CMA Versus CA

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Ducay

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.

Um, no. Considering they are still going to distinguish between CPA-CA, CPA-CMA, and CPA-CGA (as they should IMO), I don't see any benefit to the merger. It's a Porsche with a Chevy engine, interior and all other parts, but paying Corvette pricing.

If CGA was smart, they'd continue what they're doing and grow and keep adding members. Eventually, when they dwarf the other two designations, they should then start implementing a graduated CGA program, whereby you have to do articling to get this modified CGA designation (essentially the same as what CAs have to do now). Get that recognized, and you essentially wipe out the CAs.

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by 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.

Most of us believe it is, hence the huge backlash against the merger. CMA's care about allocations and CGAs care about personal taxes. Neither of them are going to attempt to sway anything bigger than a CAPPA meeting.

[darklord700]

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.

I think this is exactly the reason why CA was the one initiating the merger. There're a lot more avenues to becoming a designated accountant in Canada now. CA wants to use the merger to shut the door and maybe even restrict the number of CPAs accredited every year after the merger.

If the new CPA is formed, it will be very hard if not impossible for any new accounting association to gain footing in Canada. The CAs will be calling the shots in the new CPA, and they will have more power then than they have in CICA now because the new CPA will monopolize the market.

Things like these cannot be articulated publicly or in town hall for obvious reason so you must read between the line. You must think why the CAs were the one initiating the merger and not the other way around.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Most of us believe it is, hence the huge backlash against the merger. CMA's care about allocations and CGAs care about personal taxes. Neither of them are going to attempt to sway anything bigger than a CAPPA meeting.

Lol, love the air of superiority there. Not going to lie that the CA designation itself is better simply because of the articling experience, but considering some of the clueless auditors I've dealt with over the years, not all CAs are as good as they think they are.

[TurnedTheCorner]

I think Canada is very rare in the sense that we have multiple professional designations for accountants. Putting everything under a common banner is good for everyone in the profession. I wouldn't make my choice on which designation to start today based on the merger talks, because A) They won't be finalized for years B) in the unlikely event the merger happens.

Others have given good advice about financial reporting/theory vs. operations and how they relate to the existing designations. Follow your interest and let the merger collapse/sort itself out.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

I think Canada is very rare in the sense that we have multiple professional designations for accountants. Putting everything under a common banner is good for everyone in the profession. I wouldn't make my choice on which designation to start today based on the merger talks, because A) They won't be finalized for years B) in the unlikely event the merger happens.

Not so; many countries have multiple designations, and most face the same/similar issues that Canada is facing without blending them all into one designation.
Australia has both CPAs and CAs, and as with here, CA's are the ones who work at the Big4 and have more international reciprocity and "prestige". Same goes with the UK, where the CA (ACA) is still top dog among about 12 bajillion qualified designations they have in that country.

CA designation continues to be fine in all these countries despite competition.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Not as rare as I thought then, thanks for the info. I think reciprocity for all Canadian accountants would be enhanced with a single designation.

[squiggs96]

I believe Australia and New Zealand merged and the UK is looking at it as well. The UK might do it where they merge the discipline and standards to one central place, but keep the differences of standards and training to individual groups.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I believe Australia and New Zealand merged and the UK is looking at it as well. The UK might do it where they merge the discipline and standards to one central place, but keep the differences of standards and training to individual groups.

Negatory

Australia has both CA's and CPA's; CPA has higher membership, but CA is the "higher" designation there and reciprocity with other CA countries. CPA Australia has a semi-reciprocity agreement with CMA Canada; which sort of shows the similarities of the two.


New Zealand has CA's and Australian CPA's have a "branch" there. Again, reciprocity with most CA bodies.


UK(England) has CA's, again with reciprocity with CA countries; as well as ACCA (certified chartered) which is probably larger than CA's but no real reciprocity (used to get US CPA, but no more).


South Africa has a pretty solid setup where one body that manages all the following designations
-CA (highest level w/ reciprocity)
-AGA (associate general accountants, more like CMA/CA hybrid)
-AAT (acct. technitian) equivalent to CGA.

South Africa's seems the smartest, with one body guiding the industry, with 3 separate designations; I can't see why this isn't possible in Canada. Let everyone keep status-quo while easing in-fighting.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Seriously.

CGA < CMA < CA

in general terms.

Not sure why you said that. CA is the hardest, no doubt. But CMA, you just pass some "entrance" exam and do two years of group study, how difficult is that? At least with CGA, you have to pass far more exams than then the CMA "entrance" exam entails to get your letters. And CGA has the same rights as CA in all provinces except ON. Meaning for legislative purposes CGA=CA.

So I really don't see the incentive for CGA to merge and be tagged as such after the merge.

The hardest part accounting is doing consolidation. CGA has multiple currency and jurisdiction consolidation question in the exam while CMA just do that as part of a group study. CGA exams are not UFE tough but they are still exams which are harder than doing group study/presentation.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ironically, physicians and nurses can relate to this whole nonsense the best, substituting LPN's and PA's for RN's and MD's.

[squiggs96]

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.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Ironically, physicians and nurses can relate to this whole nonsense the best, substituting LPN's and PA's for RN's and MD's.

Or engineers dealing with engg techs. Didn't SAIT start giving out iron rings?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

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.

I'm saying "legally" there's nothing the the CAs can do that the CGAs can't. I'm not saying CGAs are the equal of CAs in terms of training. I agree with your clothing store cashier example that CGA should tigthen up their accredidation requirements.

[RandyHolt]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Lol, love the air of superiority there. Not going to lie that the CA designation itself is better simply because of the articling experience, but considering some of the clueless auditors I've dealt with over the years, not all CAs are as good as they think they are.

And this is why, even as a relatively new CA, I'd be all for the merger. I'm aware that not all CA's are great and I've met many CGA's that are very good at their jobs. Even along the way to my CA I watched smarter people fail CASB modules while "booksmart" people passed and then were worthless in busy season doing actual work.

I think through the 10 year + window of keeping your designation (whatever it may be) you should be able to carve a great career for yourself where your work experience will mean far more than your designation when that time is up. And if you really feel the need to differentiate yourself in the future then you can make it very clear on your resume by just putting you passed the UFE in such and such a year. At that point, anyone who cares about your training will be able to tell in an instant you came up through your specific route.

I don't think the general public, or international bodies care about the differences currently, which means the merger is inevitable someday. Why not get started on it now rather than delaying it 10-20 years when the CA's may be less relevant and in a much weaker position leverage wise?

[Pablothegreat]

I guess if I had to do it over, I would still choose the CA route, but in addition to some of the benefits CP has already discussed, my reasons are more "soft" related.

Something about getting overworked, underpaid, and generally treated like professional cattle during your articleling time - the friendship and bonds that I made during those first few years have been priceless.

Eventually, all of us "graduated" to better roles in other organizations, but we all kept in close touch, and helped one another throughout our career. Whether it be through non-public job posting, consulting contracts or whatnot. It just seemed that the pressure cooker of the CA designation really gave us a common enemy to rally against.

I'm not sure if the CGA/CMA process would have had the same effect on me, as my other friends who were going through it seemed more independant and reliant on self study. They also stayed with the same company that they did their CMA/CGA with, and met the "glass ceiling" in a few years time and most of their peers were in the same situation.

At the end of the day, I wish that the world would value "what" you know as opposed to "who" you know. But sometimes that is not the case, and in my personal experience, all of my CA buddies are in a better position of influence than most of my other CGA/CMA buddies.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Pablothegreat

all of my CA buddies are in a better position of influence than most of my other CGA/CMA buddies.

That's very true. However, I know my CMA buddy becasue of all these group study work, picked up some intimate opposite sex buddies alone the way. Can't say it's a bad thing!

[Pablothegreat]

Originally Posted by darklord700

That's very true. However, I know my CMA buddy becasue of all these group study work, picked up some intimate opposite sex buddies alone the way. Can't say it's a bad thing!

In my class, we had a lot of people who hooked up and eventually met their spouses at the firm. So perhaps it doesnt really matter if your a CA/CMA/CGA.

PS. Where were these people when I was articleling!!!

[V]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Or engineers dealing with engg techs. Didn't SAIT start giving out iron rings?

I was going to ask for those of us outside of this conversation, it sounds a whole lot like if Eng Techs and Engineers merged to the same designation. It's bad enough that Eng Techs are allowed to be pretend engineers after enough time in the industry. I would be choked if CET and P. Eng was merged.

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by V

I was going to ask for those of us outside of this conversation, it sounds a whole lot like if Eng Techs and Engineers merged to the same designation. It's bad enough that Eng Techs are allowed to be pretend engineers after enough time in the industry. I would be choked if CET and P. Eng was merged.

Very much the same thing, at least with the CGA's. CGAs can get a degree from a 2 year college and work at a laundry mat on the till and get their CGA.

This is very similar. CMA's allowed college degrees up until a few years ago as well, so they aren't as dissimilar to the CMA's as they think.