In a response to harsh criticism, the AICPA has acknowledged that it could have handled the decision process better regarding the change in eligibility for the ABV credential. This past May, the AICPA Council voted to open the ABV credential to non-CPAs. After the vote, a number of prominent CPA/ABVs signed an Open Letter to the AICPA that criticized the decision and said that the AICPA did not properly consult with members and stakeholders prior to the change.
Future fix: During an AICPA webcast, the organization—to its credit—said that it “could have done better” in communicating the proposed change and would improve the decision-making process in the future. The AICPA has been exploring opening up other credentials for specialty services (CFF, CITP, and PFS) to non-CPAs (“other qualified professionals,” or OQPs). Also, critics had attacked a timeline of events leading up to the change, saying that it was inaccurate. The AICPA has since revised the timeline and apologized for any confusion it may have caused.
The speakers on the webcast were Eva Simpson (the AICPA’s director of valuation services), Thomas E. Hilton (Anders), Annette Stalker (Stalker Forensics), and Bethany Hearn (CliftonLarsonAllen LLP). The speakers explained the reasons and benefits of the change, saying that expanding eligibility for the ABV credential “helps to promote consistency, quality and transparency in the valuation marketplace.” Also, they said that CPA-led firms are looking for a single organization that can provide appropriate training, credentialing, and ongoing support for all their employees, including both CPAs and finance professionals. You can listen to an archive recording of the webcast if you click here (registration required).
Rebuttal: In a statement to BVWire, some of the signers of the Open Letter say that, since the AICPA has acknowledged that the process was flawed, it should suspend the decision to admit non-CPAs as ABVs, solicit input from members, and bring the matter before the Council again. “What is the harm?” they say. They also took issue with the remark during the webcast that members should look beyond the “passionate” response and support the move going forward. “If AICPA doesn’t acknowledge any legitimate concerns from knowledgeable people and simply attributes reactions to passion, they are out of touch with their members,” the statement says. You can read the full text of the statement if you click here.
A survey some of the members who signed the Open Letter conducted found that 94% of respondents say they disagree with the decision to open up the ABV credential (see prior coverage). The speakers discussed the survey and felt that it was not representative because it was conducted prior to the July 16 webcast, which explained the reasons for the change and hopefully addressed the concerns of the critics. The speakers also noted that the survey did not accept responses from individuals who wished to remain anonymous, which may have inhibited participation. In a statement to BVWire, the individuals who conducted the survey say respondents were required to provide their names to prevent duplicate responses, which would have manipulated the results. “To do otherwise would have been unwise and unethical,” they said.
What do you think? There’s a discussion on the BVR LinkedIn page that has some reactions to the webcast. Please join in!