Merry Christmas to Peter Wilson. When it was suggested that Peter Wilson should be independent of the old board so that we can have a fresh start Peter responded with "That's your issue". Summary of the meeting here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=594
A good summary of where we are up to by Joe Aston of the AFR, linked to from here: viewtopic.php?f=5&p=4137#p4137
If you are new to this website read the story so far: viewtopic.php?t=321#p1793
Check out some of the AFR articles, too many to list and check out some of the ABC reports: http://www.afr.com/business/accounting/ ... 215-h055ej http://www.afr.com/business/accounting/ ... 211-h02x1d http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/the ... s,/8626662
Please join this website to participate in discussions. Also join our email list at http://eepurl.com/cWsgfb
Image

CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

This covers the board and management of CPA Australia
User avatar
Better Call Saul
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by Better Call Saul » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:00 pm

Mr Mark Stretton of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu will need to pull his working papers out and answer the question whether he has confirmed that the directors' remuneration consolidated across all entities including CPA Advice, Malaysia and Shanghai and AAT is lawful according to Article 45 of the constitution.

We know:-

- Diss and Hughes are directors of AAT
- Hughes, Dharshini and Awty are directors of Malaysia
- Hughes, Thomason, Leung and Diss are directors of Shanghai
- Haddan is a director of CPA Advice

All of the above are under the limitations contained in Article 45. and the auditor will know it.

HOWEVER,

CPA's FAQ in the 32 pager for the 202B, on page 14, "What is the remuneration paid........", have made a misstatement or have not told the truth, The offending statement is that "Article 45 of ...... the constitution does not apply in relation to Director fees associated with subsidiaries of CPA Australia Ltd."

This incorrect and not true. This is an unaudited section mind you so it is nothing to do with Mr Stretton.

chuck_meister
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:58 am

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by chuck_meister » Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:52 pm

The more I see regarding CPA Advice, the more I keep thinking about section 180 of the corporations act - Care and diligence
Specifically under section 2.

(2) A director or other officer of a corporation who makes a business judgment is taken to meet the requirements of subsection (1), and their equivalent duties at common law and in equity, in respect of the judgment if they:

(a) make the judgment in good faith for a proper purpose; and
(Hmm, conflicted under (b)? Getting around the constitutional limits on directors pay?)

(b) do not have a material personal interest in the subject matter of the judgment; and
(Does it mean that all the directors getting $70K or $100K for their troubles instantly fails this?)

(c) inform themselves about the subject matter of the judgment to the extent they reasonably believe to be appropriate; and
(I'd really like to see the business case for this. Was there an NPV analysis to justify the spend? A sensitivity analysis to show a range
given based on how many members signed up?, A proper risk analysis being the competing against yourself as the regulator?)

(d) rationally believe that the judgment is in the best interests of the corporation.
(If I was the reasonable person (heck you don't even have to be an accountant), spending millions in exchange for a few tens of
thousands just doesn't make sense. But then again it goes back to failures of (a) and (b), likely overriding the need properly do (c)
resulting in the delusion of (d)

The director's or officer's belief that the judgment is in the best interests of the corporation is a rational one unless the belief is one that no reasonable person in their position would hold.

User avatar
GenYCPA
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 11:19 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by GenYCPA » Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:14 am

With regards to the CPA Australia and CPA Australia Advice disclosures my thoughts are as follows:

Note 20 (CPAA), in relation to the investment in controlled entities, does not appear to have been misstated. "The amount of investment represents the historical capital invested into each entity, which may be different to the fair value of that investment". The $1 is the share capital.

However, note 18 (CPAA) has potentially misrepresented the related party transaction: "CPA Australia Ltd has provided a non-current interest free loan to CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd of $5,594,000".

Note 10 and 15(i) (CPAA Advice) explain the difference between gross proceeds ($8,444) and fair value reported ($5,594) reduces the carrying value of the liability (since it is a long term interest free loan) and books the difference as an equity contribution ($2,850). This equity contribution is not the same as the historical capital invested and disappears from sight during the consolidation process of the CPAA accounts.

They should make it clear in the CPA Australia Account the gross value of the loan at risk.

Furthermore, Note 7 (CPAA Advice) and Note 11 (CPAA) regarding the intangibles reconciliation do not seem to match up inferring that the additions to intangibles in CPAA Advice are related party transactions. This was not disclosed in Note 12 (CPAA Advice) related party transactions.
Robert McDowall CPA | Partner | Arabon Accountants
CPA Australia Queensland Divisional Councillor

https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-mcdowall/
Join the conversation on the CPA Members Group on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/groups/103561

User avatar
nakedadmin
Site Admin
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by nakedadmin » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:52 am

You're right. It's a bit of accounting trickery. They loaned about $8.4m then discounted it to a market value of about $5.6m at an interest rate of 5%.

So in CPAA Advice books they Dr the loan Cr equity to bring the loan to market value

In the CPA Australia books they Cr the loan. What gets the Dr, must be an expense. But then they eliminate that on consolidation.
GenYCPA wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:14 am
However, note 18 (CPAA) has potentially misrepresented the related party transaction: "CPA Australia Ltd has provided a non-current interest free loan to CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd of $5,594,000".
I think the above is a misstatement as if it was an "interest free" loan of $5.6m it would be discounted to $4m wouldn't it. In that statement they said it's $5.6m prior to discount.

How to pay $2.8m to a related party and not disclose it by CPA Australia. What a fine example, NOT.
The Naked Webmaster

User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by Brett Stevenson » Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:44 am

I think CPA Australia Advice and CPA Australia provides a classic example of why the current leadership of CPA have failed the accounting profession badly.
However you want to explain the consolidated accounting entries, they certainly point to a fundamental failure of accounting. They have disguised/ hidden/ made opaque (describe it however you wish) a fully owned subsidiary which is clearly in financial strife ($7.4 million loss in 19 months on a revenue of $47,000), has an 'overdraft' from CPA of $20 million (of which $12million has already been drawn down as at time of the annual reports release, and the AGM) yet in CPA Australia annual report they have almost hidden this with a note to say $5,594,000 had been loaned to the subsidiary.

How can we as a professional accounting organisation that purports to uphold integrity and high standards in the marketplace possibly justify such a clear lack of transparency and openness. I would suggest it shows a failure on a number of levels and why the current CPA leadership have failed us badly

1. We know that the current CPA leadership are happy to use minimum disclosure and strict compliance with the law to hide things, so no surprises there. It's just par for the course for them. That's the sort of 'sales talk' accounting that gives the profession an awful name and reputation.

2. It raises questions about the role and obligations of the auditor Deloitte as to how they could approve this, even if it complies with the law/standards. Where compliance with accounting standards misleads and does not provide a true and fair view then they need to take the lead and say so. I suggest Deloitte need to reconsider what their role as an auditor is and to whom they owe an obligation. Is it to please the sales talk of a poor current CPA leadership who wanted to hide the true state of CPA Australia Advice from the members, or is it to the members of the organisation and to the public who give us a professional mandate?
I believe the latter should have prevailed and they have failed badly in that regard.

3. It raises fundamental questions about the failure of consolidated accounting itself. The issue with his are not new and one just needs to have a read of books such as
Corporate Collapse. Accounting, Regulathriy and Ethical Failure (2003) by Frank Clarke, Graeme Dean and Kyle Oliver, or their more recent The Unaccountable and Ungovernable Corporation (2014)
to appreciate this.
This is where CPA Australia should have been spending money with universities and others to do more research and investigation to lift our standards, rather than waste literally millions marketing Alex Malley.

This is why this last decade under the current CPA leadership has exhunibuted a failure to look at ways to improve our profession. I can list off three or four areas in accounting that need urgent attention but all they have been concerned with is putting up billboards with Alex Malley or promoting his stupid book The Nakes CEO, or chasing a global empire.
Another area would be integrated reporting. If ever there was an area where 'cream puffery' reigns it is in the push for this. Of course CPA Australia is a big advocate for this under the current leadership, and one now sees why.

We need accounting with grunt and we need to lift the standards of our profession. Not allowing them to be denigrated by salesmen who are endeavouring to hide and make reporting more opaque.

I would think every Business School in Australian Universities could take what is happening at CPA Australia as a case study in failed corporate governance, failed leadership of a professional membership body, and most importantly failure of an accounting body to serve the professiona and it's members.
Kick them out is all I can say.

MarkG
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu May 25, 2017 8:34 pm

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by MarkG » Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:33 pm

Brett, well said. After all the other issues, internal governance, board extensions, remuneration levels, marketing spend, etc I believe CPAA Advice is the key issue that will bring about reformation to the society.

Even as recently as the last few weeks the CEO has been on TV begging for recognition for generating record surpluses, while on the other hand claiming this is a media hatchet job. Six directors (regardless of complicity) have resigned to avoid being further involved.

These surpluses have led to the establishment of CPAA Advice and the preposterous discrepancy between income and expenses. If they signed up one new representative every single day, it would take between 10 and 14 year to breakeven.

They have now put the entire Not For Profit members society at risk by generating (and spending) excessive profits from membership fees and exams, earning investment income from the surplus "war chest" (already taxed) and now have established a business in financial services. We are not a business.

It seems more likely after each revelation that political and public body intervention will occur to investigate the current custodians of our professional services body, and end this ten year experiment. But in the meantime members must keep speaking out until the next general meeting or sooner.

Regards, Mark.

User avatar
The Nude CPA
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 4:21 pm

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by The Nude CPA » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:52 pm

Even if the reporting of CPAA Advice was/is compliant, it is intentionally misleading and deceptive, and defeats the purpose of reporting.

User avatar
GenYCPA
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 11:19 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by GenYCPA » Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:05 am

So I thought I would expand on MarkG's break even analysis. I know we thought something was off about CPA Australia Advice and their current structure but this has just blown me away.

I've made a few loose assumptions - people are welcome to refine this analysis for me:
  • Discounted to real terms - no increase in the nominal prices or expenses
  • No increase/decrease in expenses as the number of advisers increase.
  • Things like Tech and Professional services expenses are still included.
Lets also assume that you had an even mix of new advisers across all three categories - even though I doubt this is the case. Most advisers I have talked to just want to be authorised for limited advice so they can do what they were doing before the removal of the accountants exemption.

If you had 36 new advisers per year (more then the current take up rate) it would take 5 centuries to break even then recoup the losses sustained in the process. Even with 144 new advisers per year (or 12 per month) it would take 14 years to recoup the losses sustained in the process. The only way the losses could be recouped in less than 5 years would be to add 288 new advisers per year (24 per month).

Even if I wiped out the $1.56 million in technology and professional services expenses it would take 3 centuries, 10 years and 3 years respectively on the above adviser growth benchmarks.

I seriously doubt this is a financially viable company. If allowed to continue with the current cost structure we will be losing millions of dollars per year with a very real risk of never recovering those losses.
Attachments
CPA Australia Advice break-even analysis.xlsx
(15.27 KiB) Downloaded 66 times
Robert McDowall CPA | Partner | Arabon Accountants
CPA Australia Queensland Divisional Councillor

https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-mcdowall/
Join the conversation on the CPA Members Group on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/groups/103561

User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by Brett Stevenson » Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:14 am

Bulls eye Robert.
And to think of the phenomenal amount being paid in salaries in this organisation, when just a reasonably simple break even analysis is enough to expose the folly.
It's pretty basic stuff.
But by gee the CPA senior executives and many of the directors sure did reap some handsome rewards for themselves from it. Close to $1.5 million in just 19 months. I find this just unconscionable behaviour from our purported leaders.
Let me encourage anyone to explain the numbers of CPA Australia Advice to family members and I would guarantees they will be gobsmacked.($7.4 million loss on revenue of $47,000 after 19 months).
It is just disgraceful.

User avatar
nakedadmin
Site Admin
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by nakedadmin » Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:38 am

I tried to explain this to someone and they said: Gee with all the advantages that CPAA Advice has, you would think they would make a lot of money.

Anyone who has been in business knows how hard it is to get the attention of your prospects. These guys had a captive audience of about 7,000 CPAs in practice and to date have managed about 25 sales of their product. Their product is simply not good enough.
The Naked Webmaster

sjc431
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by sjc431 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:43 am

Better Call Saul wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:17 pm
A few key findings:-
  • it has 14 full-time equivalent staff members but yet the wage bill is $3.8 million, including that paid to directors and executives
  • the directors received $380,000 for CPA Advice work, and the executives $620,000, with only six meetings held it cost $63,000 a meeting
    and $113,000 for the executives
  • making a loss of $5.7 million in 2016 on top of $1.7 million 2015
  • cumulative losses of $7.4 million, and no sign that there is ever going to be a return on investment
  • CPAA has made $20m available of which $8.4m has been drawn at 31/12/16 with another $4m loaned in February 2017
  • I don't know how president Tyrone Carlin could work one day a week, is paid by both companies and received $254,000 in less than 12 months for his trouble
  • one of the directors of CPA Advice, Suzanne Haddan, has her own financial services business Baldry Financial Services with it's own financial services license. Suzanne Haddan was also on the advisory committee setting up CPA Advice. This does not seem to be disclosed in the CPA Advice accounts as a disclosure of related party matters or potential conflict of interest
  • the money lost in CPA advice over 18 months is equal to the total surplus for the financial year 2016 of CPA Australia. Meaning our surplus for 2016 was 50% down due to CPA Advice burning money
Surely any significant surplus in the organisation simply means members are being overcharged or underserviced - the only revenue comes from members fees and selling CPD to members?

JWheldon
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 6:43 pm

Re: CPA Australia Advice Pty Ltd

Post by JWheldon » Tue May 29, 2018 10:09 pm

CPA Australia Advice is problem that the current board, don't really want to deal with, or basically want to away.

Post Reply