One of recurring issues about the ACCA has been whether it is a professional accountancy body or a business.  Look at the item below and whether it has anything to do with services to members. These activities will certainly make the bureaucrats feel important but look at the risks of this business venture to members. Ask yourself


ACCA bids for FSA role
(Accountancy Age, 2 March 2000, page 1)

 ACCA, PricewaterhouseCoopers, or even the Law Society could emerge as the sole monitor for most firms conducting investment business, under proposals currently being considered by the Financial Services Authority.

 In a move certain to keep the conflicts of interest debate alive within the profession, the FSA put its new powers to regulate accountancy firms for investment business out to tender last  November.

 At the time Roger Purcell, group manager for the  FSA's recognised professional body division, said it would be more cost-effective than to take on its own staff.

The FSA has now received eight bids to monitor  the eight registered professional bodies whose members provide investment advice.

Accountancy Age understands that ACCA has put in two bids, one jointly with PwC and one in its own right. The Joint Monitoring Unit of the three chartered institutes - backed by the Institute of Actuaries - and PwC have also submitted separate bids.

The Law Societies of England and Wales and Scotland have also made individual bids, while Bacon & Woodrow and IFA Bankhall Investment Management have made submissions too.

Successful bidders will be announced by 1 April. But the decision will be made difficult by the fact that many of the bids could lead to major conflicts of interest.

Purcell said: 'We are aware that a number of the bids have conflicts of interest and we have asked them how they would deal with that.'

Stephen Thomas, head of the Joint Monitoring Unit, said: 'The JMU has a proven track record in the monitoring of investment business. Our tender focuses on territory where we are the acknowledged experts. I believe we represent a very strong proposition indeed.