Forum for discussing proposed merger of accountants with CA, CMA and CGA designations in Canada » Your home for CA-CMA-CGA unification information

This topic has been closed to new replies.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 74 total)

1 2 3

	Posts	Author	Post Number
April 12, 2012 at 5:38 am		vanca	#9091
	The recent email from the ICABC says that “the member vote in Manitoba has been conducted and 59.5% of the members voted in favour of uniting the CA and CMA professions in Manitoba.” I noticed that they forgot to mention in their headline that 36% to 45% (from their survey, page 11, below) of BC members support the unification. In their Consultation Summary (the first page, front and center), they cover how all the “non-member stakeholders” support the unification, but again fail to highlight how less than 50% of members, whom they should be representing, support the merger. This strong pro-merger bias is one of things putting me off of the unification. If the ICABC would set out the Pro’s and Con’s of merging (yes, there are plenty of Con’s, but you’ll rarely see them published) and 50%+ of my fellow members supported it, I’d be more than happy to go along with it. Instead, they only talk about the benefits while rarely mentioning the costs, and still haven’t achieved the support from the majority of the members. I find it offending that the percentage of members supporting the merger is not highlighted summary (shouldn’t this be one of the, if not the most, important factor?) and consequently, not a key point that the ICABC is presenting to the government. This lack of popular support is hidden within this document making this whole process feel quite disingenuous. http://www.ica.bc.ca/pdf/cpa_consultation_summary.pdf
April 12, 2012 at 5:54 am		ca in hk	#9092
	vanca – Indeed i share your view. It took me a while to really figure out what they want to say in the summary. One will have to read between the lines to get the key messages. In his covering email message to members, the President of ICABC states “…members are split on the issues of designation and the merger overall…” I think it is loud and clear that at least 50% of members are against the merger initiative.
April 12, 2012 at 7:12 am		olkcga	#9094
	I am not going to argue against the will of members, but are you sure that your interpretation is valid? — How likely will you endorse the merger recommendation from the BC Council?: Very likely 30% Somewhat likely 23% On the fence (indifference) 15% Somewhat unlikely 12% Unlikely 21% – Only 3k of the 11k voted. With such a big issue I will have expected more voters.
April 12, 2012 at 8:56 am		ca in hk	#9096
	olkcga – that’s what i said about having to read it between the lines. you need to read it in its entirety and also consider the cover message sent by the President. Yes, you are right about the 3k members particiapting in the voting process. However if you are a believer of statistical representative sampling, you will note that the Institute says such results represent the entire population with a very small margin of error.
April 12, 2012 at 9:12 am		ca in shanghai	#9097
	@ca in hk If there is randomness, you can assume statistical representation. I agree. However, the assumption of randomness is a risky assumption. For those in business themselves, they are usually too busy to vote. They do not need CICA to create CA premium for them, they create premium for themselves.
April 12, 2012 at 9:18 am		t. advisor king	#9098
	vanca – thanks for sharing the survey results, which confirm what I thought. My favourite part was Q15. Having asked survey respondents near the start of the survey what they thought about the proposal, the survey again asked them near the end of the survey (“having learned more about the proposed merger …”). The number of respondents who indicated they strongly opposed the merger at the end of the survey actually increased by 2% over the number who strongly opposed it at the start of the survey. … Arguably, even the phrasing of Q15 should give BC members some cause for concern. Cleary the question indicated that the survey itself wasn’t really just a survey, it was part of the promotional campaign designed to “teach” members about the proposal. … I will give the BC Institute some credit. While they delayed releasing the results and tried as hard as they could to sugar-coat the results, they didn’t hide them. It is plain to see that members in BC do not support the merger proposal. … My one other quick observation is that the summary document provides a fairly detailed demographic assessment of the responses compared to the overall membership. While olkcga felt that the response rate was low, anyone who knows anything about surveying would acknowledge that a 30% response rate is incredibly high. In fact, I think it is almost 40% if you exclude retired members. More importantly, the responses are demographically highly representative of the population as a whole, with only one exception. … Based on location, gender, age and years as a CA, the response rates match very closely with the breakdown of the population. However, in terms of employment segment (i.e., public practice, industry, etc.), CAs in public practice are overrepresented by about 25%. Based on the arguments I’ve heard, CA partners and sole practitioners are more likely to support a merger. As a result, the actual support of the membership quoted above by vanca as 36-45% may actually be more like 28-34%. … I’m guessing BC members have seen enough and are ready for the real vote.
April 12, 2012 at 9:27 am		ca in hk	#9099
	Tak – i refer to your first para. Good observation!
April 12, 2012 at 9:28 am		vanca	#9100
	@olkcga: The question you refer to in the survey was: Q16. If the proposed restructuring of the profession was supported by stakeholders, how likely are you to endorse a recommendation from Council to the BC government to proceed with this restructuring? I read this question to mean “if everyone else supports this, would you as well?”, that is, I read it such that the definition of stakeholders includes members of the ICABC. If the majority of my fellow members did support the unification, I would endorse a recommendation to the BC government. However, my reading of Q4a and Q15 leads me to believe the majority of the members do not support this, thus I do not endorse it.
April 12, 2012 at 9:29 am		attalibrahimi	#9101
	I agree with TAK that CAs in public practice are more likely to support the merger. Two reasons, one, they will have a larger pool of accountants to draw from as employees and second higher chances of passing on their partnership shares or practices onto new accountants willing to buy in.
April 12, 2012 at 9:33 am		ca in shanghai	#9103
	I think the solution is very simple. Let those CA partners and CAs in public practice join CPA Canada. Let those employee CAs stay as CAs to enjoy CA premium.
April 12, 2012 at 9:34 am		vanca	#9104
	@TAK- “Arguably, even the phrasing of Q15 should give BC members some cause for concern. Cleary the question indicated that the survey itself wasn’t really just a survey, it was part of the promotional campaign designed to “teach” members about the proposal.” Completely agree. Regarding demographics, you will notice that the members aged 51 and older make up 42.9% of the BC CA population while 30.9% of the respondents were in this age range. This makes sense given they are at or approaching the end of their career and unification may not be an issue for them. Closer to 40% of the younger CA’s (< 50s) participated in this survey, which I believe is a strong sample size for a voluntary survey.
April 12, 2012 at 9:59 am		olkcga	#9109
	“Likelihood to Endorse How likely are you to endorse a recommendation from Council to BC government to proceed with with the restructuring if supported by stakeholders?” Very likely 30% Somewhat 23% On the fence 15% Somewhat unlikely 12% Very unlikely 21% == I notice restructuring was used instead of merging. The document went on to show how stakeholders in BC are supporting the merger. = I believe in the will of the people/members, no argument from me there. If there is no support then there is no support. I guess I should not be picking numbers that best suit my liking. I guess you have to read through the lines as Vanca said. This is a CA fight.
April 12, 2012 at 10:47 am		ca in hk	#9111
	The ball is now in the court of ICAO and its members. Members of ICAO – Your votes and views will determine the future of the Canadian Chartered Accountancy.
April 12, 2012 at 10:59 am		castudent	#9113
	The way I see it is ICABC (being all pro merger and all) will say 53% of their members are supportive of the merger (which meets the 50% +1 target). Additionally, all other stakeholders, including the firms, CATOs, academics, regulators and employers are very supportive, and therefore they will proceed with the recommendation to the government. Just a thought
April 12, 2012 at 11:07 am		ca in hk	#9114
	When is ICAO going to publish its survey results? Anyone?
April 12, 2012 at 11:19 am		castudent	#9115
	Here in Ontario the vote is in June. They haven’t even released the framework document yet They are not releasing the random few surveys they have conducted
April 12, 2012 at 11:22 am		attalibrahimi	#9117
	I thought the vote in Ontario is non-binding…is this true?
April 12, 2012 at 11:29 am		ca in shanghai	#9118
	Let CAs who want to join CPA Canada do so. Do not bully them.
April 12, 2012 at 11:30 am		castudent	#9119
	Vote in Ontario is not binding
April 12, 2012 at 11:45 am		ca in shanghai	#9121
	However, vote in Ontario will be blinding.
April 12, 2012 at 12:00 pm		ca in hk	#9127
	Unfortunately i do not see this as a landslide against the merger nor a landslide for the merger.
April 12, 2012 at 12:03 pm		hbrar	#9129
	@ca in hk I agree with your assessment. This hasn’t provided the conclusive evidence that some had hoped. Have a good day.
April 12, 2012 at 12:06 pm		rsg	#9131
	@ca in hk, I agree with your assessment as well.
April 12, 2012 at 12:11 pm		ca in hk	#9133
	I would hope for a 60/40 split with 60% against the merger. This doesn’t seem to have happened unless Tak or Moofur or Vanca can shed some light on the survey results.
April 12, 2012 at 12:12 pm		ca in shanghai	#9134
	@ca in HK I would not hold my breath. Employee CAs in BC have spoken loudly they want to remain CAs. Public Practice CAs want to join CPA Canada. Do not bully them. Let them do it.

ICABC: 36% to 45% of members support the unification