CMA Versus CA

[bradster57]

I have to wonder if this merger talk will discourage recent graduates from taking the CA in the next few years. If they are going to merge anyways, why bother with 3 years of audit making very little money?

[darklord700]

If the proposed merger goes through;

Winners:
-Big 4 firms, increased supply of grunts for their exploitation
-Experienced CAs in public practice, they’ll be calling the shots in the new organization
-Young CMAs/CGAs who will work for more than 10 years
-Public, no more confusions about who the hell CAs/CGAs/CMAs are


Losers:
-Young and newly accredited CAs for the obvious reasons
-Future accounting students, no escape from being grunts for 3 years now
-New immigrant accountants
-Employees in the many CA/CGA/CMA offices

[calf]

Originally Posted by bradster57

I have to wonder if this merger talk will discourage recent graduates from taking the CA in the next few years. If they are going to merge anyways, why bother with 3 years of audit making very little money?

I'm betting the firms will (have to) be more competitive when it comes to salaries. They will have to better sell the experience that you get while articling there. For instance, in industry, you may get more/better 'hands on' accounting experience, but that can be earned at any time, while at the firm, you get more exposure to different industries/businesses, and can learn from what they all do, what makes them successful/not so much, etc. But that'll be a really tough sell.

I think geos et al nailed it, the perception of CAs that they can walk into a company and do whatever they want is misguided, and it comes to skills/experience (and attitude...something plenty CAs need to adjust)when you're into your career, and the letters tend to matter less and less. I know myself/other CA colleagues learned this lesson early on...those of us that recognized that the letters are not the be-all and end-all of your resume have done much better than those that decided their letters will do everything for them.

[geos]

Originally Posted by darklord700

If the proposed merger goes through;

Winners:
-Big 4 firms, increased supply of grunts for their exploitation
-Experienced CAs in public practice, they’ll be calling the shots in the new organization
-Young CMAs/CGAs who will work for more than 10 years
-Public, no more confusions about who the hell CAs/CGAs/CMAs are


Losers:
-Young and newly accredited CAs for the obvious reasons
-Future accounting students, no escape from being grunts for 3 years now
-New immigrant accountants
-Employees in the many CA/CGA/CMA offices

I disagree... I think you missed the point that the grunt work is no longer going to be required. The Big4 will have to pay wages competitive with the market and have working conditions competitive with the market in order to attract anyone. Why would anyone do that kind of work if they could get the same qualification in the corporate world?

I imagine audit fees will be increasing!

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by geos

I disagree... I think you missed the point that the grunt work is no longer going to be required.

Page 5 of this link:
http://cpacanada.ca/wp-content/uploa...on_Program.pdf

Approved Path Model: Basically the current Big 4 grunt work.
Experience Verification Model: Kind of like the current CGA/CMA experience requirements.

However, CPA must obtained the following six competencies "of sufficient duration and intensity":
1. Financial accounting and reporting
2. Management accounting, planning and control
3. Assurance (audit)
4. Taxation
5. Finance
6. Performance management

I don't see many small companies can provide the required training to achieve 3., 4., 5 "of sufficient duration and intensity". Since I assume the CAs will be in control of the new CPA, I don't think they will make going through the "Experience Verification Model" a cake walk. If anything, they'll make it much tougher than CMA/CGA make it to be currently. Hence, there'll be increase supply of articling students after the merger.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by geos

To non-accountants, it's all pretty much the same anyway. It's like listening to engineers argue who cooler, the civies or the sparkies. Meh. About time they merged up and cleared up that issue!

It's best they put forth a unified program. As someone close to the profession but not an accountant (I work with alot of them), I find all the I'm better than you attitude really downgrades the perceived quality of the profession as a whole. This is good news for sure... in the long run anyways.

I do feel for all the guys that worked for below minimum wage in terrible conditions for 3 years for something that will be equal to the rest of the guys that got paid a respectable salary while earning their letters. Raw deal for sure.

Just think of the future, and how the big 4 won't be able to rip off the next generation when they can get corporate jobs with reasonable conditions and salaries.

Glad I didn't go that route, that's all I can say about that.

Although the 3 years of articling isn't the best, the quality of a newly designated CA is far superior to a newly designated CMA or CGA. If the merge happens, the biggest drop off will be the talent of new CPAs. Many students coming out of university would likely choose to go into industry rather than work in public practice. The work is easier, the hours are better and the pay is substantially better. The problem is are these businesses going to take the time to teach the new students? Are they going to give them study time and UFE (or whatever it's called) preparation?

I'm a much better professional now because I put in three years at KPMG. If I had gone to an oil and gas company I wouldn't have as strong of technical background, critical thinking skills and business mind.

I agree with people under all three designations, that they people at the top are not listening to the members. There is no way this will pass a vote, by any designation. As collective groups, not one of the three of us want it to pass. We all made choices on which way to go, for whatever reasons. I'm sure some don't care, and others want the merge, but the majority of each group wants to keep things as they are.

I won't vote for the merge because I don't think you should get a designation by merger. If you wanted to be a CA, you go through all the training and schooling and pass the UFE. If you want to do a CMA or CGA, go do that route.

[geos]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Although the 3 years of articling isn't the best, the quality of a newly designated CA is far superior to a newly designated CMA or CGA.

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?

[darklord700]

http://www.cica.ca/about-the-profess...item53038.aspx

Looks like Quebec is going ahead with the merger. Did the Quebec CA/CGA/CMA hold a vote and pass that vote?

[geos]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I'm a much better professional now because I put in three years at KPMG. If I had gone to an oil and gas company I wouldn't have as strong of technical background, critical thinking skills and business mind.

How can you definitively say that without doing it? If you ask a CMA, you'll get the exact opposite answer.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by geos

I disagree... I think you missed the point that the grunt work is no longer going to be required. The Big4 will have to pay wages competitive with the market and have working conditions competitive with the market in order to attract anyone. Why would anyone do that kind of work if they could get the same qualification in the corporate world?

I imagine audit fees will be increasing!

Guess you're not aware that you've been able to get your CA by working in industry for a good number of years now. Pay hasn't changed as a result of that since industry pay newbies just as little as public accounting pays their newbies.

Originally Posted by geos

How can you definitively say that without doing it? If you ask a CMA, you'll get the exact opposite answer.

No way! Who would have thought they would want to think their designation was equal?

[calf]

Originally Posted by darklord700

http://www.cica.ca/about-the-profess...item53038.aspx

Looks like Quebec is going ahead with the merger. Did the Quebec CA/CGA/CMA hold a vote and pass that vote?

From what I've heard at various sessions, the Quebec government basically volun-told them to merge.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by calf

From what I've heard at various sessions, the Quebec government basically volun-told them to merge.

If ON follows suit, none of the remaining three associations could survive in the remaining provinces (without QC and ON), guaranteed.

If ON doesn't merge, it'll be really messy. You now have a fourth association, CPA, to deal with in QC so Canada becomes more fragmented than before.

[Fueled By Fire]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Guess you're not aware that you've been able to get your CA by working in industry for a good number of years now. Pay hasn't changed as a result of that since industry pay newbies just as little as public accounting pays their newbies.

While that may be true, there are only a handful of approved training offices in Alberta that are not CA firms, is it not?

[geos]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Guess you're not aware that you've been able to get your CA by working in industry for a good number of years now. Pay hasn't changed as a result of that since industry pay newbies just as little as public accounting pays their newbies.

I can tell you my firm pays more than the Big4 for newbies (obviously CMA and CGA candidates). That said, we aren't an approved industry CA training place. Those places are very few (I think there are a handful of industry CA places in Calgary) and I honestly have no idea what they pay. I can tell you those jobs are highly sought after and its not like there is huge competitive pressure exerted on the Big4 by a couple dozen training jobs elsewhere.

I don't think there is much debate that a CMA student makes more than CA student while undertaking their studies, especially when you look at a per hour basis. If ALL employers are acceptable, then maybe the Big4 will have to move their salaries.

If like Darklord says a firm needs all 6 or 7 of those compentency areas... then that really limits the firms that would be capable of training accountants. I would have to question how that's best for the profession, so few people will have access. That would protect the Big4 pay $20, bill $200 racket though.

[The Yen Man]

I used to think CAs were superior, until my company was taken over and I found out most of the guys at the top of the new company aren't CA's. There's an equal amount of CMA's, CGA's, and CAs who are on top, and an equal amount under them. And considering my new mother corp company has about 500 people in Finance, it's not like it's a small company that took us over.

[squiggs96]

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.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by geos

Disagree really. A CMA upon graduation has 2-3 years of relevant corporate experience. I question the value of 3 years of audit and tax to most corporate settings. Depends on the situation, but if I was presented with 100% equal freshly minted CMA or CA candidates for a role in my area (which is finance, but not accounting), I'd go with the CMA. They have more relevant experience at t0.

Later on in career, there is some advantage of the social network created by being a CA. But it's primarily social and not competency based. Having a good familiarity with both programs, I wouldn't say either has a huge educational compentency advantage. I don't believe that audit and tax easily translate into SOME corporate areas. Absolutely for an audit or tax position I would hire a CA first, ABSOLUTELY. But for positions in my area (corporate finance), I'd lean more heavily on the other designations as I get better value for money, if I have to hire an accountant at all.

CGA is a little different from the big two, but I still know highly competent CGAs and completely incompetent CAs so again it's more the individual.

And that's really the problem with the accounting profession that this is trying to solve IMO. They think their letters mean something to non-accoutants about their competency, and maybe their marketing has convinced some. But it's all about the individual at the end of the day. That's something that these labels ignore.

Further, the CA professional is dying, in terms of enrollment and market share. So they have no choice anyway. I wonder if that also suggests that for the broader corporate market, CMA or CGA holds greater appeal. Perhaps I can get the same job done by a highly competent CMA at a much lower cost than a CA which carries a premium in the corporate world but a questionable one.

Various things to consider. It doesn't seem like a big deal to the old folks in the CA program as they'll all have to wear their silly double designation for a decade or so. The recently minted CA's I guess can complain that they struggled for 3 years for nothing... but at the end of the day, no point in crying over spilled milk. Move on and be the best accountant that you can be.

My advice would be for the truly competent folks, the more you contribute and advance in your career, the more you let your accomplishments speak. The most successful CA's I know tend not to rely on the "I'm a CA so I'm better" attitude and more on fact that they let their achievements define them more than an educational qualification that is not HUGELY superior to others in their field.

As an outsider I can tell you that I've been impressed with every single CA I've ever met or dealt with in my life. With that designation you know you're getting the best of the best and in my opinion it carries a lot of weight.

Once again as an outsider I'm disappointed that the designations are merging because it was a quick way of sorting what kind of accountant goes where.

Accountants are trained to be rule followers...the CA's on the other hand are rule makers that I want standing beside me on a leadership team.

Simply my opinion from my career experience.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

As an outsider I can tell you that I've been impressed with every single CA I've ever met or dealt with in my life. With that designation you know you're getting the best of the best and in my opinion it carries a lot of weight.

Once again as an outsider I'm disappointed that the designations are merging because it was a quick way of sorting what kind of accountant goes where.

Accountants are trained to be rule followers...the CA's on the other hand are rule makers that I want standing beside me on a leadership team.

Simply my opinion from my career experience.

Luckily experiences like yours still hold true in most upper management and consulting on major deals; you'll never hear people holding off on a 3 billion dollar deal until they get the opinion of some CMAs and some tax pool analysis from their local CGA down at the strip mall beside that deli...

Being a newly designated CA, I have the luxury of seeing on a daily basis the huge impact and role CAs play in the biggest and most valuable deals. Not to say the other designations aren't involved in these sorts of deals occasionally, but CAs are pretty much a go to, right after the lawyers.

[geos]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Being a newly designated CA, I have the luxury of seeing on a daily basis the huge impact and role CAs play in the biggest and most valuable deals. Not to say the other designations aren't involved in these sorts of deals occasionally, but CAs are pretty much a go to, right after the lawyers.

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 audit opinion covers my butt in a deal, but we all know what those are worth to investors.

[squiggs96]

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 audit opinion covers my butt in a deal, but we all know what those are worth to investors.

No one here said CAs were the finance guys. Yes there are CAs working in finance, and most will have some background, but that is not usually what our majors were in university and not what you focus on for the first three years. It's taught in CASB/MPAcc and you need it for the UFE, but it's not the main focus. That's why you'd do a CBV or a CFA. An MBA wouldn't have much value for a person with a CA, especially one with an MPAcc.

I'm going to guess that a newly designated CMA would not have a far superior grasp of finance over a newly designated CA, unless that CMA worked in the finance department of a company. If they did work in the finance department for three years, of course they should know more. It's not rocket science that if you do something for three years you should be better at it than someone who sees it for a couple of months. That person may be better in finance, but as an all around accountant and business professional, the newly designated CA will more than likely be more valued than the newly designated CMA.

Is there anything in the CMA program that would make each CMA an expert in valuation, structuring and finance?