get his accountants to run the rule over.

Then again, creating a robust accounting template is easier said than done. Under different accounting codes clubs might still come up with their own interpretations with which to ruin comparability.

Perhaps I'll drop Platini the IASB's number, the standards-setter hasn't got much on at the mo.

DOES THREE into two go?

That was a question, among many, asked at the ASB's Plans for the Future of UK GAAP debate, hosted by the ICAEW's Financial Reporting Faculty.

That particular question wasn't necessarily a mathematical one - but in some ways it was.

I'll stop talking in riddles now.

With the introduction of international standards to replace UK GAAP it was put out to the audience whether a three-tier system was really needed, as much to provoke discussion than being a serious set-in-stone plan.

Currently we have IFRS for the biggest public entities; then UK GAAP; followed by the FRSSE for the smallest businesses. International standard IFRS for SMEs would wholly replace UK GAAP, and be known over here as FRSME.

FRSSE has proved popular since it was introduced 15 years ago, despite strong resistance from accounts preparers at the time, said Baker Tilly partner Danielle Stewart at the event. "An old friend" was her term for the standards.

If the FRSSE works so well, then why not use that as the basis for the middle-tier of accounting standards, as opposed to the international option? I hasten to add that she posed this more as a Devil's Advocate than a true believer.

The problem would be, she suggested, was that the FRSSE is based on UK GAAP and as such is considered out of date, outmoded.

And while UK GAAP has been lauded for how it deals with deferred tax, compared to international standards, keeping that could be difficult as you would have to take into account how tax is deferred for financial instruments. UK GAAP isn't set up to handle financial instruments.

Another bone of contention discussed at the event was the simplicity of IFRS for SMEs. While this has been lauded, audience members flagged up that in their sectors the new standards would leave some glaring holes.

And what about the ASB? Without UK GAAP the body might merely exist to incorporate and manage changes driven down from the international standard setters on what would be likely a three-yearly basis.

The ASB doesn't pretend to have all the answers. What it desperately wants is more comment from users and preparers of accounts. Users in particular.

So get in touch. It's seeking comments by 13 April 2011. Comments can be sent to asbcommentletters@frc-asb.org.uk

BDO INTERNATIONAL produced solid growth figures for its international network today - but some its regional members are more equal than others.

The network's revenues for the year ending 30 September 2010 grew nearly 5% to €3.9bn, said BDO International chief Jeremy Newman (pictured).

However the firm pointed out that its China operations grew 65% to €149m over that period.

A quick calculation shows that more than half of the global network's growth came from that one country over the period.

Firms are strengthening their foundations with BRIC, it would seem.

WHY OH WHY must the ICAEW kick members when they are down?

In the last month the institute has agreed with three of its members that they PAY COSTS of more than £450 each regarding complaints that they entered into individual voluntary arrangements – in other words they were declared insolvent.

I moaned about this back in August, and quite frankly it's still getting on my goat.

I appreciate that it doesn't look good if you can't manage your own finances, let alone those of your clients…so if it's such a big problem then take away their license.

If that's not an appropriate route then what on earth is the point of fining someone who is skint? Help them get back on their feet.

Struggling ICAEW members do have CABA to turn to. CABA, who I had the pleasure of meeting with recently, are well-prepared to help members with financial, or emotional difficulties.

ONLINE ACCOUNTING provider Xero has certainly created a bit of a stir with the launch of technology that enables its clients to receive real-time banking data straight into their systems. Some 55 banks are now working with Xero, after 18 months solely with HSBC.

As this is a practice-focused blog, rather than for tech-heads, I'd rather talk about what this could mean for firms.

There is one major potential benefit for a practice.

Bank reconciliation is a tiresome, low-value task often undertaken by clients' advisers.

Simply not having to deal with this any more frees up accountants' time.

The trick is what you do with those extra precious few minutes gained per client.

Have a cup of tea? Well, that's fine if you're knackered and need a breather.

But efficiencies gained across dozens of clients could be better spent developing the business either finding new clients or, dare I say it, providing clients with value-added services.

What value-added services? You ask. Well, what about using the real-time banking data of your clients to keep a closer eye on their cashflow? Dashboard the data, analyse it, look for trends, or even just call them up if they're likely to break their overdraft limit.

How Xero's new technology will revolutionise firms' working practices is moot. I don't really know if the time savings/real-time data benefits will stack up to anything fundamental.

But you can't knock them for trying. And in a world where Vince Cable, lenders etc are crying out for better SME finance data, Xero may have released their new kit at a very opportune time indeed.