CMA Versus CA

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

CA's make the most, on average, of any profession in Canada. Average salary after 5 years is $234K in Alberta. There are some mind-blowing figures in the CA-only salary guidance that comes out (ie a survey of members on compensation).

How much of that is skewed from all the CFO and CEO salaries though? I mean, you can literally have a guy in a CEO position that, after all compensation is calculated, is make several million dollars in annual salary. Are these counted too, or are they excluded as outliers?

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Thanks for the responses thus far,

I wanted to go onto higher end management, but is there a substantial difference between the work done. I am worried about CA because they seem to do more auditing. I thought CMAs were bigger picture and CAs were more detail.

What about workload, do both have the same work/life balance. This is important to me. I would rather make less money and have time to have some fun.

Also, are the employability levels about the same or does one have a distinct advantage?

ps- I am also on my way to become a certified HR personnel, is this in any way advantageous in combination with a CA/CMA designation (I know they are not completely related but the HR designation is not difficult for me to get, so I figured what the hell)

I'm a CA and a strong opponent of the merger. I know a few CAs and have met a few more at the town halls and discussions that want the merge, but there only a small chance it will happen this time. It's the fourth time they've tried to merge and it's been the most successful in far of how far it's gotten, but it could take a few more rounds. The biggest reason it would pass this time is if Ontario merges. Quebec is likely to merge, which could trigger a chain reaction.

As per your post, each designation will try and say why they are better at certain things. The CMAs have done that with the big picture. They'll even argue against the merge saying they specifically wanted to be a CMA in order to strategically think about the future instead of analyzing the past. CMAs aren't the only ones who can think about the future. In my experience CAs aren't as detailed as CGAs, because of the work they do.

During the first three years out of university, there is no comparison of work/life balance between a CA and CMA student. I worked 60-80 hours a week during busy season and 50 hours per week during the slow season at KPMG. CMA students I went to school with were at TELUS, Nexen, Husky, etc. were working 37.5 hours, taking 1 hour lunches, earning 30% more in salary than I was and were earning options.

The payoff comes after you finish articling and pass the UFE. Your yearly pay bumps are substantial and you are always being recruited to go into industry. I left public practice and am a controller or a real estate development and capital group of companies. You don't realize how good your training was and how valuable articling is until you are able to put your critical thinking and business decision making tools to use. Yes articling is mainly about audit, but while you are auditing you are also learning how the business works. You get to see many different types of businesses, and all different parts of each business. The CMA students I went to school with received far less training and far less exposure to the business world.

I now have a great work/life balance, but it took 8 years to get there. I still have busy times of working 50 hours a week, but I also have weeks where I go to the golf course 5 times.

As for employability, the CAs will have the widest appeal. Many designated accountants will favour their own brand, but the general population will consider the CAs the preferred one. I would not have gotten my job if I wasn't a CA. My company was founded by two CAs, who had founded their own CA firm. My boss is also a CA and a VP is a CA. They wanted someone who would think like they did and would have the training a CA did.

You can be successful with any of the designations as long as you work hard and are smart. There are many successful and wealthy CMAs, CGAs and CAs. If you want the best training and highest marketability once you have your designation, the CA is the way to go. If you don't want or can't commit to the articling, schooling and studying of a CA, the other two designations offer you different versions. I work with a CGA who didn't want a CA because, in her words, "she didn't want to suffer for three years and would rather enjoy life".

Take what THE SCUD says with a grain of salt. He doesn't consider Mount Royal a real university and doesn't think students from there go to Big 4 firms. I proudly graduated with a degree from there, articled with KPMG, work as a controller of great company with eyes on being the CFO. He also thinks that if there is an s there needs to be an apostrophe right before it.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by sixpacked

LOL not quite, but it will be probably lower. Why do you need an audit, are you publically traded or a NFP?

Its possible I will need to hire a firm to perform one within the forseeable future. I'm only involved with private enterprise for the time being.

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

CA's make the most, on average, of any profession in Canada. Average salary after 5 years is $234K in Alberta. There are some mind-blowing figures in the CA-only salary guidance that comes out (ie a survey of members on compensation).

You also have no life during reporting season.

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Take what THE SCUD says with a grain of salt. He doesn't consider Mount Royal a real university and doesn't think students from there go to Big 4 firms. I proudly graduated with a degree from there, articled with KPMG, work as a controller of great company with eyes on being the CFO. He also thinks that if there is an s there needs to be an apostrophe right before it.

Everyone from an Albertan university used to poke fun at MRC. It was where the people who couldn't get into University went, when I was going to school.

With that said, I mean that all tongue in cheek - You're an example of someone who went to MRC and worked hard and made something of himself./ However you must agree that, for most there, they are at MRC because they couldn't get in elsewhere (ie UofC)

I can echo and agree with everything you said about articling and the pay off - I experienced the exact same, except I left the second I got my letters for 6 figures in the O&G industry, so I was one of the 3 years and out crowd.

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

You also have no life during reporting season.

So very, very true.

But when it's not reporting season I am rolling in my money pile in the basement that I saved up while working 80 hours and having no life to spend it on

Like everything in life, there is a trade off. if you want the most money and most marketability, CA is the best, end of story. if you want to have some semblance of a life, CA is worst.

I advise people to article right out of Uni at 22-23, so you're done by 27, before you have to spend time on family, etc. Articling when you're any older get so much harder, I would think... Imagine raising a family working 80 hours a week for $50K... .yuuuuuuuck

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Everyone from an Albertan university used to poke fun at MRC. It was where the people who couldn't get into University went, when I was going to school.

With that said, I mean that all tongue in cheek - You're an example of someone who went to MRC and worked hard and made something of himself./ However you must agree that, for most there, they are at MRC because they couldn't get in elsewhere (ie UofC)

I can echo and agree with everything you said about articling and the pay off - I experienced the exact same, except I left the second I got my letters for 6 figures in the O&G industry, so I was one of the 3 years and out crowd.

I chose to go to Mount Royal because I bought a condo in Lincoln Park (4 minute walk to the MRU business building) and I could get an education as good as, if not better than the one I'd receive at U of C. I was accepted to both UofC and MRC and chose MRC because I believed it was a better school. I believe UofC is more prestigous. There's probably not even a debate on that, but there are a lot of really talented people coming out of MRU. There are also some untalented people that are there, but you'll find those at UofC as well. When I went to MRC we had to go to the UofC's recruiting events. Now the firms go to Mount Royal's. There's a reason for that.

I also left public practice as soon as I could. I didn't even wait for my certificate to arrive once UFE results were out as I had my time in.

I was wrong on the Quebec merge though. I'll edit the top in a bit, as I was reading an old article. The Quebec merge is still going as planned. This could trigger Ontario to merge as well. If those two provinces merge, every other province will follow suit. I'll hate it, but I don't think I'll have a choice.

[Bonded]

Okay,
What implications does a merger have on the designations. Is it a ceremonial name change or will it have tangible effects.

Also, if I'm understanding this correctly, work life balance only improves marginally after articiling?

Also, which one is the more flexible designation. For example, say I get bored when I am forty would either be good for a career change, or is one always an accountant?

[bradster57]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Okay,
What implications does a merger have on the designations. Is it a ceremonial name change or will it have tangible effects.

Also, if I'm understanding this correctly, work life balance only improves marginally after articiling?

Also, which one is the more flexible designation. For example, say I get bored when I am forty would either be good for a career change, or is one always an accountant?

Work life balance depends more on what your job is rather than the designation. If you're in corporate reporting, kiss the quarters good and month ends for a lot of big companies too.

As for the possible merger, I think they are trying to make the effects a long term goal. There is no chance CA's will approve the merger and be lumped in with CMAs and CGAs, but down the road I think they do want to only have one designation. So for a while you'd be a CPA-CMA (or whatever your current designation is) and maybe in 10 years they will drop the last part and everyone will only be a CPA.

Try to figure out what type of accounting you like. If you like high level, accounting theory, and financial reporting, be a CA. If you would rather work in the operations a CMA/CGA might be better.

My wife is a CA, I'm a CMA so we talk about this nerdy stuff all the time!

[Bonded]

Okay,
Thanks, I have found this helpful. I will deliberate a bit longer. I have till may to make my decision.

Thanks guys.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Average salary after 5 years is $234K in Alberta. There are some mind-blowing figures in the CA-only salary guidance that comes out (ie a survey of members on compensation).

No way the average salary after 5 years for CA is $234K!

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

The biggest reason it would pass this time is if Ontario merges. Quebec is likely to merge, which could trigger a chain reaction.

I think this is the likely scenario. Regional provincial accounting associations in MB, AB won't survive without ON and QC. They will be marginalized and businesses will demand them to follow suit.

[Rockin' Flames]

I'm also a CA and this may or may not influence your decision. One reason I became a CA is so that I could relatively easily write the US CPA reciprocity exam and become a CPA and move to the US. My understanding is (and I may be wrong) but only CA's are eligible to write the CPA reciprocity exam.

Honestly I didn't find the articling for a CA to be that bad hours wise and at times now I work longer hours than I did then. If you want to work in tax the best route is the CA as well.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by bradster57

There is no chance CA's will approve the merger and be lumped in with CMAs and CGAs, but down the road I think they do want to only have one designation.

If you are a 50 year old CA right now, you probably wouldn't care as you'll likely retire in ten years. So this affects the CAs between 30 and 50 years old.

The younger CAs who are still trying to leverage the superiority of the CA designation to climb the corporate ladder would object this. But it's not as bad as it looks for them. Say in ten years time, everybody is lumped together under the CPA banner. But companies could tell who "were" the CAs/CGAs/CMAs easily by asking a few questions like have you ever articled in a big four firm etc.

The letters might be gone but the resumes and work experience wouldn't change. For companies who are gung ho about hiring CAs, they can easily identify who "were" the CAs among the CPAs. Or they could just require applicants to identify their former designation before the merge.

[Language]

Originally Posted by darklord700

No way the average salary after 5 years for CA is $234K!

The way I read the findings was 5 years after obtaining your designation - so 8 years in total including the 2.5 - 3 years of articling.

I'm sure the stat may also be skewed by some significant outliers as well, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 'real' average is somewhere around $150,000, which still ain't too bad.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

CA's make the most, on average, of any profession in Canada. Average salary after 5 years is $234K in Alberta. There are some mind-blowing figures in the CA-only salary guidance that comes out (ie a survey of members on compensation).

Where do you get this from? I'm not attacking, I just can't find a source on it. The surveys done by the CICA are done every two years, with the most recent one being 2009.

I can find the 2009 CA Profession Compensation Survey that shows a CA with 5 years post designation experience (received designation in 2004 as it is a 2009 survey) in Alberta had a mean salary of $156,915. The average compensation for CAs with five years post qualifying experience across Canada was $126,948, with the figure jumping to $263,906 for those with 25-29 years of post qualifying experience.

http://cica.ems01.com/CA_Profession_...ey_2009-En.pdf

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by darklord700

If you are a 50 year old CA right now, you probably wouldn't care as you'll likely retire in ten years. So this affects the CAs between 30 and 50 years old.

The younger CAs who are still trying to leverage the superiority of the CA designation to climb the corporate ladder would object this. But it's not as bad as it looks for them. Say in ten years time, everybody is lumped together under the CPA banner. But companies could tell who "were" the CAs/CGAs/CMAs easily by asking a few questions like have you ever articled in a big four firm etc.

The letters might be gone but the resumes and work experience wouldn't change. For companies who are gung ho about hiring CAs, they can easily identify who "were" the CAs among the CPAs. Or they could just require applicants to identify their former designation before the merge.

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).



Edit to address OP's question: If you're ready to be a grunt for 3 years and go through a bunch more schooling and studying and have strong technical skills, then go for your CA. If you're looking for a quicker route into industry, then go for CMA. CMA's generally max out at departmental managers in large firms (still pull in good 100k with some experience), where as your limits are much higher with a CA. Really a question of how much time you want to devote to the process.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Every CA worked towards their designation and put in hundreds of times more work and time towards their letters than a CMA/CGA did.

I'm not debating this fact but it doesn't really matter. Say you went to Harvard, worked you butt off and got a B Comm. I went to a no name community college, party 4 years and got the same B Comm. Are the two degrees the same just because they are all called B Comm? Obviously, no.

It's the same with the proposed CPA letters. The market will see through that you were the CA before CPA and someone else was the CMA before CPA. I know a lot of people taking these distant learning MBA courses. Sure, it's a MBA alright but it's not the same as a Stanford MBA.

There's a reason that the CAs were the one initiating the merger.

[The Yen Man]

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).



Edit to address OP's question: If you're ready to be a grunt for 3 years and go through a bunch more schooling and studying and have strong technical skills, then go for your CA. If you're looking for a quicker route into industry, then go for CMA. CMA's generally max out at departmental managers in large firms (still pull in good 100k with some experience), where as your limits are much higher with a CA. Really a question of how much time you want to devote to the process.

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.

[darklord700]

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.

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?

[goodyear]

I have a CGA and graduated from SAIT in 2007. Back then, the CA did not recognize my applied degree as a pre-requisite for the CASB. Meanwhile, the CGA was actively marketed to the students there and its program of studies ran concurrently with the program that I was in.

Since then, the CA has recognized the SAIT degree as a pre-req but I have already started working at an energy company downtown. The pay was not great but definitely more than what an articling student would make at a CA firm.

In hindsight, had my degree been recognized at the time I graduated, I would’ve picked the CA. As grueling as articling and the UFE sounds, I would’ve much preferred the broad exposure that I would’ve gained.

For new graduates, I would recommend them going the CA route as it opens more doors down the road. However, for people who want to change careers or enhance their standing within a company the CMA or CGA is equally suitable.