Comment

Des Peelo explains why Chartered Accountants have a responsibility to work hard at good communications.Accountants produce figures; that is our professional function. However, the ability to analyse and communicate those figures is the important role. The circumstances that give rise to the necessity of a report or analysis obviously range widely, but all result in the compilation and sharing of information to be understood by others.If you are in an accounting position and want the world to understand and appreciate your good work, remember that accounting figures – no matter the circumstances – are no more than an outcome and are not in themselves a decision, a conclusion or an explanation.Figures are just that, figures. They carry no intrinsic knowledge or purpose. The real skill for a Chartered Accountant (and in my opinion, we are not good at it) is to present an understandable interpretation and communication of the figures.The higher or greater the decision to be made in business, and sometimes in politics, the more the figures will influence the decision. In my experience, however, you cannot assume – even at the highest levels of business or political life (or, for that matter, in a courtroom) – that all are capable of looking at an array of numbers and knowing what they mean.Financial illiteracy is widespread and rarely admitted. I believe that this illiteracy explains many poor business and economic decisions. It is up to us as Chartered Accountants to work hard at good communications, and as a skill, it should be top of the continuing professional development agenda.In presenting figures, remember the audience. What is the purpose of compiling the figures? Who will read them and what is expected of the audience having read the figures? This last question is most important of all. The accountant must be very careful indeed when it comes to interpretation and presentation as the outcome decision, based on the figures, may be significant capital outlays, a court judgment, a misdemeanour identified, a monetary claim pursued, and so on.What sometimes gets lost in translation is the difference between presenting facts and presenting conclusions. It is important to know and understand whether the accountant, in presentation, is being asked to present facts for the audience to make a decision or draw a conclusion, or whether the accountant is being asked to make that decision or conclusion, as supported by the facts in the presentation. A muddled financial analysis without a clear purpose is of little help to anyone, but in my experience, this is a common scenarioThe audience is not there to be impressed by the detailed calculations or workings in the presentation. A straightforward one- or two-page summary should clearly state the outcome as to the purpose of the presented figures. The detailed calculations or workings should always be shown as appendices and cross-referenced in the summary.Compiling and interpreting figures usually involves making some assumptions. These too should be listed in a separate appendix. Figures are only as good as the likely validity of any assumptions underlying them. Outcomes do not always have to be precise. A range based on valid assumptions such as ‘best’ and ‘worst’, or ‘high’ and ‘low’ is often wise as singular figures, in themselves, can give an impression of being definitive.An enduring bugbear in poor presentations is the numbering of paragraphs. The use of sections, sub-sections and Roman numerals can end up with the likes of “Paragraph 5,2(B)iv”. Most reports require cross-referencing such as “please refer to paragraphs 10 and 16 above”.There is nothing to prevent someone from presenting an entire report as simply paragraph 1, 2, 3 and so on. There can be interspersed chapters or section headings as the report goes along, but the simple numbering is continued. Some readers will be aware that simple numbering is common practice in Germany, the United States, and within multinationals and international organisations. This is standard practice when it comes to emails, as it allows for easily cross-referenced responses.Des Peelo FCA is the author of  The Valuation of Businesses and Shares, which is published by Chartered Accountants Ireland and now in its second edition.

The pandemic and Brexit both provide momentum for bigger government – but don’t expect any protestations from the public, writes Dr Brian Keegan.The late US president, Ronald Reagan, never tired of giving out about big government. It’s a crude measure of the influence of government, but the level of national debt gives us some indication of the gap between what it costs to run a nation and what that nation can legitimately collect in taxes from its citizens.National debt suffers from spikes and fluctuations from wars, recessions and – as we are now seeing – pandemics. Such things are outside our control. But even when they are within our control, the national debt can grow unexpectedly. Despite Reagan’s protestations, the US national debt grew almost threefold during his eight years in office.The current pandemic will not grow the national debt of either Ireland or the UK by a comparable amount, but that is a factor of the scale of the existing national debt. Perhaps a better way to assess the impact of government is to look at the number of government agencies we now must deal with. Ireland’s Comptroller and Auditor General has almost 300 departments and organisations to scrutinise during his audit and assurance work. The UK National Audit Office looks over 400 or so UK government entities. As if to catch up, the new Irish Government’s programme makes over 20 references to the creation of new agencies or to increasing the remit of existing ones.The creation of agencies drives public sector jobs. The Institute of Public Administration recently noted that public sector employment in the Republic of Ireland exceeded 300,000 back in 2018, thus restoring staffing to pre-great recession levels. Before the pandemic struck, public sector employment in Northern Ireland exceeded 200,000. While most of our fellow citizens in the public sector are involved in service delivery, a lot of them are involved in regulation.We are already seeing how the pandemic is driving government size. Over the past few months, much of the Institute’s advocacy work has been about brokering arrangements with government – both north and south – to make things like the Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme and the Job Retention Scheme work better on the ground. Ensuring that these schemes work well is vital, but they take up time, eating into the capacity of both our members in business and our members in practice to deliver other added-value services. Other business supports like state-backed loan guarantee schemes are also going to bring an additional burden of compliance, assurance and red tape.Brexit too is providing momentum for bigger government. The UK Government is duplicating many control and regulatory functions that were previously unnecessary because of EU treaty arrangements or because they were within the purlieu of European institutions. This pattern is being replicated across Europe. For instance, the Revenue Commissioners were to hire 500 additional customs officers to do the additional cross-border trade checks along with apparently 750 in the Netherlands, 700 in France, and close to 400 in Belgium.By and large, business on the island of Ireland benefits from the degree of State regulation. Yet, its role in attracting and securing foreign direct investment by creating a safer investment environment can get overlooked. On the other hand, businesses do not exist to carry out paperwork. This tension was always there. What the pandemic has changed is the political appetite to increase regulation.I think any Reaganesque political campaign promising smaller government would be unlikely to succeed these days. Even if politicians were minded to rein in the regulatory horses, the pandemic has created a greater willingness among the general public on this island to be governed, as evidenced by the almost blanket acceptance of the strictures of lockdown.Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy & Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

This is my first Accountancy Ireland comment piece as President. First off, I would like to say that it is a tremendous honour to be elected President of our Institute.I would like to thank my predecessor, Conall O’Halloran, for his exceptional leadership throughout a tremendously successful year. Conall can look back with great pride on his term in office.Bouncing backThe current priority remains one of public health but soon, the huge economic challenge of preserving jobs and rebalancing public and private finances will emerge. This has been made even more difficult by the constraints on both consumption and production.As we move to the next phase in continuing to suppress COVID-19, we as Chartered Accountants will have a pivotal role to play in helping to drive the economy forward and in generating growth.Working in collaboration with business, political leaders and the public sector, Chartered Accountants Ireland will be a strong supporter and advocate for the business community and the positive impact that a renewed economy can have for all in our society.I believe that our 28,500 members working in leadership, finance or advisory roles throughout Irish business will play a key role in kick-starting the recovery and ensuring that businesses bounce back strongly.Priorities for the year aheadAs President, I want to harness the ability, experience, and expertise of our membership network to support economic recovery in the aftermath of the pandemic.The strengthening of our role with the public sector will be the first of my key themes for the year. I see our profession having a much stronger role to play here.The second priority will be maintaining and enhancing the relevance of the Institute to our members from the start of their career through to retirement. We must stay connected. It is good to feel part of something, to feel a belonging to the family that is Chartered Accountants Ireland. I am proud to belong.Members will see that this sense of belonging and active participation is at the heart of the Institute’s new Strategy24, the document that will direct our work over the next four years.As Strategy24 is rolled out, members will see their Institute become more digitally driven. We believe that members will find a greater sense of connection and will see the Institute focus on being a financially sustainable, digitally-enabled organisation with an agile culture that supports innovation and collaboration.My final priority is access to our profession for potential students. We will continue to work to highlight the opportunities available to a new generation of potential trainees within an innovative, forward-looking profession.Looking forwardFollowing May’s annual general meeting, the gender balance of the Institute’s Council now stands at 50:50. I will seek to promote balance more widely across the Institute. It is worth noting that the overall membership is currently 42% female and 58% male.I am looking forward to the year ahead. Of course, there are challenges – but we have a great team at the Institute, and we will drive ahead. I am counting on your support as we work for members across the island of Ireland and beyond.Paul HenryPresident

We are in the middle of an unprecedented health emergency. In recent weeks, many of us have had loved ones, friends and acquaintances suffer illness, hospitalisation or worse. It is an extremely difficult time for many. We must hope that the actions of businesses and the general public in following the official safety guidelines, combined with the herculean efforts of healthcare workers, will effectively curtail the spread of COVID-19 and a more normal life can resume sooner rather than later. After safety, our key priority has been to ensure that we maintain the highest level of service possible for members and students during the health crisis. In terms of our staff, the collaboration across the board to bring all of our processes into a new way of working has been rapid. For members, we have provided a vast range of insights, services and supports – from CA Support to Practice Consulting and Professional Standards supports – to individual members and firms through a busy schedule of webinars. The COVID-19 Hub also provides a one-stop-shop for members seeking information and guidance. We are providing our members with the best information, skills, and guidance that we can. For students, we have moved quickly to accelerate the changes that were already planned. Our e-assessment pilot interim exam has now concluded and sets us up well for the next development phase, to cover main exams later this year. On the delivery side, we see great innovation as we move online, supporting digital enrolment and changing how we support training organisations. We exist to serve our members and students, and Chartered Accountants Ireland is a mirror of the profession. Our member firms, members, their clients, and students are under severe pressure and are experiencing some very challenging circumstances. The crisis will also undoubtedly have some longer-term economic effects, and the expertise of our members will be vital in helping business and broader society overcome these challenges. Over the past weeks, the Institute has moved quickly to step-up service to our members in their time of need, and our staff have responded rapidly to adapt to new ways of working. I know that our Institute will come through this crisis as a stronger, smarter organisation. As an Institute and as a profession, we are all in this together. Our Officers, our volunteers, and our staff right across the island of Ireland and beyond may be required to work from home, but they continue to work hard to support members in their professional lives. We know that the skills of our members will be needed more than ever throughout the crisis and in the period of rebuilding ahead. We pledge to do all that we can to continue to effectively support our members, member firms, and students to make that vital contribution. Barry Dempsey Chief Executive

Given the world’s fragmented approach to the COVID-19 crisis, Dr Brian Keegan considers the potential for lasting suspicion of international standards of all sorts – not least accounting. There is a theory that suggests that 150 is the maximum number of people with whom any one individual can meaningfully interact. This number, known as Dunbar’s number after the anthropologist who came up with the idea, feeds into a myriad of management texts. Working in Chartered Accountants Ireland, whose staff complement is close to 150, Dunbar’s idea feels right. There is a sense of community and shared purpose here which, if anything, has been highlighted by the coronavirus crisis. But just as there may be a ‘best’ maximum number of staff in an organisation or business division, is there a maximum population beyond which meaningful government responses to crises cannot be developed? Big is not always best The varying coronavirus experiences and responses of countries right across the world suggest that big may not be best unless the government is of a totalitarian hue, as in China. It is surely no coincidence that the most populous countries in Europe – Spain, Italy, France, and the UK – have suffered some of the worst impacts of coronavirus per head of population. Germany, of course, is somewhat of an outlier; but then again, when is it not? The challenges of scale seem even more pronounced beyond national borders. Where the power of local or national government is subordinated to international organisations – or international treaties or federal systems, as in the case of the EU and the federal government in the US – official responses seem either inappropriate or inadequate. A fragmented response The EU’s approach to tackling the pandemic has been, to put it charitably, fragmented. The EU does not have a core role in health matters, but it does when it comes to financial supports. The Commission seemed slow out of the blocks in its initial response. Countries that usually see eye-to-eye on fiscal issues, such as Ireland and the Netherlands, found themselves at odds with each other over the issue of eurobonds to support bailouts for individual member nations. The G7 group of the world’s wealthiest nations couldn’t even come up with a joint declaration on the pandemic in March, apparently because the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, insisted on referring to the disease as the “Wuhan virus”. The US also very publicly pulled its support for the World Health Organisation (WHO), but perhaps more insidious than that were the suggestions that its Ethiopian chief executive was unduly influenced by Chinese investment in his home country. The seemingly unstoppable momentum for international corporation tax reform sponsored by the OECD has waned, with crucial decisions adjourned sine die by governments with more pressing matters on their agendas. A newfound suspicion If the authority of major agencies like the EU Commission, the OECD, the WHO and the G7 is being diluted, undermined or plain ignored as governments attempt to tackle the pandemic, it seems that global approaches aren’t entirely cutting it. An international reach used to be enough for these agencies to assert their authority, but not anymore. That is not great news for a profession like accountancy, which prides itself on its global approach. One lasting legacy of the pandemic could be a suspicion of, and resistance to, efforts to establish international standards of all descriptions, accounting among them. Who will be trusted by governments to set and maintain the standards in accounting if countries can’t even agree on who should set the standards on issues like healthcare? A new Dunbar’s number is becoming apparent for the number of countries that can act together in any kind of meaningful way when dealing with a crisis. That number is not higher than one.   Dr Brian Keegan is Director, Advocacy & Voice, at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

There are several signs that the EU may be splintering at the edges, writes Cormac Lucey. One of our weaknesses as a species is our self-regard. Sitting at the top of the evolutionary tree, we are in danger of overlooking some fundamental weaknesses. One is the conceit that we make critical decisions based on our thoughts when there is considerable evidence that feelings heavily influence our decision-making. A prime example of feelings misleading decision-making occurred in the Irish property market in the years 2006 and 2007. In a Davy research note published in March 2006, Rossa White (then the stockbroker’s chief economist, now occupying that position with the National Treasury Management Agency) issued a warning in the note’s title “Dublin house prices headed for 100 times rent earned”. He cautioned investors that “the fundamentals suggest that it will be an adjustment in prices – rather than rents – that will eventually bring valuations down to more realistic levels”. The problem was that investors had extremely positive feelings about property as an investment class resulting from its extremely strong performance in the preceding decade and a half. Feelings trumped thought. Thousands got caught in the resulting carnage. There is a danger that similar forces may blindside us to weaknesses developing within the European Union (EU) today. When we look back, we see a relatively strong and united body. From an Irish perspective, we associate the dramatic rise in our prosperity in recent decades with our EU membership (much more than with our turbo-charged foreign direct investment sector). But there are several signs that the EU may be splintering at the edges. Faultline one… There have been recent calls from the Élysée Palace for the EU to issue jointly guaranteed bonds (debt securities) to help those member states worst afflicted by COVID-19. The alternative, according to the French president, is to risk the collapse of the EU as “a political project”. What you may not be aware of is that in 2019, before any of us had heard of the virus, France and Italy already had the second and third largest budget deficits in the EU. Having maxed-out their own national credit cards, they now want to use the hard-won creditworthiness of others to borrow more. Faultline two… The differing borrowing capacity of various EU member states has resulted in widely varying budgetary responses to the pandemic. Germany, which went into the crisis with relatively healthy public finances, plans to spend more than 6% of GDP to boost its economy, before considering the effect of loans and guarantees. Italy, by contrast, entered 2020 with a weak fiscal position and can afford an immediate fiscal impulse of less than 1% of GDP, even though it has been hit much harder by the pandemic than Germany. France is similarly constrained. We can look forward to more wailing from the Élysée Palace. Faultline three… The actions of the European Central Bank (ECB) are increasingly running up against political and legal constraints. The German Federal Constitutional Court recently ruled that the ECB had exceeded its legal mandate and “manifestly” breached the principle of proportionality with bond purchases made under previous quantitative easing programmes. How might it rule on the ECB’s current programme, which has been deliberately disproportionate to reduce financial strains in Italy? A related problem concerns the ECB’s Target 2 balances. They are a key measure of financial market strains within the euro area. They record how much a national central bank is borrowing from the ECB to lend to domestic commercial banks that are suffering deposit withdrawals. For years, Italy and Spain have been borrowers while Germany has been on the opposite side of the equation, helping to fund the ECB. In March, the Italian central bank’s borrowing jumped by over €100 billion to €492 billion, while the amount the Germans lent into the system rose by more than €100 billion to €935 billion. As the US economist Herb Stein quipped, “if something cannot go on forever, it will stop”. We just do not know when. Cormac Lucey FCA is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland.