Quote:
Originally Posted by darklord700
. Meaning for legislative purposes CGA=CA.
|
No. So much is wrong with that. There are so many differences between CAs and CGAs including training, education requirements, practical experience and testing. A newly designated CA is superior to a newly designated CGA.
You are saying that a CGA is equal to a CA because there are consolidation and multiple currency questions on an exam? I know a CGA who got his work experience from working selling clothes at a men's suit store. The owner signed off on his papers because he worked on the cash register. That could not happen for a CA. The CA program, although gruelling prepares its students far better than the other programs. The UFE is one of the best, and hardest, professional entrance/exit exams in the world.
I'm not saying there are not excellent CGAs. I'm also not saying there aren't bad CAs. What I am saying is to compare the groups as a whole, especially newly designated members, and say that they are the same is wrong.
If, and it's a big if, a merge does happen, the CGAs would be foolish to not join in. If they don't, they fall behind in numbers and further behind in public perception. Just because a CGA firm can sign off on an audit, doesn't mean they will be hired. They would likely be seen as outcasts and an inferior substitute. This will guide more and/or better students towards the merged group, further diluting the quality and quantity of the CGAs.
I oppose the merge and I don't think it makes sense for any one group to try and convince their members to merge. From each perspective, I think it makes sense to continue with three designations. If there is going to be a merge, you can make damn sure I would want my group to be in it. There is likely no scenario where I would want to be the group that does not merge and the other two do. This holds true if I was a CA, CMA or CGA. If one group doesn't agree to merge and the other two do, they will be left behind and will suffer in both the short and long term.