CMA Versus CA

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by darklord700

CA doesn't want to give free passes, CMA/CGA won't kowtow to the supreme ruler. But the supreme ruler keeps coming back for peace treaty. How will it play out?

I dunno, if the problem facing the CAs is they're not getting enough members enrolled (and hence not enough money) then they should set up a "CA-lite" sort of designation, and have it similar to CGA in terms of entrance requirements. That is, you can enroll in it right away, and start paying money for it, but at that point, you're just taking courses. Once you pass a set of requirements, you get this CA-lite designation, and there's a chance for you to get your full fledged CA if you pass another set of requirements. I'm sure everyone who enroll in CGA would rather do this CA-lite type of designation if they know they can eventually get a CA.

That way you guys can still thumb your noses down at the CA-lite guys AND still have access to all that wonderful money your instituion is desperately seeking. It's a win win situation.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Ducay

As someone in this field; I can tell you that essentially no CA's see it as a good idea, regardless of how close to retirement they are. Every CA worked towards their designation and put in hundreds of times more work and time towards their letters than a CMA/CGA did. The amount of work involved is not even within comparison. If the merger does happen I'd love to have the CMAs/CGAs required to pass some form of qualification exam that doesn't involve multiple choice or group presentations (what a joke) before they can use the CPA designation. Sure, full "merger" of the two wouldn't be for 10 years, but if we're talking the life of a career, that is a pretty big impact if you're going to go from X amount of CA's to 10x as many CPAs in 10 years.

If they merge you can kiss any international reciprocity goodbye. Fat chance in heck that any CA country or CPA country is going to accept a CMA or CGA into their bodies.

Regardless of what Quebec does (they're pretty much insignificant anyways economically), it had better come down to a vote among CICA/ICAA members; at which point it would get quashed like a bug. I can't see Ontario legislating a merger anytime soon (hopefully).

As much as I hate the merge, there are a few things wrong in your post.

One of the main reasons for the merger is international reciprocity. The CICA wants a designation that is looked upon the same as China, the UK and the USA. They all use CPA. There has been resistance from the CAs on letting the CGAs into the merger because the CGAs have for years tried to get cross border reciprocity with the States and have been rejected twice. By setting up the new designation the way they have, the CPAs of Canada would be in a position to take advantage of the reciprocity with China, UK and USA.

Quebec may be insignificant economically, but they do contain 18,000 of the 78,000 CAs in Canada, which represents 23% of our membership. Ontario has 35,000, representing 45% of the total. It looks to me, from everything I've heard and read, that Quebec is merging in 2012. It wouldn't surprise me if Ontario followed suit, but that would mean 68% of the CAs would be merging. This effectively means all other provinces and territories would have to follow or they would remain on the outside. Can you see any of the maritime or atlantic provinces saying they would stay as the CAs if Quebec and Ontario saying they are merging. This is my biggest fear regarding the merge.

It will come down to a vote. They have stated that all along. The period that just ended was the leaders of the institutes trying to convince membership to vote to merge. They have successfully convinced some, but others, such as you and myself, are firmly against it. I think the merge would weaken the profession by allowing people that aren't qualified in. I think new students will not acquire the training and skills required to be as successfull under the current CA model. If I was leaving university in 2-3 years and had the choice to go to a Big 4 firm or to go to an oil and gas company, there is no debate that I am going to O&G. It's less hours, more money and better benefits and options. As a result my technical would not be as strong and I would not be as prepared for the UFE as I was.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Oh, I hope it does come down to a vote, because as a CMA, I'd tell your CA institution to go pound sand. Why the hell would I want to merge with a body that would continue to look down at us? As far as I know, it was the CA body approaching the other two in hopes of the merger, not the other way around, just so they can have access to a lot more funds available to them. Tell the CA body to either suck it up or charge 2 or 3 times more for their annual dues. Afterall, I would think all you rich CAs and the companies you work for can definitely afford it.

I think there would be a lot of annimosity from the CMAs to the CAs and vice versa. If I was in your shoes I'd vote against the merge as well. I'd vote against it no matter what side I'm on.

It's not about money though. They are saying that each designation spends so much trying to differentiate between the three, it is wasting marketing dollars.

What the merge is about, is that the CGAs are the fastest growing designation in Canada. From the latest presentation I went to the CGAs will soon have over 50% of the total professional accountants in Canada. The fear is that if the CGAs merge with the CMAs and that merge will hold 75-80% of the accountants. The CAs will then lose their voice nationally and internationally. They will not be able to sway how the reporting, accounting and auditing standards and would have to follow along with whatever the CGA/CMA merged group says. Play this out over 10 years and they will garner more of the students coming out of school, since it doesn't make much sense for a student to join a dwindling designation with no voice. The CA then fades out and/or has to merge with the bigger body on their terms.

The reason the CAs are proposing it now, is they are still the one with the biggest voice and the most prestige. It's why they want to have original designations next to the CPA for ten years. They want to display that and still guide the merge process. They don't want to lose any of that.

If there has to be a merge, which I hope doesn't happen, I obviously want to be with the designation in charge. The money has nothing to do with it right now.

[Ducay]

Squiggs, I see and understand your points towards the merger, and while the CICA board obviously has rational reasoning for wanting to merge the two; they're doing a horrid job of conveying exactly why they want the merger. Your post has more real "reasons" behind the merger than the last 5 CICA communications have had.


And to those CMA/CGAs who think we just want your money....you've got to be kidding, right?

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I think there would be a lot of annimosity from the CMAs to the CAs and vice versa. If I was in your shoes I'd vote against the merge as well. I'd vote against it no matter what side I'm on.

It's not about money though. They are saying that each designation spends so much trying to differentiate between the three, it is wasting marketing dollars.

What the merge is about, is that the CGAs are the fastest growing designation in Canada. From the latest presentation I went to the CGAs will soon have over 50% of the total professional accountants in Canada. The fear is that if the CGAs merge with the CMAs and that merge will hold 75-80% of the accountants. The CAs will then lose their voice nationally and internationally. They will not be able to sway how the reporting, accounting and auditing standards and would have to follow along with whatever the CGA/CMA merged group says. Play this out over 10 years and they will garner more of the students coming out of school, since it doesn't make much sense for a student to join a dwindling designation with no voice. The CA then fades out and/or has to merge with the bigger body on their terms.

The reason the CAs are proposing it now, is they are still the one with the biggest voice and the most prestige. It's why they want to have original designations next to the CPA for ten years. They want to display that and still guide the merge process. They don't want to lose any of that.

If there has to be a merge, which I hope doesn't happen, I obviously want to be with the designation in charge. The money has nothing to do with it right now.

That makes sense. So if that's the case, why wouldn't the CGA and CMA bodies just wait 10 years? I'm not sure I see any benefit for them to merge. There's still going to be a distinction between the 3 after the merger.

[THE SCUD]

I never saw it from Squiggs perspective - I can actually understand it when it's put forward that way - Squigg, you should write for the CICA/ICAA, because the crap they told us made zero sense.

Still, I prefer to let the crap float to the top, I am pretty sure 99% of CGAs and 98% of CMAs have no interest in any macro economic power, they and their institute probably don't even know the address to the IASB

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Squiggs, I see and understand your points towards the merger, and while the CICA board obviously has rational reasoning for wanting to merge the two; they're doing a horrid job of conveying exactly why they want the merger. Your post has more real "reasons" behind the merger than the last 5 CICA communications have had.


And to those CMA/CGAs who think we just want your money....you've got to be kidding, right?

Money, members, same difference. The fact is, the CAs want to keep their status as top dogs, but bring the other two into their fold so they have a lot more members and thus more clout.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Squiggs, I see and understand your points towards the merger, and while the CICA board obviously has rational reasoning for wanting to merge the two; they're doing a horrid job of conveying exactly why they want the merger. Your post has more real "reasons" behind the merger than the last 5 CICA communications have had.


And to those CMA/CGAs who think we just want your money....you've got to be kidding, right?

The communications have been awful and the town hall discussions were worse. I hated the email that came out that said something along the lines of "We understand none of you want the merge, but we the elected leaders think you're wrong". If the majority of the membership doesn't want something, I think it's wrong that the leaders continue to push their agenda, especially since we elected them to these positions.

I wanted to really find out about the merge so I sought out some people who were in the know. I still haven't changed my position, but instead of me saying "It's ######ed", I've changed it to "It's not completely ######ed".

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Money, members, same difference. The fact is, the CAs want to keep their status as top dogs, but bring the other two into their fold so they have a lot more members and thus more clout.

There is a huge difference between money and members here. If the CAs lose out on the number of members, it won't matter how much money they have. Of course they want more clout and to keep their status.

[darklord700]

For the merger to work either CA gives free passes or CMA/CGA relinquish some of their rights. I see the former being the more likely scenario. If ON and QC agree to merge, I don't think any provincial CGA/CA/CMA can stand idly by. The much smaller maritime associations will for sure follow suit and then the bigger prairie associations won't have any choice but to do so too.

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by darklord700

For the merger to work either CA gives free passes or CMA/CGA relinquish some of their rights. I see the former being the more likely scenario. If ON and QC agree to merge, I don't think any provincial CGA/CA/CMA can stand idly by. The much smaller maritime associations will for sure follow suit and then the bigger prairie associations won't have any choice but to do so too.

And we will all be dumber for it.

Seriously.

CGA < CMA < CA

in general terms.

Now all of a sudden they are all in one pot? This will make hiring a lot harder, hopefully they keep the requirement for CPA-CA or what have you. I like being able to source a CMA or CA for my staffing needs based on the letters behind the name, not having to read in detail what their work history is to glean an insight into their stream into CPA.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Money, members, same difference. The fact is, the CAs want to keep their status as top dogs, but bring the other two into their fold so they have a lot more members and thus more clout.

So we give ourselves more clout by bringing a ton more members that essentially dilute the prestige of our designation? Get real.

You think execs/boards will think the same of CPAs when every kid and his dog has one? Just because the CMAs/CGAs (CGAs moreso) have lax entry/designation criteria and can churn out members doesn't make them any more knowledgeable. They're the Russian army of the accounting world; just using sheer numbers to attack; but with only 1 of 5 soldiers actually getting a rifle.

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Still, I prefer to let the crap float to the top, I am pretty sure 99% of CGAs and 98% of CMAs have no interest in any macro economic power, they and their institute probably don't even know the address to the IASB

CGA's don't need the added stress of dealing with IASB or IFRS pronouncements; they already have enough to worry about trying to get their PA vouchers to balance or the smiley face to pop-up in Quicktax. (I kid).

Sadly Canada doesn't really have all that much pull when it comes to IASB anyways (think of all the pain getting those O&G amendments made before adoption) and we're only getting smaller on a global scale (with emerging economies overtaking us).

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Now all of a sudden they are all in one pot? This will make hiring a lot harder, hopefully they keep the requirement for CPA-CA or what have you. I like being able to source a CMA or CA for my staffing needs based on the letters behind the name, not having to read in detail what their work history is to glean an insight into their stream into CPA.

They won't be in one pot for ten years. And after 10 years, how hard it is to ask what was your designation before you get the CPA free pass? Just take a glance at the resume, you can sniff out the non CA CPAs in 5 seconds.

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Sadly Canada doesn't really have all that much pull when it comes to IASB anyways (think of all the pain getting those O&G amendments made before adoption) and we're only getting smaller on a global scale (with emerging economies overtaking us).

Actually we're so small that IASB declined to hear our O&G amendment concerns, especially those surrounding RF or CARF rates for decommissioning obligations.

My point is that Canada is so small in the eyes of the IASB - CA or CPAs - it won't make one bit of difference to them.

Vote no on Proposition Dilution!

[Husky]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I dunno, if the problem facing the CAs is they're not getting enough members enrolled (and hence not enough money) then they should set up a "CA-lite" sort of designation, and have it similar to CGA in terms of entrance requirements. That is, you can enroll in it right away, and start paying money for it, but at that point, you're just taking courses. Once you pass a set of requirements, you get this CA-lite designation, and there's a chance for you to get your full fledged CA if you pass another set of requirements. I'm sure everyone who enroll in CGA would rather do this CA-lite type of designation if they know they can eventually get a CA.

That way you guys can still thumb your noses down at the CA-lite guys AND still have access to all that wonderful money your instituion is desperately seeking. It's a win win situation.

They kind do...they over a CA -lite for industry folk now.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Ducay

So we give ourselves more clout by bringing a ton more members that essentially dilute the prestige of our designation? Get real.

You think execs/boards will think the same of CPAs when every kid and his dog has one? Just because the CMAs/CGAs (CGAs moreso) have lax entry/designation criteria and can churn out members doesn't make them any more knowledgeable. They're the Russian army of the accounting world; just using sheer numbers to attack; but with only 1 of 5 soldiers actually getting a rifle.

Hey, I'm just using what squiggs96 said as to why the CAs want to merge. Its your CA institution telling you guys this, not me. As I said all along, I don't see how any of the 3 designations' members would agree to it. Its not just you CAs that are dead set against it.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Actually we're so small that IASB declined to hear our O&G amendment concerns, especially those surrounding RF or CARF rates for decommissioning obligations.

Its tough to have IASB issue a whole IFRIC relating to such a small sect of business in one member country. Plus, having no interpretation means that you can use either rate! Huzzah!

Oh, and plus, we'll all be on USGAAP soon enough anyways

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Vote no on Proposition Dilution!

That's essentially what it boils down to, CAs don't want to lose the prestige that their designation holds. Why would anyone vote for that? Would anyone here on CP support a merger between the NHL, AHL, KHL, and WHL? (bad analogy).

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Hey, I'm just using what squiggs96 said as to why the CAs want to merge. Its your CA institution telling you guys this, not me. As I said all along, I don't see how any of the 3 designations' members would agree to it. Its not just you CAs that are dead set against it.

I guarantee you if it went to a vote; you'd see infinitely higher acceptance rates among CMAs/CGAs, and why not? They're getting a Porsche designation at a Chevy pricetag, there is nothing but upside for them and I don't blame them at all for it.

[squiggs96]

At a town hall I asked the moderators how they felt about someone who tried to be a CA, but failed the UFE four times, became a CMA and now we would be equal. There is someone in my office who fits that profile.

The moderator replied by asking me what about the people that couldn't get articling jobs and are now CMAs.

I said that was my point. There are many people who the CAs have said were not allowed in their club, for many different reasons. Now, because we find ourselves short on members, we suddenly will let them in? It bothers me that some people don't pass the UFE because the scored a point or two too low on the grading scale, but then they let everyone in anyways. It's like standing outside to get into a bar for a few hours and then you get to the front of the line. The bouncer won't let you in because of the fire code rules. Half an hour later, even though no one has left, everyone in the lineup gets to enter, even the people who got kicked out for being too drunk. Okay it's not a perfect comparisson, but it's paints a picture.

Instead of just throwing a huge blanket out and letting everyone in, why not make the designation more attractive? Have wages for articling students that can compete with CMA students for starters.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Instead of just throwing a huge blanket out and letting everyone in, why not make the designation more attractive? Have wages for articling students that can compete with CMA students for starters.

The attractiveness of articling vs. industry isn't a big play in the size of the membership; CA firms already hire as many students as they can, trust me; there is only so much audit/accounting work out there. If CA firms doubled the number of students coming in, they would just have a bunch of bums hanging around the office all day causing havok.

If they're looking for higher membership, they could just increase the UFE pass rate, which would directly correspond to more members who have been through the full articling process. But again, that too presents its own problems.

[NuclearFart]

Interesting conversation that I knew nothing about. If CA's bring so much "more to the table" than the other designations, is that not enough to keep them relevant in the face of unified hordes of CGA/CMAs trying to sway future accounting policies?

As a physician, it always chaps my ass when a chiropractor/alternative medicine quack introduces himself as a "Doctor". Protect your designation if you've earned it.