IFAC



Technical Manager International Accounting Education Standards BoardInternational Federation of Accountants277 Wellington St. WestToronto, Ontario Canada M5V 3H212 October 2011Dear SirsIAESB Exposure Draft, Proposed International Education Standard: IES 5, Practical experience requirements for aspiring accountants. We are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the International Accounting Education Standards Board’s (“IAESB” or “the Board”) proposed International Standard IES 5, Practical experience requirements for aspiring accountants. (“the ED”). Our process for responding to IAESB’s request for comments on the ED included obtaining feedback from KPMG’s Global Audit Training Steering Group.Our overarching comments are included below. The appendix to this letter provides further information regarding these overarching comments and also our responses to the specific questions posed in the Exposure Draft. Overarching comment We support the objective of IES 5 to enhance the practical experience requirements to ensure professional accountants have appropriate and sufficient practical experience to demonstrate competence in their roles. We agree with the principle behind the requirement in paragraph 10 for IFAC member bodies to require that practical experience is of sufficient duration and intensity to enable aspiring professional accountants to demonstrate that they have gained the (a) professional knowledge, (b) professional skills, and (c) professional values, ethics, and attitudes required for performing their work with professional competence. However, we believe that, without minimum practical experience thresholds the requirement will not be consistently applied, and may not meet the objective. Traditionally, in many parts of the world, accountancy, and particularly auditing, has been an “apprenticeship” profession because much of it cannot be learned from a book. The application of judgment and professional scepticism cannot be learned solely in the classroom or easily tested in an output assessment. The principles and concepts must be reinforced through practical experience and the mentoring that takes place as part of that experience. The practical experience requirement allows more junior auditors to observe more senior team members, including how they respond to certain situations, how they interact with clients, and how they form key judgements. The practical experience requirement also helps build ethical behaviour, integrity, as well as technical competence. The need for professionals with the appropriate skills and competencies has never been greater. Financial reporting and auditing has become much more complex. Audit oversight regulators, the IAASB, audit committees and other stakeholders are increasingly focusing on audit quality and the need for those providing services to have the necessary skills and competencies. The business environment is becoming increasingly more challenging and ambiguous. The need for accountants and auditors to be able to exercise judgment and professional scepticism is increasing. Accordingly, we believe the importance of the professional experience requirement is increasing.For these reasons, we recommend that the proposed revised standard, and in particular, the requirement in paragraph 10, be supported by minimum practical experience thresholds to facilitate consistency and transparency in achieving the requirement. Although we recognize the appeal of offering the three approaches to measuring practical experience, we recommend reinstating the minimum three-year practical experience requirement as a base upon which additional input or output-based measures may be added. We welcome the opportunity to comment on this exposure draft and have solicited input from KPMG’s Global Audit Training Steering Group in drafting our response. Please contact Linda Nower at 1-416-777-8354 or lbnower@kpmg.ca if you wish to discuss any of the matters referred to in this letter. Yours faithfully Linda B. NowerPartner-in-Charge, Global Audit Learning & Developmentcc. Eileen Walsh, CPAAppendixQuestion 1: Do you find that the outcome-based, input-based, and combination approaches offer sufficient alternatives for effectively meeting the standard’s requirement for IFAC member bodies to establish their preferred approach to measure practical experience?We recognize the appeal of offering the three approaches to measuring practical experience; however, we recommend reinstating the minimum three-year practical experience requirement as a base upon which additional input or output-based measures may be added. We believe providing these various options, without prescribing minimum requirements, will lead to inconsistent practice. In addition to the concerns expressed in our overarching comments, we are concerned about the relaxation of the minimum three-year practical qualification on the grounds that:Greater consistency and transparency in practical experience requirements will better promote global mobility to meet the requirements of the changing global economy. Conversely, inconsistent practical experience requirements might lead to greater divergence which could reduce the prospect for membership reciprocity and mutual recognition thereby reducing opportunities for accountants.Other respected professions, such as the legal, actuarial, architectural, and medicinal fields continue to require in-job experience. A diminution in accountancy of the in-job training requirement would reduce our overall reputation as a profession.In general, we would also be concerned about too much reliance on input measures which can lead to too much reliance on ticking boxes rather than qualitative assessments, and in this regard we support the inclusion of the other methods for meeting the standard’s requirements. Question 2: In considering the role of the supervisor in directing the aspiring professional accountant’s practical experience, the IAESB is proposing to define a supervisor as follows: “is a professional accountant who is responsible for guiding and advising aspiring professional accountants and for assisting in the development of the aspiring professional accountant’s competence.” Do you agree with this definition? If not, what amendments would you propose to the definition?We agree with the definition of the supervisor. We recommend that if the definitions of mentor and supervisor are different, that this is explained in the explanatory notes.Question 3: Are the requirements of IES 5 clear for IFAC member bodies?We do not believe that the requirements of the proposed standard are clear for IFAC member bodies. Paragraph 10 states “IFAC member bodies shall require that practical experience is of sufficient duration and intensity to enable aspiring professional accountants to demonstrate that they have gained the (a) professional knowledge, (b) professional skills, and (c) professional values, ethics, and attitudes required for performing their work with professional competence.”We recommend reinstating the minimum three-year practical experience requirement as a base upon which additional input or output-based measures may be added. IES 5, paragraph 11 prescribes the need for member bodies to establish a preferred approach to measure practical experience using “output-based”; “input-based” or a “combination of input-based and output-based approaches”.Even with reference to guidance in paragraphs A2-A10, these paragraphs are very ambiguous and put the onus on member bodies to determine minimum requirements. The explanatory guidance in A9 acknowledges that the public typically expects accountants to have completed a minimum combined period of education and practical experience. This paragraph also encourages member bodies to reflect this in their practical experience requirements. We question the authority of the term “encouraged.” We believe that, if a standards setter “encourages” an action, some will read it as a requirement, while others will not. We believe that this particular action, that is to reflect, in the practical experience requirements, the fact that the public typically expects accountants to have completed a minimum combined period of education and practical experience, should be a requirement.Question 4: Are the examples and explanation in Explanatory Materials section sufficient in explaining the requirements of the Standard?As discussed above, the ambiguity in the standard itself may lead to an inconsistent application and interpretation of what is meant by sufficient and appropriate practical experience by member bodies. Question 5: Is the objective to be achieved by a member body, stated in the proposed revised IES 5, appropriate?We consider the objective of IES 5 to be appropriate. However, the requirements within the standard need to be refined, to ensure that this objective is consistently and transparently achieved.Question 6: Have the criteria identified by the IAESB for determining whether a requirement should be specified been applied appropriately and consistently, such that the resulting requirements promote consistency in implementation by member bodies?No, as discussed above, competing member bodies providing similar accounting qualifications may interpret these requirements inconsistently, so as to result in divergent outcomes. For organizations like KPMG that have individuals moving between offices internationally this raises the potential issue of differing levels of practical experience impacting on the quality of our staff. Question 7: Are there any terms within the proposed IES 5 which require further clarification? If so, please explain the nature of the deficiencies.In paragraph 5 there is reference to “After the completion of IPD, practical experience may be required...”. In paragraph 3 above it states that practical experience is a component of IPD. Therefore we feel this would be correct to say “After completion of IPD, further practical experience may be required...” A3 sub section b – refers to “However this studying... of the professional competence to perform accounting activities”. In the rest of the standard we always refer to a “professional accountant”. It could be understood that the reference to “accounting activities” is a narrower term confined to GAAP and not including GAAS etc, than if the sentence was drafted to say “of the professional competence required to become a professional accountant”.A5 and A7 both include examples in them which could be seen as either closed lists or examples. We believe that they are meant to be examples and not closed lists and it would be clearer if they both made reference to this in the wording, for example by including “but not limited to”.Comments on other matters – translation issuesCountries which issue the standard in a language other than English will need to translate it into their language. Presumably they do this for all such standards, and therefore should have practices and procedures in place to accommodate this. However, when issuing a standard or exposure draft it is important to allow time for this translation to occur. We recommend that this translation time (e.g. approximately four weeks as is the case for Japan) is taken into account when setting the effective date of a standard and the “Request for comments date” for an exposure draft so that they can provide feedback before the comments closure date. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download