American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and Chartered Institute of Management Accountants agree to offer new CGMA designation

New AICPA-CIMA designation -- Chartered Global Management Accountant -- to advance knowledge and practice of management accounting worldwide
LONDON / WASHINGTON, DC (May 23, 2011) – The governing bodies of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, headquartered in London, today agreed on creation of a new professional designation, the Chartered Global Management Accountant, that will be a worldwide standard of professional excellence in management accounting.
With approval now given by the AICPA and CIMA councils, the two accounting bodies will create the new CGMA designation to give management accountancy a higher profile in the United States and promote the professional development of management accountants across the globe. Backing the new CGMA designation will be an AICPA-CIMA joint venture with international resources and experience in management accounting, business and cultural knowledge.
CIMA president George Glass said: 'We are delighted that management accountancy is to be given a strong new global impetus by this joint venture. This advances our strategic aims and will ensure management accountants, committed to strict ethical standards, will receive world-class support in a fast-globalising world.'
'This is truly an historic moment for management accounting and the accounting profession worldwide.' AICPA chairman Paul Stahlin said. 'Our joint venture with CIMA creates long-term strategic value for our members and literally opens up the world for US CPAs in management accounting.'
CIMA is the largest professional body in the world focused exclusively on management accounting and the AICPA is the world’s largest professional accounting organisation with members in a wide range of accounting and financial executive roles. Together, the new venture will cover more than 550,000 members and students worldwide.
The new AICPA and CIMA joint venture will promote and establish the CGMA as the preeminent, globally recognised management accounting designation. The joint venture will combine the strength of the AICPA in North America with CIMA’s presence in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and elsewhere.
CIMA chief executive Charles Tilley said: 'The new CGMA will be recognised throughout the world as the gold-standard designation for management accountants who play a vital role in building sustainable business value. The joint venture will raise the profile of the profession and be a passport for careers throughout the world.'
'Economic globalisation is a reality for all businesses now and in the future and so it’s critical that we have a universally accepted standard of excellence for management accounting,' said AICPA president and CEO Barry Melancon. 'Combining that commitment to excellence with ethics and integrity, the CGMA will help produce and recognise top management accounting professionals worldwide.'
It is proposed that the new CGMA letters will be issued to members early in 2012. AICPA voting members with at least three years working in management accounting or a financial management role would qualify for an accelerated route to obtaining the new designation. Those holding the new designation will commit to a programme of developing and maintaining competency in management accounting as well as leadership and strategy.
This knowledge base will be derived from an expert-panel assessment of skills and competencies needed to succeed in various career paths in management accounting. CIMA members, all of whom hold either an ACMA or FCMA, will be entitled to use the letters ACMA CGMA or FCMA CGMA if they wish to. The new CGMA will be issued by the AICPA and CIMA through a license with the joint venture, with membership remaining with the existing organisations.
The AICPA and CIMA had announced their proposal to form a joint venture on March 28, 2011.
For press enquiries please contact:
CIMA Victor Smart Director of profile and communications +44 (0)20 8849 2254 victor.smart@cimaglobal.com
AICPA William Roberts Director media relations + 01 202 434 9266 wroberts@aicpa.org
Notes to Editors 1. The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, founded in 1919, is the world’s leading and largest professional body of Management Accountants, with 183,000 members and students operating in 168 countries, working at the heart of business.
CIMA members and students work in industry, commerce, the public sector and not-for-profit organisations. CIMA works closely with employers and sponsors leading-edge research, constantly updating its qualification, professional experience requirements and continuing professional development to ensure it remains the employers’ choice when recruiting financially-trained business leaders.
CIMA is committed to upholding the highest ethical and professional standards of members and students, and to maintaining public confidence in management accountancy. CIMA is proud to be the first professional accounting body to offer a truly global product in the fast-moving area of Islamic Finance. According to independent research conducted by the University of Bath School of Management, CIMA’s syllabus and examination structure are the most relevant to the needs of business of all the accountancy bodies assessed. See the CIMA Difference report for further information at www.cimaglobal.com/cimadifference. For more information about CIMA, please visit http://www.cimaglobal.com/ Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/CIMA_News 2.
The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (www.aicpa.org), founded in 1887, is the world’s largest association representing the accounting profession, with nearly 370,000 members in 128 countries.
AICPA members represent many areas of practice, including business and industry, public practice, government, education, and consulting; membership is also available to accounting students and CPA candidates. The AICPA sets ethical standards for the profession and U.S. auditing standards for audits of private companies, non-profit organizations, federal, state and local governments. It develops and grades the Uniform CPA Examination. The AICPA maintains offices in New York, Washington, DC, Durham, N.C., Ewing, N.J. and Lewisville, Texas. Media representatives are invited to visit the AICPA Press Center at www.aicpa.org/press. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AICPANews.

Masters in Accounting - Great USA site by Mark Macaluso

Masters in Accounting was created as a nonprofit resource to serve students considering enrolling in a masters in accounting program. Actively maintained, Masters in Accounting is the only nonprofit website which lists and links to every accredited masters in accounting program as well as answers some basic questions about the degree so that students have a single unbiased resource from which they can begin their research.


About Us

Who and Why?

Masters in Accounting was created by Mark Macaluso in June 2010. Mark, a MSA graduate, decided to create Masters in Accounting because despite the fact that you can find almost anything online, there were to-date no reliable nonprofit websites devoted to presenting prospective students with an understanding of what a masters in accounting program entails, which schools offer the degree, what differences exist between various masters in accounting programs and sub-specialities, etc.

Contact

Feedback is always welcomed. While I generally try not to give advice about specific schools and programs in an attempt to remain unbiased, I will be happy to answer questions relating to other aspects of the degree, career options, etc. So please don’t hesitate to email me, Mark Macaluso, at: info #at# mastersinaccounting #dot# net.

Managing joint ventures and alliances

40% of joint ventures and strategic alliances result in divorce within five years. Making them work is about going beyond best practice, says Dr Alan Barlow, former CEO international engineering group and former partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The world economy is emerging from its biggest ever global recession. Organisations' approach to growth in the 2010s will be very different. Management’s mantra will be how to optimise what’s already in place, at minimum marginal cost with returns over the near term and at low risk.

However management will also be cautiously taking steps to secure growth opportunities. Some cash rich companies will benefit from bottom fishing with acquisition of under-valued companies.

Joint ventures and strategic alliances
Joint ventures and strategic alliances are a proven tactic for management to secure faster and lower risk growth. The alternatives are to grow organically (100% control but generally slower growth); or with acquisitions (faster growth but demanding on capital and challenging to integrate post-acquisition and secure the forecast benefits).

Benefits
Joint ventures and strategic alliances allow faster growth by accessing markets and technology, and sharing and controlling risks. The main catalysts for the growth in such alliances are: the increasing internationalisation of markets; the growing importance of innovation management (with rapid technology transfer and shorter product lives); and, the increasing costs of R&D (with the complexity of technology and convergence of it).

Downsides
With such benefits, there are also potential downsides. 40% of joint ventures result in divorce within three years – which is not necessarily a sign of failure. But, when joint ventures are not properly managed over their life time, then the exit costs can be huge.

For example, after ten years of operating in China with its local partner, the French company Danone accepted an exit settlement of 21% below its book value as payment by its local partner of $450m for the 51% majority ownership of their joint venture*. The divorce took place because Danone accused its joint venture partner (Wahaha) of setting up at least 96 parallel companies, with production and sales networks, that competed with the joint venture.

Danone also believed its local partner was in breach of confidentiality agreements. While Danone ‘controlled’ the joint venture at board level, the Chinese partner had almost total day-to-day control.

Best practice for success
For success at joint ventures and strategic alliances, there is a strong body of best practice. This includes:

• plan, plan and plan - objectives, operations, resources and contingency
• balance trust with self-interest - avoid being selfish or naïve
• anticipate strategic conflict in advance and continuously - avoid the tendency to gloss over conflict
• establish clear strategic leadership - the vision and purpose of the venture with unambiguous and unbiased authority
• learn flexible management - recognise the evolution of the venture, understand all partners’ intents and roles, and communicate effectively
• allow for and gain from cultural differences - the law of requisite variety, and components of culture
• manage strategic asset transfer - including technology and understanding
• learn from the partner and the venture.

Negotiating framework
These are basic, generic requirements. It is important to go beyond them, particularly in three distinct areas. Firstly, it is vital to prepare your own negotiating framework, that is, what is important to you in and from the joint venture. Similarly, it is exceedingly useful to draft what you believe to be the important considerations for your prospective partner. They are likely to be considerably different to yours, as both of you are contributing and requiring different ‘returns’ from the joint venture. Such a framework and assessment then becomes a tool for comparative assessment of what you are achieving and/or acceding in the negotiation, and that of your prospective partner.

Managing differences in organisation structures and business drivers
It is also increasingly important to understand and manage the differences between the parents’ decision making structures and its business drivers. Both of these two considerations vary tremendously between corporations. Organisation structures for western corporations can, for example, vary from centralised-hierarchical to decentralised-federal, with a wide range of variations.

Likewise the four main causes of growth are: cash, market share, growth and profit. It is impossible to maximise all four concurrently, which is another reason for the generally big differences between the businesses forming a joint venture. Again, a clearer understanding of your partner’s mix will greatly help both successful negotiation and subsequent ongoing operations.

The problems above are exacerbated when, for example, western and Asia Pacific organisations form a joint venture. The difference and the impact of factors affecting their business growth and organisational decision making can be dramatic. These must be managed for success.

Joint ventures and strategic alliances only exist because each party has something the other party wants at a point in time. Hence, in the face of changing market circumstances and as corporate learning takes place over time, divergence between the joint venture partners should not be unexpected.

Mastercourse - Joint ventures and strategic alliances
In recognition of the importance of joint ventures and strategic alliances to businesses, CIMA has introduced a new Mastercourse - Joint ventures and strategic alliances presented by Dr Alan Barlow. Through a series of case studies, the Masterclass delivers best practice and proven frameworks for initial and ongoing negotiation and management of joint ventures and strategic alliances for ensuring greater success.

*Source: Financial Times, 10 November 2009.

Links
Join CIMA Professional Development group on CIMAsphere

IFAC: Crisis shows need for global standards...

The financial crisis has only highlighted the need for a single set of global accounting standards, it has been claimed.

In its 2008 annual report, the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) describes how its core work on developing international guidance and rules has become even more relevant during the global recession.

Ian Ball, chief executive officer of the IFAC, said: "As a result of the crisis, some of the ideas IFAC has been communicating for decades are resonating with greater force."

"Chief among these is the need for convergence to global standards."

The report also includes details of the actions taken by the IFAC in a range of areas, and compares the outcomes to the original goals set out by the body.

Recently, John Smith, a member of the International Accounting Standards Board, told the European Commission's Financial Reporting in a Changing World conference that the integrated nature of capital markets means a global set of accounting rules is vital to future economic stability.

To find out about achieving a balance between the needs of corporate governance and those of everyday business management, visit our Enterprise Governance page.

New Financial Architecture

From www.weforum.org On January 15, 2009, the World Economic Forum released its initial report from the New Financial Architecture project, “The Future of the Global Financial System: A Near-Term Outlook and Long-Term Scenarios.” The effort was mandated by the World Economic Forum’s investors and financial services communities in January 2008 to explore the driving forces that are shaping the global financial system and how these forces might affect governance and industry structure. Press release Project Steering Committee and executive summary of report (PDF 1.6 MB) Full report “The Future of the Global Financial System” (PDF 11.8 MB) Compendium - Driving Forces (PDF 1.7MB) Key conclusions from phase one report – “The Future of the Global Financial System” The phase one report identifies a near-term industry outlook characterized by an expanded scope for regulatory oversight, back to basics in the banking sector, some restructuring by alternative investment firms and the emergence of a new set of winners and losers. Over the long-term, a range of external forces and critical uncertainties will further shape the industry. In particular, our study found that the pace of power shifts from today’s advanced economies to the emerging world and the degree of international coordination on financial policy are the two most critical uncertainties for the future of the global financial system. The report therefore explores four challenging scenarios. Driving forces and critical uncertainties In phase one of the New Financial Architecture project, the World Economic Forum engaged more than 250 industry practitioners, policy-makers and academics in workshops, interviews and participation in a survey to identify and prioritize the key driving forces expected to shape the future of the global financial system between today and 2020. The engagement process resulted in an inventory of 34 prioritized driving forces (Figure 1). Figure 1: Survey results: prioritization of key driving forces on the future of wholesale financial markets The phase one long-term scenarios were developed using industry facts, figures and forecasts for key underlying driving forces, which are summarized in the following compendium: Key driving forces on the future of the wholesale financial markets Four scenarious for the future of the global financial system Financial regionalism is a world in which post-crisis blame-shifting and the threat of further economic contagion create three major blocs on trade and financial policy, forcing global companies to construct tripartite strategies to operate globally. Fragmented protectionism is a world characterized by division, conflict, currency controls and a race-to-the bottom dynamic that only serves to deepen the long-term effects of the financial crisis. Re-engineered Western-centrism is a highly coordinated and financially homogenous world that has yet to face up to the realities of shifting power and the dangers of regulating for the last crisis rather than the next. Rebalanced multilateralism is a world in which initial barriers to coordination and disagreement over effective risk management approaches are overcome in the context of rapidly shifting geo-economic power. Phase two priorities In phase two of the New Financial Architecture project, the World Economic Forum will work closely with industry stakeholders to delve deeper into the implications of this analysis, with the goal of exploring collaborative strategies and areas of systemic improvement. This will involve an examination of the potential future sources of systemic risk, as well as opportunities to reposition the industry for sustainable, long-term growth in ways that maximize the stability and prosperity of both the financial and real economies. Figure 2: Transition from phase one to phase two The World Economic Forum will be hosting workshops with key stakeholders throughout 2009 January 28 - February 1: Davos-Klosters, Switzerland March (TBC), London, United Kingdom May 14, Dead Sea, Jordan September 10, Dalian, China September (TBC), New York, United States For more information, please contact: Max von Bismarck, Director and Head of Investor Industries, max.vonbismarck@weforum.org Bernd Jan Sikken, Associate Director and Head of Emerging Markets Finance, berndjan.sikken@weforum.org Nicholas Davis, Associate Director, Scenario Planning, nicholas.davis@weforum.org

How to Manage Uncertainty

Managing Uncertainty by Nicholas Davis

A blog about complexity, decision-making, scenario thinking and bias… with the odd comment or two on the global financial crisis

IFMA in Geneva

What is IFMA: Background

The Suisse Romande branch of the International Financial Management Association (IFMA) began life in 1973 as an affiliate of the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) in the United States. The Association changed its name to IFMA in 1983 when it joined other European IMA chapters to recognize the international aspects of accounting and business, in which the European members are mostly interested.

The European affiliates continue to maintain their relationship with the IMA, sharing many of its goals and objectives. They also benefit from the IMA's worldwide organization, which was founded early in the 20th century and whose members today exceed 100,000

Accountants in Demand

THE humble accountant is in high demand. Despite the rising ranks of the unemployed, many companies still suffer from a shortage of skilled finance and accounting staff, according to a new survey of 4,800 hiring managers by Robert Half International, a recruiting firm. Fifty-six percent of respondents reported difficulty finding appropriate candidates for finance roles, with the most acute shortages reported in Hong Kong, Brazil and Japan. When compared to an identical poll last year, some of the largest jumps in frustrated recruiters were in continental Europe, namely France, Switzerland and the Netherlands. By contrast, companies in America are finding it easiest to hire skilled financial talent, perhaps reflecting the masses of qualified candidates cut loose from the country’s stricken financial services sector in recent months.

UK firms 'can share IFRS expertise' ...

Accounting firms in the UK could be given opportunities to share expertise with the US, according to one expert.

Mark Allison, chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board, has told Scotland on Sunday that expertise is needed to help firms in North America to switch to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as currently used in the UK.

Countries including the US, Canada and Mexico are set to transfer to IFRS from their local variations, with various deadlines set for the shift.

The moves are hoped to create an increase in consistency and transparency in international accounting.

Mr Allison said the fact that accounting firms in the UK will "share a common language and culture" with their US counterparts means that there could be opportunities to "provide expertise".

Robert Herz, chairman of the US Financial Accounting Standards Board, recently told Reuters that it could take a long time to implement IFRS in the US, claiming that it could result in more effort than is currently presumed.

Canada Confirms January 2011 as IFRS Start Date!

The Canadian Accounting Standards Board (AcSB) has re-confirmed the “go date” for IFRS Canada for “publicly accountable enterprises” . The date will be for years beginning on or after January 1, 2011 (don’t forget you will have to have an opening balance sheet and a comparative figures on an IFRS basis (2010 calendar for calendar year companies). It will be a very busy period up to the conversion date and especially busy if you have barely scratched the surface of converting to IFRS. Read more...

IFRS Implementation Around the World (2008)

The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) is a single set of accounting standards developed by the IASB (International Accounting Standards Board). Public companies in at least 100 countries now prepare financial statements using IFRS. The map below shows the status of IFRS implementation around the world.

IFRS Implementation Around the World (2008)

IFRS is a less extensive body of literature than is U.S. GAAP. It does not include extensive industry-specific guidance and in many instances, IFRS contains similar concepts but does not contain the same amount of detailed implementation guidance as does U.S. GAAP.

Because of the less-detailed guidance, there are more circumstances where application of IFRS will require exercise of judgment, which will need to be supported by contemporaneous analysis. IFRS requires clear, transparent disclosures of critical accounting policies and estimates, particularly in areas requiring application of judgment.

SEC to Determine Next Steps

by Jeff Henson

Read more on Jeff's blogs:

• IFRSUSA.
• XBRLUSA.

The SEC is analyzing comments and determining its next move on IFRS. In the meantime, we would do well to stay IFRS aware and conduct a business impact assessment on how IFRS will affect our businesses. This would be a good time to determine how your financial statements will be impacted by IFRS and to learn more about the convergence project between the FASB and IASB.

The FASB & IASB have several topics on their convergence Agenda including:

• Financial Statement Presentation (Performance Reporting)
• IFRS 2 Share-based Payment Amendment – group cash-settled share-based payment transactions Impairment
• Income Taxes – Reconsideration of IAS 12
• Insurance Contracts – Phase II (Comprehensive Project)
• Joint Ventures – Reconsideration of IAS 31 Leases
• Liabilities (was part of Business Combinations – Phase II)
• Post-employment Benefits including Pensions
• Rate-regulated Activities
• Related Party Disclosures
• Revenue Recognition
• (IFRS for) Small and Medium-sized Entities (also referred to as Private Entities and Non-publicly Accountable Entities)
• Intangible Assets Extractive Activities IFRS XBRL Taxonomy
• Conceptual Framework Project Update
• Business Combinations Project Update
• Financial Statement Presentation
• Revenue Recognition Project Update

As a result of these and other initiatives, the FASB expects to make significant progress toward international convergence in the next few years. However, because of the volume of differences and the complex nature of some issues, the FASB anticipates that many differences between U.S. and international standards will persist.

Management Accountants are key players in shared service centres

Management accountants can be crucial participants in shared service centres - if they can adopt an outward facing role at the nexus of information flows. This discussion between a group FD and a management accountant shows how it can happen. By Ian Herbert, lecturer, and Will Seal, professor, at Loughborough University Business School. Read original article.

Much has been written about the power of financial shared service centres (FSSC) - lower costs, clearer focus, better IT, new location, new people, scaleability, standardisation, and so on.

Our aim in this article is to discuss a common frustration from shared services managers that, when things go right, shared services are invisible, but otherwise, they are simply a cost to the business.

Management accountants can be key players in FSSCs, either as managers of the financial shared services or as in-house customers of the FSSC.

How can they adopt an outward, front office, role, at the nexus of organisational information flows and supply chain relationship with divisions, rather than the inward looking, back office, role that accountants might have been traditionally used to?

Niggling directors

The scene is set in the office of a hypothetical group finance director. He is in discussion with financial shared services centre manager Josie Lockhart - a management accountant who has been with the group for 12 years. She worked in the corporate head office until the FSSC was set up three years ago.

GFD: I keep getting niggled about shared services from the divisional directors. They are not saying the service is bad, but that they don’t like paying for it. When I press them, they say that they aren’t sure if they’re getting value for money.

JL: Our problem is that, while everybody accepts the rationale for shared services, I seem to be engaged in a constant PR campaign. I should be spending more time improving the service, but instead I feel more like a sales rep.

GFD: OK - let’s stand back for a moment. What do you think the purpose of the FSSC is? I buy the arguments that it’s saving money, it makes commercial sense, and everyone is doing it, so it can’t be that bad! But, tell me why we should do it? Why don’t we just contract the whole thing out - now, of course, that we understand it?

JL: The FSSC was originally conceived to reduce headcount and increase efficiency through using better IT, business process re-engineering and cutting out duplication between divisions.

The initial revolutionary change developed into a culture of continuous improvement within the FSSC and, as the FSSC became established, the confidence of the business unit management has largely been won.

More recently, we have started to reflect on what else shared services represent. In one sense it has become the glue that binds the company together. If you think for a moment what is difficult about this business it comes down to pleasing customers, and keeping the support of our stakeholders.

Now to put that into perspective, we live in a globalised world and many companies can do what we do technically. But they can’t do it on the scale that we do and in the way that we do it. To put the question the other way around ‘Why don’t our technical staff set up in competition?’ The answer is that they would be denied the oxygen of the support services that they presently rely on (and take for granted)!

GFD: And the bottom line is?

JL: That shared services make a commercial logic beyond the individual tasks that we do. No doubt a third party outsourcing specialist could also do those tasks, but taken together, shared services define and preserve what we do. Moreover, to stakeholders, shared services define how we do it.

Let me explain.

Stakeholders want to be assured that we look after their interests. This means making decisions in their best interests and protecting the value of the company. In essence, this is corporate governance. In other words, accountability, visibility and transparency - all the things that a shared service centre enhances.

By placing the common support services outside of the strategic business units, we are creating visibility of those processes, while the business units focus on their core competencies. We know what’s going on without interfering. Control is improved.

Best of both worlds

GFD: But 20 years ago we had most of the support functions in head office and everybody said ‘That’s bad - it’s all too remote, ivory tower thinking. Now the gurus exhort us to think local, get close to the customer, to choose solutions that are ‘best of breed’ not simply some homogenous global standard. Are you telling me that we’ve moved backwards?

JL: In the past 20 years there has been a trend in both the public and private sectors towards outsourcing and marketisation such that market forces then determine the best price. Running a business becomes a case of satisfying customer needs by packaging a bundle of bought in services around a core expertise. The outsourcing model assumes that the market can’t be wrong, or at least, it’s difficult to criticise the notion of market forces as a control mechanism. The alternative model is not to trust anyone and to do everything in house - that is, within the hierarchy of the firm.

Both approaches have advantages and drawbacks. Indeed, both can result in reduced control by ceding power either to divisional management, who might have their own agendas, or third parties, who might seek to exploit the contract.

Thus the FSSC can be seen as the best of both worlds. An arm’s length, quasi-commercial business model, combined with a customer focus centred on in-house business partnering.

GFD: But I’m now confused. Are you saying that the FSSC is standardising everything or not? We have put a lot of work into becoming more efficient through the ‘joined up company’ initiative. How can we simply have the best of both worlds?

JL: The FSSC has a basic premise of standardisation and there are certain hard points in the system in terms of input/output formats and the monthly reporting time line. But around that we can accommodate a certain amount of customisation around divisional business protocols and commercial expediencies. The FSSC was never intended to be a one size fits all approach - that’s one of the chief advantages over using a third party outsourcer. But neither can it do everything differently.

Bigger picture

GFD: So why then do some divisional managers keep challenging the role of shared services? Why don’t you just explain things to them?

JL: Because the monthly service level agreement monitoring meetings tend to get bogged down in detail. We don’t get the opportunity to step back and appreciate the bigger picture. Often divisional managers complain about things they know we can do nothing about because the policy is set at board level.

GFD: OK, but to be fair to the divisions, shared services need to ensure that they’re doing the right things for people at the right time. This is marketing. We can all be too introspective. A friend of mine recently stayed at a hotel and gave scores of either four or five out of five for all the questions on the room feedback form. However, under ‘any other comments’ she wrote 'I’ll never stay in this hotel again!' The hotel had simply not understood the needs of customers and thus had asked the wrong questions – at least as far as my friend was concerned.

Next there is the day-to-day role of selling - that is, communicating the product offering and getting feedback on your performance. Selling is about getting face to face and sorting the service before it becomes a problem. Service level agreements will always be an ideal. It’s also important to have a close personal understanding between parties.

To summarise, a shared service is not just about operational expediency - it has a real purpose, a mission. It goes beyond simply cutting headcount and being a halfway house to third party outsourcing. It underpins our corporate governance model by operating as a quasi-commercial business with clear SLAs. But it also adds value by uncluttering our frontline divisions. The constant tension between the FSSC and divisional directors is natural. It’s a part of normal business communication and understanding - we could say internal marketing. Without it, services would not be continually improved and would ultimately become misaligned with the business.

Now tell me what your recommendations are?

JL:

1. The overall rationale and value of shared services needs to be defined and articulated more clearly by the board

2. We need to revisit the performance measures now that the FSSC has achieved steady state and separate them into controllable and uncontrollable factors. The SLAs can then focus on the ongoing relationship.

3. We need to improve communication and understanding between the FSSC and business units. We have something to learn from our colleagues in marketing staff and maybe staff secondments between the shared services and the divisions could help to foster deeper understanding in the long term. For example, some companies use shared services as a corporate training ground.

I will write a discussion paper for the next meeting.

GFD: Sounds good. Fancy lunch?

This article is a part of a CIMA funded research project. Ian Herbert and Will Seal would like to hear from anyone who is involved with shared services and is having to rationalise the overall role and relationships with business customers. For a copy of their latest research paper on shared services, email: i.p.herbert@lboro.ac.uk

Links
European Shared Services and Outsourcing Week
Shared services mastercourse

The benefits of Islamic finance

Experts in Islamic finance believe their way of doing business has shielded them from the global credit crisis. Read original article.

• Information on the CIMA Certificate in Islamic Finance

But how does it differ from conventional Western finance?

A former executive director of the International Monetary Fund, Dr Abbas Mirakhor, says wider Islamic economics relies on God's guidance, handed down almost 1,400 years ago.

There is a "consciousness of a supreme creator and a system that he has provided", he says.

What we know as the conventional Western way does not have that, which is "really the major difference between the two", he adds.

In practical terms, the most significant difference is that charging interest is not allowed in Islamic finance.

FEATURES OF ISLAMIC ECONOMY Dealing in interest, liquor, pork, gambling or pornography are prohibited under Sharia law Islam forbids all forms of economic activity which it deems morally or socially harmful Individuals must spend their wealth judiciously and not hoard it, keep it idle or squander it Muslims have a duty to contribute a percentage of their wealth to deprived and poor sections of Muslim society

Neither are most forms of speculative investment permitted, such as hedging or derivatives trading.

"We don't recognise the concept of interest... to look for some profit from trading money," explains Dr Bambang Brodjonegoro from the Islamic Development Bank.

"In the Islamic concept, money is strictly for the purpose of exchange or storing value, but not for the transaction of looking for excessive profit," he says.

Sharing risks

How then, does an Islamic bank, and a customer who puts money in that bank, make a profit?

The Qur'an contains principles Muslims must follow when they do business

The system is asset-based, with tangible assets or commodities at the heart of it. There are buyers and sellers, not borrowers and lenders.

Here is a comparison.

In Los Angeles a customer who wants to borrow money to buy a car would go to a conventional bank and agree a loan. The bank would hand over the money.

There would be regular repayments, which include interest accrued on the loan.

In Lahore a customer could go to an Islamic bank and sign a contract with the bank to buy a car from them.

The bank would not loan the money but buy the car itself. Then it would sell it to the customer at a mark up.

The customer would agree to pay back the cost in instalments over a regular period.

One of the core principles at the heart of Islamic economics is risk sharing. The bank and the people who put their money in it share any profit, or loss, from investments.

"In Islam we appreciate merit, so if someone works harder in a business...they (the bank) will get the sharing benefit," explains Dr Brodjonegoro.

"The more important thing is that there will be no bank that rules everything. It will be bank and borrowers at the same level and they share the risk and benefit."

Alternative way

This sense of equality is important. It is one of the defining characteristics which proponents of Islamic economics say make it different from the conventional western way.

It is time for Islamic finance to pause and think of the direction it is taking Prof. Habib Ahmed, Islamic finance expert

Islamic economics also highlights a belief in benefitting the wider Muslim community.

The former IMF Executive Director Dr Mirakhor says that it chimes with "a movement toward becoming more 'other conscious'...having consciousness about the other fellow, about the general public interest."

This contrasts with what he described as the "simple narrow basis of self interest which motivates, supposedly, the economic agents in the liberal economic system."

Some see the Islamic model as an alternative. Others see it as complementary to the system which has dominated the western world.

"I don think that this Islamic banking system is the alternative, that we have one or the other. I think this is a complimentary service, a way of doing service," says Prof Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Countries.

"It needs to be an option there where people can find different ways of doing the same thing."

Compromising principles

Islamic economics is not the exclusive preserve of Muslims.

London is emerging as a major financial centre for Islamic finance. Islamic banking products are also widely used by non Muslims in Malaysia.

"This is an alternative system that can be applied to everybody. Everybody can use it regardless of their religion," says Dr Brodjonegoro from the Islamic Development Bank.

Major banks like Britain's HSBC and Citi of the US have set up Islamic banking subsidiaries that are flourishing. Some of the champions of the Islamic way want to see business expand beyond the natural market of Muslim countries.

They believe that now, more than ever, there is a market for non Muslims who share in the values espoused in Islamic economics.

But there are some who fear that by expanding the Islamic way is becoming less Islamic.

Time to reflect

"Unfortunately what is happening is that Islamic finance in some ways is moving more and more closely to the conventional finance," says Prof Habib Ahmed, a world authority on Islamic finance.

"If you look at the development in the past few years, Islamic finance appears to be mimicking most of the products of conventional finance."

There has never been a better time to champion an economic model which is different to the one laying in shreds on Wall Street, says Prof Ahmed. But he believes that the Islamic concept is being diluted.

"As people after this crisis are looking for solutions...the Islamic finance industry is moving towards that very system," he says.

"I think it is time for Islamic finance to pause and think of the direction it is taking".

IASB publishes fair value findings...

Fair value accounting guidance set out by the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is consistent with that published by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Read original article.

That is the conclusion of a review by the IASB aimed at ensuring consistency in the way such rules are applied.

Following the accelerated 30-day consultation on the issue, relevant guidance from the FASB's Staff Positions on fair value measurement will be included when the IASB publishes an exposure draft on the same subject next month.

Sir David Tweedie, IASB chairman, said: "We have heard a clear and consistent message on financial instruments accounting - fix this once, fix it comprehensively, and fix it in an urgent and responsible manner."

This is why the IASB has set out a six-month timetable for replacing current standards relating to the subject, he added.

Earlier this month, the FASB launched two draft proposals aimed at improving guidance relating to fair value measurement and impairments.

Video Advice on Surviving the Recession

From the Economist

Google has launched a new channel on its YouTube video site, dubbed “Survival of the Fastest”. Among the corporate executives, business-school professors and London mayors providing “bite-sized insights” for managers to help them navigate the downturn is Jason Karaian of CFO Europe. He discusses how the recession will reshape relationships among board members and why companies will focus much more on cash in the years to come.

World Check - Global i Report April 2009

IASB amends 12 standards

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has made a range of amendments to 12 International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs). Read original article.

All the changes are part of the board's annual improvements project, which is used to make non-urgent adjustments to IFRSs.

The latest amendments reflect issues that were initially raised in proposals published in October 2007, August 2008 and January 2009.

• Print-friendly version of this press release [PDF]


• Annual Improvements project page


• IASB homepage

A spokesperson for the IASB said: "By presenting the amendments in a single document rather than as a series of piecemeal changes, the IASB aims to ease the burden of change for all concerned."

The changes are effective for annual periods beginning on or after January 1st 2010, unless otherwise specified, he added.

However, the IASB has decided to postpone reconsideration of two issues raised in the proposed changes of August 2008 due to comments received during the consultation period.

Recently, the board announced it is working on the proposals made by the leaders of the G20 nations at their meeting earlier this month.

To reveal, but not to regulate

IN PUBLIC, bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it’s just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch. Unfortunately, banks’ lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be arcane, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult. Read original article.

On April 2nd, after a bruising encounter with Congress, America’s Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognising losses on long-term assets in their income statements. Bob Herz, the FASB’s chairman, decried those who “impugn our motives”. Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobbying group politely calls “the use of judgment by management”.

European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to be “piecemeal”, but the pressure to fold when it completes its overhaul of rules later this year is strong. On April 1st Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did “not live in a political vacuum” but “in the real world” and that Europe could yet develop different rules.

It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But banks’ shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are sceptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains.

To get the system working again, losses must be recognised and dealt with. Japan’s procrastination prolonged its crisis. America’s new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by appeasing critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.

Standard-setters should defuse the argument by making clear that their job is not to regulate banks but to force them to reveal information. The banks, their capital-adequacy regulators and politicians seem to dream of a single, grown-up version of the truth, which enhances financial stability. Investors and accountants, however, think all valuations are subjective, doubt managers’ motives and judge that market prices are the least-bad option. They are right. A bank’s solvency is a matter of judgment for its regulators and for investors, not whatever a piece of paper signed by its auditors says it is. Accounts can inform that decision, but not make it.

Banks’ regulators have to take responsibility. If they want to remove the mechanical link between drops in market prices and capital shortfalls at banks, they should take the accounts that standard-setters create for investors and adjust them when they calculate capital. They already do this to some degree. But the banks’ campaign to change the rules is making inevitable a split between two sets of accounts, one for regulators and another for investors. The FASB and IASB can help regulators to create whatever balance-sheet they want. But in doing so they must not compromise their duty to investors.

US firms see opportunities in IFRS switchover...

US companies see adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as a chance to make improvements to the way they operate, according to a new survey. Read original article.

A study by Accenture found that 83 per cent of executives at US companies with a listed value of $1 billion (£680 million) believe the changeover from US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to IFRS will present them with a chance to make changes in their finance functions.

Dan London, managing director of Accenture's finance and performance management practice, said: "Those companies that view the conversion as an opportunity to upgrade their performance management capabilities, addressing compliance and risk management, as well as increasing operational efficiencies, are better positioned to drive value from the process."

However, firms should start preparing for the switchover now to make sure they are well placed to deal with any issues arising, he added.

Last year, the US Securities and Exchange Commission issued a roadmap for the transition to IFRS which could see the rules adopted by 2014.