ICAI 67% member fee increase in 2017-Is this fair?

As a member of the ICAI(Institute of Chartered Accountants of India), I visit their website to keep updated with events. During that time, I noticed an announcement of fee hike http://resource.cdn.icai.org/44702icaicouncil34526.pdf The numbers were quite high so I decided to analyze the impact on ICAI finances. For this, I looked at the annual report
http://resource.cdn.icai.org/43754annualreport-icai-33423.pdf  With total income of 66624 lakhs, the operating surplus of 6820 lakhs represents a surplus of nearly ~10%. Interestingly, nearly 50% of this surplus is generated from classroom training programs(excess of receipts over costs) of 3729 lakhs.

The member fee income for 2015-16 was Rs 5636 lakhs. The approximate breakup of this is analyzed in the 5th column which assumes all members to be below 60, and charged the statutory slabs-this is almost the reported fee. If we replace the tariffs with the proposed one, the institute's income increases by nearly 3800lakhs to 9339 lakhs, which represents nearly 50% of the operating surplus

The question is that for a revenue source accounting for just under 10% of the overall receipts, is it fair to increase member fees without a public consultation, justification and updates on efforts to do cost management? Otherwise, we risk a bulging bureaucracy with Pay Commission Indexed salaries.

The tale of 2 young Presidents & dynasties-ICAI vs ICSI

Recently, the ICAI elected Mr Nilesh Vikamsey as its President and Mr ND Gupta(Jr) as its Vice President. Mr Vikamsey's brother was the ICAI President around a decade ago, while his father was on the ICAI Central Council decades ago. While for Mr Gupta, his father was the ICAI President in 2001. While Nilesh has come up the hard way of WIRC-Central Council-President, Mr Gupta was directly elected to the Central Council in 2010 without even contesting his regional council elections(NIRC), and is now catapulted to the Vice President post, which all know is a stepping stone to the Presidency post in a year. I cannot think of any other ICAI President in recent history, who has been able to achieve this milestone of direct elections to the Central Council without any 'great' individual achievements.

In sharp contrast is the election of Mr Sham Lal Agarwal as the ICSI President. While Mr Agarwal is quite young and with just 12yrs practice, he came up the pyramid of chapter-Regional Council-Central council, and won support by his work, without any visible family heritage or godfathers.

The Satyam of the CS profession-Company Secretaries-heal WIRC before preaching governance

The Institute of Company Secretaries of India(ICSI) is organized into 5 regional councils. Of these, the WIRC(Western India Regional Council) got a stinker in terms of adverse audit report due to financial iregularities pointed out by the statutory financial auditor-incidently a chartered accountant
https://www.icsi.edu/Portals/72/WIRC%20Annual%20Report%202015-16.pdf

The report goes into deep detail but to quote a few examples, the adverse observations include procurements at high prices without comparative quotations, organizing events in 5 star hotels without HQ approval, incurring hotel tariffs over authorized limit, purchasing luxury pens worth Rs 4 lakh and keeping with self, giving staff overtime via inflated conveyance vouchers, purchases via non substantiated invoices, giving sponsorship without written agreement resulting in potential NPAs. These observations led to AGM being adjourned, speculation in CS community and finally the supercission of the regional council, with the ICSI Central Council finally making its actions public below
https://www.icsi.edu/WebModules/Advisory.pdf

While a single instance does not tarnish a full community, the institute employees are akin to public servants, and the office bearers being elected representatives of professionals, have a duty not to bring the profession into disrepute. What happened at the WIRC ICSI appears a failure of internal control, collusion/overlooking of employee fraud by elected council members who themselves were not setting a good example. And despite the audit taking 6mths to close, the council members did not comment on the audit report and just blamed the earlier President. This is not good governance.

While this is bad for any profession, it is especially ironic that ICSI which brands itself as a governance expert, did not nip the WIRC issues in the bud. One only hopes that the WIRC issues are investigated, corrective action is taken including reprimand/dismissals so that further episodes don't repeat. And here may I point out that it took a chartered accountant to detect the fraud, and not a CS/CWA. This only reiterates that financial audit is a job best left to CAs, and that having an auditor independent/not regulated by the institute(A CA is not regulated by ICSI) does help to detect fraud.

Why are Indian lawyers more businessmen than professionals

Recently, I had read books on the medical profession such as http://www.amazon.in/Dissenting-Diagnosis-Arun-Gadre/dp/8184007019?ie=UTF8&keywords=Dissenting%20Diagnosis&qid=1477762824&ref_=sr_1_1&s=digital-text&sr=8-1  and http://www.amazon.in/Ethical-Doctor-Kamal-Kumar-Mahawar/dp/9352640098/ref=pd_sim_14_6?  _encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=1CTG40KCX9RYQRE0FVWW
This got me thinking about other professions including law, and therefore this law. The reason I write about law is the importance of it in the growing litigious environment amidst the legal shambles. No other profession gets such negative coverage, be it the advocates agitation/strikes, 'tareek pe tareek'..While reading about this topic, I saw that the list of misconducts cited in the below article is mind boggling
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/professional-misconduct-of-lawyers-in-india-1665-1.html

Without much ado, I proceed to my grouses

1. ·         Advocates strikes/hartals/bandhs-even at the cost of their clients 
2.  ·         The culture of adjournments
3.  ·         ‘Eternal’ arbitrations
4.  ·         Probono very care, legal services cell hardly in vogue
5.  ·         Preferential treatment to Senior Counsel-unjustified that their reputation is formalized and fee earning capacity enhanced, by the result of a opaque process without any continuing obligation
6.  ·         Too much separation of work-Advocate, Solicitor, Counsel-many folks to pay fees
7.  ·         Limited effort to insert ‘Plain English’ in drafting
8.  ·         No scale of fees/standard rate chart-

Remedies

1. ·         Startups to assess win/loss odds like in UK basis type of matter, number and outcome of hearings, case status(upheld/overturned)-This is a formal assessment of succcess rate and efficiency which could help for mass litigation matters
2.  ·         Automate ‘routine’ stuff like legal contracts-This while reducing bread/butter business, would help lawyers do more value adding work
3.  ·         ADR allowing for other professionals such as CA/CS/CWA, who are regulated more strictly
4.       Simplication of laws, procedures and court/police procedures, so that the common man can represent himself/herself in court and largely via written submissions 
5.      Restriction on # of matters a lawyer can take at a time(~ceiling on tax audits of CA) so that the culture of adjourments reduces
6.      Court Management Introduction to address delays in proceedings     

When will ICAI presidents stop regionalism?

Last week,  I attended the ICAI international conference in Hyderabad. There, the chief guest Venkiah Naidu(Urban Development Minister, also from Hyderabad) said he had accepted the invite because "A local person has brought this event to Hyderabad". It struck me then that the very reason for chosing Hyderabad is because it is the president's town. But this is not an isolated instance as one can see below, each past president brings atleast ONE major/international/annual event to their home city.

When Railway Ministers used to relocate Railway headquarters/launch special trains to their hometowns, I used to laugh at their power hungry nature. But when such a thing happens at my own professional body, I wonder what to do!

President	Year	Zone	City	Event Held in the city
CA. Amarjit Chopra	2010-11	CIRC	Delhi	International Conference on Accountancy Profession: Catalyst to Sustained Economic Growth
CA. G Ramaswamy	2011-12	SIRC	Chennai	International Conference: Leveraging Challenges for Inclusive Growth
CA. Jaydeep Narendra Shah	2012-13	WIRC	Nagpur	International Conference (ICON 2012) for CA Students
CA. Subodh Kr. Agrawal	2013-14	EIRC	Kolkata	Accountancy Profession: Emerging Frontiers of Future Growth” from November 21-23, 2013
CA. K. Raghu	2014-15	SIRC	Bangalore	Accountancy Profession: Building Global Competitiveness; Accelerating Growth from January 29th-31st, 2015
CA. Manoj Fadnis	2015-16	CIRC	Indore	Accountancy Profession: Spearheading Excellence
CA. M. Devaraja Reddy	2016-17	SIRC	Hyderabad	ICAI International Conference-Hyderabad-2016

How finance professional regulators like ICAI ICSI ICWAI are failing the public interest test

In a recent article, Prof Ajay Shah of NIFP advocated the separation of powers of professional regulators to ensure that 'poachers cannot be gamekeepers'. He cites the example of stock brokers regulation as a success model here.
http://www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2016/07/25072016.pdf

Ever since the Medical Council of India(MCI) which was plagued by corruption was dissolved and a new body asked to be created with 4 verticals of UG education, PG education, Licensing and New College creation/Infra, there has been interest in figuring out models for others.

As regulators like CVC and CAG have put it below, professional regulation is not working enough:
http://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/one-in-five-cas-breach-tax-audit-norms-says-cag-report-regulator-steps-in-to-form-panel/
http://cvc.nic.in/codeethics.pdf 

My view is that unless the disciplinary arm and academic arm is divorced from the membership body, we will have issues like lax disciplinary measures, pass rate depending on economic conditions(or so it appears to the outside world) and people joining the councils for reputation/business enhancement(eg coaching class owners who are clearly conflicted) rather than public service motto

Competition is great for others-not for oneself and rarely for business!

Listening to regulators, lawyers, CEOs sing the praises of competition, and that it is the holy grail of business. But, what they really mean is that their raw material suppliers should sell cheap, they should benefit from subsidized state utilities, that the distributors should be barred from defecting, that intellectual property rights should preserve monopoly etc. In other words, competition is fine as long as protective mantle available of labour/IPR/pricing/export cartels etc that allow making super profits.

The source of this thinking is not hard to phantom. Right from bschool strategy classes onwards, aspiring leaders are taught the importance of keeping the competition out(brand, IPR, legal battles, competitive moats, entry barriers etc). Depending on the state of evolution of society/cultural mores, the State may circumscribe these methods by insisting on open access, infrastructure sharing, arms length dealings between vertically integrated units, term limits for IPR, competition laws etc. In response, the incubents push back via lobbying, using special interest groups etc and trying to take the moral high ground. And as often happens, the voice of a concentrated few losers is heard louder than the diffused voices of a mass of new/potential entrants, and that is why regulation globally rarely favours new entrants. While legitimate grounds like consumer safety, economic stability etc inform some of those regulations, it is often irrational why many regulations(India or abroad) and business practices(bank lending margins, leading conditions, credit ratings) directly disadvantage new entrants. Business lobbying can explain some of these reasons. However, the rare instance where business welcomes new competition is when a nascent business needs scale/building awareness which it cannot do itself. Hence, market expansion is a rational argument for incubents to proactively seek out new entrants, so that they can piggyback on the efforts of the latter. 

But lest we individuals bash Big Business for its oligopoly conspiracy against the laity, lets take a hard honest look at ourselves. As Adam Smith once said, all professions are a conspiracy against the laity' in the sense that at some point, they lose the sense of public purpose and seek to enrich themselves at the cost of public good. For example, the public service motto of law/medicine/accounting is increasingly difficult to identify, and many professions are more concerned with increasing the variety(and fees) of their credentials, and carving out exclusive niches/posts for their members, while couching those efforts under the moral high ground standpoint of improving governance/health etc.  Any labour union(including by definition professional association) routinely lobbies to keep others out(immigration checks, making pass rates harder, opposing titles of similar named organizations etc).

So while competition DOES make those exposed to it tougher, few genuinely wish for competition. While students/new graduates may aspire to selective/competitive schools/employers, that is also more from the aspect of personal gain/branding rather than the desire to be whipped by their peers! So the next time anyone signs the virtues of competition, take a hard look at the knowing-doing-saying gap.

Bad facts make bad law-case of retrospective tax law and anti tax evasionary measures

During his elective on Securities Regulation at IIM Ahmedabad, Prof Sandeep Parekh made an interesting point that bad facts make for bad law. In other terms, where the conduct of the parties to the case warrants a decision which is just yet contrary to the express provisions of law. In securities law, he gave examples of this from India and abroad. In criminal law also, the Nanavati case(where Captain Nanavati shot dead his wife's lover in a 'fit of anger' yet walked free due to jury sympathy and eventual Presidential pardon) was a classic case of this in my view, which lead to abolition of jury trial.

But what relevance to this post? Read the prebudget memorandums of industry associations/professional associations, and one thing often stands out-the plaint against retrospective tax amendments nullifying hard won court rulings, and also measures against tax evasion, that impose procedural burden and excessive withholding taxes. While one can sympathize with the affected parties, the fact remains that it is precisely the egregious conduct of the taxpayers/professionals, that leads to stringent law. The Statement of revenue foregone(presented annually in the Union Budget) proves conclusively that larger firms(as measured by pretax income) pay lower rates of tax. Whether this is the base effect or just effective tax planning is not clear, but one inference that can be drawn is that larger tax payers have the resources to engage the best hired guns to 'optimize' their tax liability, take aggressive tax positions, benefit from every loophole etc. And with the Supreme Court sanctioned tax planning(a position sought to to reversed in the proposed Direct Tax Code 2011), corporates can go about this with aplomb, and can even escape penalties as their issue is inevitably admitted by tribunals(which itself implies that IS debatable, thus no penalty under 271(1)(c)).  

So what does the revenue do? While they DO expose the draft tax law to comments at times, professionals do not have an incentive to report loopholes for plugging at that stage, rather they would want to benefit from the new business importunity therein of helping their clients. So when unintended tax benefits are taken, retrospective amendments are the only way out, especially for artful structuring and all. And while tax evasion measures may punish law abiding tax payers, the fact remains that left to their own devices, tax payers will have the incentive to bend the law just a tiny bit(especially given the new limits for tax effect below which appeal will  NOT be filed by Revenue in administrative/civil forums). Expecting taxpayers to be law abiding by choice AND having a self assessment regime, implies that penalties must be stringent to ensure compliance.

While this may not be the most optimal economic outcome in terms of compliance costs, such measures are necessary in an environment where taxbase is already very low. Else, we may end up in Greece like scenario where the number of luxury car owners far exceeds the relevant tax base!

Hippocratic oath or Hypocratic oath-where has medical ethics died

Though I'm not a medical professional(that's why I could write this bold title), I've quite a few relatives, friends and others in the medical profession. To them, I say that this is a general article not targeted towards any class, but that what I noticed reflects a non-significant proportion of doctors. The Hippocratic oath(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today.html) is not free from controversy, with even doctors questioning some aspects of it. But it is still largely accepted. Below, I reproduce a modern version of the oath in Italics, with my comments in normal print.Given the modern issues of high cost healthcare/medical insurance overcharging/reluctance to admit mistakes/cosy nexus with pharma companies marketing staff/low continuing education etc, it would seem at times that the hippocratic oath is practiced by hypocrites. Civil comments welcome below.


I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

1. I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.  Doctors do teach and avoid plagiarism(atleast not much more than other professionals). So there, they escape censure.But seeing the very small number of multi doctor practices in India(as compared to USA), it is doubtful whether doctors care about sharing knowledge with non relatives. Also, while continuing professional education is implicit in this, it is an open question about how many doctors rely on industry funded seminars/sales representatives to educate them, rather than take the pain to subscribe to and read authoritative journals/attend study circles etc.
2.  I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. Afraid of being sued and mindful of the revenue generation obligation, doctors tend to prescribe unnecessary tests. Also, simple remedies like those of homeopathy are not advised-either the doctor does not know them, or prefer allopathy. While the doctor has the right to his professional judgement to reject alternative medicine, the patient should have an informed choice to that extent. And that is what is often missing today.
3.  I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. In the corporate approach of quick turnaround times, cold clinical approach and preferring standardized jargon/self education, this is easy to forget. And for those not so literate/tech savvy/assertive, the chance of being misdiagnosed/not receiving optimal treatment is there. Not all hospitals are as sensitive like say Sankara Netralaya, which despite being in the South, set up a Bengali speaking reception counter catering to its patients from that region. Doctors IMO prefer jargon to explaining in Plain English to the patient/those accompanying him.
4.  I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery. While second opinions and referrals are taken, I doubt whether this is done on a old-friends basis, or purely on the basis of competence. 
5.  I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.  Abroad, the topic of doctor assisted enthusania is still being debated, but undoubtedly it is against the classical version of the oath.
6. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.  This is the closest that the oath gets to advising the holistic approach embedded in Eastern medicine approaches like homeopathy. However, I'm yet to see allopathic doctors follow that approach in practice..
7.  I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. The family doctors(conversant with their patients and their family history) are likelier to do this. But for corporate hospitals/others, while they do have the data, they are likelier to use it for cross selling insurance/other services like checkup than use it for diagnostic purposes.
8.  I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. This is violated to the greatest extent in my opinion. Hospitals are reluctant to admit accident victims, render probono services etc. While this behaviour is rationally understandable in a supply constrained situation like India, shirking one's obligation of public service, undermines the right to be called a professional. And for practices like not reserving the agreed proportion of hospital beds/services for the poor, there is no excuse.  

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Prebudget memorandums sometimes blatantly demand the moon-the case of ICSI Budget 2012

Come Dec-Jan, and industry associations/professionals etc are all busy giving their 2 bits on what the finance minister should dole out as sops during the ensuing Budget. While some like the ICAI now also focus on measures to plug tax loopholes/help the Government, many of these memorandums read like lobbyist's propoganda. Quite a few don't even make a pretense of being objective/reasoning out the demand properly, but just demand the moon. My critique below is not politically correct because this approach is such a widespread practice today!

While reading the ICSI's prebudget memorandum(http://www.icsi.edu/WebModules/LinksOfWeeks/Pre-Budget1_Memorandum.pdf),  I did see some novel points like giving weighted deduction to CSR expenditure(naturally certified by a company secretary!), but otherwise many points bordered on the absurd, or had very narrow outlook/ill reasoned. Some examples are given below

1. Abolishing MAT on LLPs;-The logic is that The Finance Act, 2011 introduced Alternate Minimum Tax on Limited Liability Partnerships which challenges  the main advantage of formation of LLP over the companies. But, LLPs have sound business reasons like that of limited liability and large size, for which MAT seems a fair bargain. 
2. Deducting of STT under Capital Gains head:-  Suggestion is that The STT paid may be allowed as deduction by including it in the cost of acquisition and selling expenses under the Capital Gains. It will help in strengthen the capital market. However, it overlooks the fact that concessional capital gains treatment was possibly partly due to the additional revenue given from STT. Giving away some of this tax benefit without commensurate revenue benefits, does not make sense at all from revenue perspective. 

Other general cases are the usual demanding of additional professional certifications/recognitions like compliance certificate, authorized representative etc. While some points are revenue positive like hiking TDS(when no PAN supplied) rate to 30% in some cases, CESTAT benches etc, the overall tone/intent still does not change. I pointed out the ICSI one specifically as it had the maximum breaches but even other associations are guilty in this regard. 

Is ICAI really a partner in nation building or a conspiracy against the laity?

During the last 3yrs or so, ICAI has been spinning the message that it is a partner in national building. Noises have been made about helping in training(tax department officers, Government accounting), improving compliance(via audits/reviews), plugging tax loopholes(via prebudget memorandums) and generally ensuring proper flow of verified information. While all these sound good on paper, they are all win-win for ICAI since they come with the additional caveat of more professional assignments, carving out more exclusive niches, mandating tighter rules for SMEs. So is this a self serving stand, or does the improvement in public good offset the private gain?

Adam Smith had termed trade unions/associations as a conspiracy against the laity(''people') as he felt that no good could emerge from a trade meeting behind closed doors. And centuries later, the existence of cartels, industry lobbies and the trade union behaviour has proved him write,  in country after country. And this is true even for professional services associations like ICAI, where the information asymmetry and difficult to understand professional services, ensures  that scrutiny is not much. Few people understand the issues, and fewer bother to raise them in public forums. Hence, under the guise of ensuring better quality services, they get away with practices like severely restrictive entry norms in licensing, widely drafted professional service standards to reduce liability etc-all in a view to maximize the welfare of its members.

Now, if the services(audit, certifications..) were achieving their purpose, then one could be content that the larger public interest in served. But even in the mainstay(statutory financial audit and tax audits) work where decades of experience and well drafted standard exist, the end user satisfaction is on the downtrend. Few investors trust the audited accounts anymore, and even the taxman is resorting to mass online surveilance systems etc to detect cases of tax evasion. And contrary to the Hippocratic oath of not doing any harm, scam exposes have repeatedly revealed the active help and commission by omission of CAs who have been middlemen for bribes, helped launder money abroad, suggested sharp practices in tax, not been critical enough etc.And with LLPs fast gaining traction, the corporatization of the profession will be complete with the 20partner/firm limit being dropped.

So what is the way out? Let the profession not claim to have public interest as primacy, as the hard reality is that it IS becoming a business. Spin off the regulatory function to a independent regulator, and have ICAI as the first line Self Regulatory body. This post seems a rant but I just had to get it away from my system! And unless pro-bono work is done like the BCAS Charitable Institutions Accounts and Audit clinic, the claim of working in the public interest should be viewed with skeptism.

Is it time to review additional responsibilites given to practising professionals?

In the recent years, the response of every professional institute(ICAI, ICSI, ICWAI) to corporate scams, is to indirectly demand additional work for their members. Whether it be precertifying annual returns, allowing fast track process for optionally precertified forms(like availability of name application approved instantly online in such cases), increasing number/scope of audits(secretarial audit, borrower compliance certificate etc), the desired and conferred work have only increased.

But in their zeal to get assignments and execute them quickly, are professionals blindly signing forms? In a June-11 circular(http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/Notice_23jun2011.pdf), the Ministry of Company Affairs pointed the case of 11 companies(including a few listed companies like Raj TV) where a basic data field(number of shareholders) was given absurdly high/low numbers which besides being patently absurd violated even the statutory norms/previously filed returns. This reflects poorly on the preparer(company) but even more on the certifying professional, who receives his fees for verifying the return. There is no excuse for this lapse, because even a cursory sanity check would have revealed the absurdity of this.

With responsibility comes accountability. If professionals do not show themselves to be worthy of this trust, then their license to practise should be suspended. Alternately, we should bar such professionals from practise for say 1 month, to set an example for others. After all, the need of professionals was precisely to prevent such garbage values, but now this is happening.

Professionals/Bankers limit responsibility instead of enlarging it.

Open any audit report or a banking agreement(loan/ISDA etc). They are generally one sided, protecting the professional firm(accountancy, law, actuary etc) or bank(lending, derivatives etc) from their errors, to the fullest extent allowed by law. Instead of mentioning their due diligence, the firms/banks prefer to take management representations on even the most trivial points. And to add insult to injury, even if the client has wholly relied on the pitch book/opinion, he has to legally agree that he has sought independent advice etc.

Recently in India, independent directors and auditors have been jailed; practicing accountants/company secretaries have been pulled up for casually certifying obviously incorrect company filings. But the professional response to this has been to clamor for increased legal protection by shifting the blame on full time executives. The argument runs that only the full time executives know the in-and-out of the company, so only they should be penalized in legal disputes. But then, what does the company pay audit committee sitting fees, audit fees, certification fees etc for? If one cannot discharge its duty properly, they should resign from the engagement, but if they choose to continue then they should bear the cross.

Statutory/Regulatory amendments has handed over plenty of work to professionals/bankers like

1. CAs have benefited from the mandatory internal audit requirement imposed on firms, and also the increasing number of statutory pre certifications mandated from CAs/auditors. 
2. CSs have gained work due to the compliance certificate requirement, yet one does not see any substantial improvement in corporate reporting practices
3. From 2011-12, the Management accountancy profession will boom in India thanks to the voluntary cost audit. 
4. Banks gain business due to mandatory appointment of investment banks for certain capital issues exceeding defined size, need to appoint independent M&A advisor etc.

Everyone is willing to pen their name to a self serving petition demanding XYZ regulation(which throws some bones to them via new work, increased fees etc), but when it comes to professional reform from within, there is a deafening silence. And it is this that is worrying.