Quote:
Originally Posted by geos
For what kind of work? Or is that a blanket statement? I disagree with that, I'm curious how you define a CA as being far superior to CMA/CGAs?
What special skills and ability does the CA have? For audit or tax, I agree, but for anything else, I don't see how articling creates an industry ready professional. I'd like to understand how CA's justify that kind of statement?
|
The following are statements that reflect, in my sole opinion, the mean average of a newly designated CA, CMA and CGA. Yes there will be highly competent accountants in each designation, as well as ones that you wonder how they got through.
A CA that articled at a Big 4 will have a stronger technical background and be more versed in the handbook, IFRS and ASPE (or whatever current rules are applicable at the time, i.e. GAAP, etc.). Their audit knowledge is unchallenged compared to CGA and CMA. It's tough to say which would have better tax knowledge, but I would guess it would go to a CGA. I had the bare minimum tax base, but I spent most of my time in audit.
When you are auditing, you aren't just learning how to audit and how to get through the file. You are learning how businesses work, in order to be a better auditor. By working in various companies and industries, an articling student sees multiple ways to run a company. I was exposed to oil & gas, manufacturing, mining, not for profit, First Nations, public, private, energy, restaurant and retail companies. A CMA/CGA working at one company does not get this. Sure you can work in different departments in the same company, but an auditor will do the same across all of those companies.
When I came out of public practice I was hired as a maternity leave contract position for a controller who is a CGA. When she came back I continued as the controller and she became a manager in another department. It was clear that my understanding of how businesses should run, my technical knowledge, critical thinking skills and problem solving techniques were better than her 10 years of experience. She's a great co-worker and excels at many parts of her job, but it was clear I was much better suited for the role than she was. She is now in a role that fits her better and the entire company runs better because of it. I wouldn't have been able to do this if I had spent my first three years at an oil and gas company. My only knowledge there would have been the way I'd seen it done at work and my studies. By audited dozens of different companies I was able to see what worked, what didn't and bring them all to what was applicable for my current role.
I'm not discounting the work experience of a CMA. It is definitely valuable knowledge that can be applied in house and elsewhere if you choose to leave that company. I am saying a CA articling gets to see more businesses and sees how they run things differently. I know of a guy who got his CGA work experience at a clothing store because his boss signed off on his accounting hours for working on the cash register. That wouldn't happen in the CA world.
The CA's education requirement is much tougher and generates a candidate with more knowledge than the other designations. The UFE is much harder than the CMA entrance examination. I don't think there's much debating this.
When I am promoted and we start looking for a controller to replace me, I'm likely to hire a CA, probably 1-3 years post designation. I know what they bring to the table. I know during our audits and reviews they are able to deal with the CA firm and interact with them and produce audit files for them that will save me audit fees.
There are awesome CMAs and CGAs out there. Our VP Finance is a CMA. He is excellent at his job and has been with the company for 20 years. He got his start at a CA firm but was always on the course to be a CMA. I don't subscribe to the theory that your letters define you. After 20 years of being designated, you will be whatever you apply yourself to be. There will be great failures and great successes in all three current designations.
I'm not sure when the tide evens out, but for me, a newly designated CA is far superior to the other two designations, on average. Yes there are exceptions, but generally this is how I feel. This isn't a knock on either the CMAs or CGAs, but if you have to rank at the point of designation, one has better training, schooling and experience. Maybe after 5-10 years designations matter less, but right after getting them, I think they matter a great deal. The people still have to go out and perform, and definitely can't rely solely on their letters, the same as in any field of work. This isn't to say a CMA can't be good and/or a CA can't be bad.