CMA Versus CA

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by geos

Congratulations on getting your CA.

Just an FYI... CA firms are more of a regulatory hurdle than an advisor on most deals... in fact I spent three hours teaching a CA advising the other party to a deal I'm on how to do a DCF model. Sad and frustrating. Experts in Assurance and Tax absolutely and I have so much respect for CAs in that capacity. But there is nothing in the CA program or articling that makes a CA an expert on valuation, structuring or financing. Most CAs working in that field get their expertise from second designations like CFA or a graduate degree in Finance or an MBA.

The billions of hours I spent writing papers in the CA program about various valuations methods, corporate structuring, financing options, etc, is likely way more knowledge than the average CMA would ever have in the field, unless thay're in the finance department. Did these studies make me an expert in these areas? Hell no, but its a start if I wanted to specialize in those fields.
Look at the consulting & deals practices at the Big4, they do millions and millions of dollars worth of M&A work, and that is purely consulting/advising, and has nothing to do with the audit side of deals, as that falls into assurance work.

[geos]

Originally Posted by Ducay

The billions of hours I spent writing papers in the CA program about various valuations methods, corporate structuring, financing options, etc, is likely way more knowledge than the average CMA would ever have in the field, unless thay're in the finance department. Did these studies make me an expert in these areas? Hell no, but its a start if I wanted to specialize in those fields.

Definitely not disagreeing with the versus CMA in terms of deals. But neither is a deals/M&A/valuation/structuring program, at all. Yes, you need to have a understanding of it to properly provide assurance services, but I don't believe the designation provides any value in terms of advise on a deal.

It goes back to experience. There is nothing that says a CA with the right experience can't be a rock-star finance guy. But I'm saying there is nothing in the program that specifically makes them a rock-star finance guy. So it's more to do with the individual than the designation. That's how I look at it as a non-accountant. Experience is worth way more than education in almost any application. The only exception where I'd favour a CA over a CMA/CGA would be audit or tax as their education and program is better in those areas. I'm not saying I'd favour CMA/CGA everywhere else, but I'd view them fairly equal (with advantage to CMA on planning/cost positions). I'd say, ok, we've got three designated accountants, what does their experience say... I wouldn't rank them based on what kind of designation they have.

That is why I think the merger is good at the end of the day. The top notch guys are always judged on their experience rather than what designation they hold. There are top guys at several firms in town in the CFO chair that are not CAs. It is possible. The social club of the CA world does help CAs reach that level more often, but I dispute anything in the specific program contributes to that. You get to the top levels because you've done something good, not because you are a CA.

That said, if I had decided to be an accountant, I would have been a CA for sure. There is a premium attached to it by perception and it is a bit of a social club that helps with opportunities. But it's nothing I've seen in real-life experience that distingushes a CA from the other on education alone. That was my overall point.

I think the 10 year adjustment period is appropriate. After 10 years, honestly, you'll have a resume that speaks for itself. You don't become a CA without having crazy work ethic, probably above average ability and all that stuff so I'm sure you'll have a great list of experience. And I will bet you in 10 years you'll be way more proud of your work accomplishments as an individual than your membership in that club. You'll find that your interviews will be more focused on what value you'd added to the firms you've worked for along the way rather than what education you have.

I understand why some new CAs may stress over this move, but I don't think its a big deal. After 10 years, you've probably maxed out the benefits of CA over the others with the experience you've acheived.

[BergyBoy]

Update:

The ICAA decides to pull out of all merger discussions, leaving the CMA and CGA to discuss a unification process among their designations.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by BergyBoy

Update:

The ICAA decides to pull out of all merger discussions, leaving the CMA and CGA to discuss a unification process among their designations.

Wonder how this affects national unification process, haven't seen a statement from CICA yet.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by BergyBoy

Update:

The ICAA decides to pull out of all merger discussions, leaving the CMA and CGA to discuss a unification process among their designations.

We can only hope the ICAO also comes to their senses and pulls out of this ludacris merger. At least Alberta CA's keep their designation's value for the time being.
The real battle remains in Ontario, but I can't see the ICAA rejecting the merger if the ICAO wasn't on that path as well.

[squiggs96]

I'm a member of ICAA and ICABC. I wish I had the same news out of BC but there they are still deciding what recommendations to make to the provincial government and whether or not they want a vote.

In this round of merger talks I have seen that ICAA didn't really want to merge and ICABC really, really did. I received multiple communications saying how it was the best way to go forward and that all of us who were against it were wrong. Hopefully BC follows suit with Alberta.

Maybe the CGAs and CMAs can do what is now in the States and become a CGMA. www.cgma.org.

It's funny that CICA was telling us we needed to go to CPA because it's what the States has and we need to consolidate the designations. Meanwhile, the States created a new one. I don't know how big it is or what it encompasses, but it seems to be what would happen if the two designations merged in Canada.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Wonder how this affects national unification process, haven't seen a statement from CICA yet.

This whole thing happens at the provincial level so in theory, it wouldn't affect the merger. But the worse thing that could happen is the three associations could remain in some provinces and some provinces could have the CPAs. The unification sets out to simplify and unite but might end up fragment the profession further. Quebec seems to be going forward with the merger regardless and if Ontario goes alone with unification, other provinces cannot hold out on their own.

Even if Ontario doesn't go along, the government might step in a do something. This is a mess to say the least.

[SHOGUN]

For all the CA's/becoming CA's... I'm envious of how much money you will accumulate over your career... that said, Accounting is probably the most boring thing in the world, to be stuck with it your whole life... I rather stab myself in the eye.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by SHOGUN

For all the CA's/becoming CA's... I'm envious of how much money you will accumulate over your career... that said, Accounting is probably the most boring thing in the world, to be stuck with it your whole life... I rather stab myself in the eye.

Ha, thats the beauty of it, most CAs don't end up doing accounting as they progress (or at least don't deal with the niggy gritty details), thats generally done by the CMAs, CGAs; while the CAs are the ones setting policies, dealing with complex treatements etc.

Nifty fact from my CA "graduation" ceremony from the chair of the CICA, 15 or 20% of senior executives in Canada are CAs, while representing only a fraction of a percent of the total population. And thats not just CFOs, that every position VP and up.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Ha, thats the beauty of it, most CAs don't end up doing accounting as they progress (or at least don't deal with the niggy gritty details), thats generally done by the CMAs, CGAs; while the CAs are the ones setting policies, dealing with complex treatements etc.

Nifty fact from my CA "graduation" ceremony from the chair of the CICA, 15 or 20% of senior executives in Canada are CAs, while representing only a fraction of a percent of the total population. And thats not just CFOs, that every position VP and up.

I am a CMA (also a MBA), in my opinion the CA is a more rounded and senior accountant in most situations, and usually the CFO in larger companies is a CA. The MBA in my opinon though provides a broader path to senior management, if just looking from a perspective of career path.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I am a CMA (also a MBA), in my opinion the CA is a more rounded and senior accountant in most situations, and usually the CFO in larger companies is a CA. The MBA in my opinon though provides a broader path to senior management, if just looking from a perspective of career path.

Depnding on where it's from. Too many online MBA's from rinky-dink 4th tier colleges have devalued what used to be a valued degree...

Though it's ultimately up to the person though. Letters don't mean crap (as I'm contemplating what to do with an underperforming staff member with accounting "letters" behind their name)