I am looking for a career change, I am currently a substitute teacher and becoming completely disinterested and tired of the job, and looking to get into the accounting field, can anyone explain the various designations like CA, CGA and CMA, I understand CA is the top level and hardest one to get, I already have a university degree obviously, and I already checked out the CGA website it looks like possible to get that designation but I am not sure as to how, is it possible to do part time studying?
any accountants here
- Thread starter scouser1
- Start date
Odd place to ask...
I have none of the above, but I have worked closely with, dated, and interviewed lots of each. CGA & CMAs would object to referring to CAs as ..'the top...'
In general terms a CA (Canadian, British, and others) more or less equates to a CPA in the USA. In some jurisdictions, ONLY a firm of CA/CPA are allowed to audit public companies.
While these are generalities ONLY, CAs are often considered the experts in financial accounting & audit, CGAs and CMAs consider themselves to be better at cost accounting and company management. There are countless exceptions and many vehement arguments about who is better at what.
In each case however, the academic requirements are VERY tough. You better be sure you LOVE number crunching at the philosophical level, and are prepared to WYAO. Each association will give you all the details on how to go through their education and testing process.
Good Luck.
But assuming you are serious..scouser1 said:
I have none of the above, but I have worked closely with, dated, and interviewed lots of each. CGA & CMAs would object to referring to CAs as ..'the top...'
In general terms a CA (Canadian, British, and others) more or less equates to a CPA in the USA. In some jurisdictions, ONLY a firm of CA/CPA are allowed to audit public companies.
While these are generalities ONLY, CAs are often considered the experts in financial accounting & audit, CGAs and CMAs consider themselves to be better at cost accounting and company management. There are countless exceptions and many vehement arguments about who is better at what.
In each case however, the academic requirements are VERY tough. You better be sure you LOVE number crunching at the philosophical level, and are prepared to WYAO. Each association will give you all the details on how to go through their education and testing process.
Good Luck.
Oh man, that’s a strange request...
I suggest you apply at a Toronto school near Jane and Finch. You will have tons of excitement
Umm, I think they supply the bullet proof vests.
.
I have 3 close friends that GTFO of Accounting b/c they were bored to tears.scouser1 said:
I suggest you apply at a Toronto school near Jane and Finch. You will have tons of excitement
Umm, I think they supply the bullet proof vests.
.
AS someone who trained and qualified as a CA many years ago my experiences will be slightly dated. The ICAO (Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario) has a very good website with plenty of info.
I am of course biased towards the CA designation and don't want to needlessly steer people away from it but the entry level positions and demands of work/study combo are very much a young persons game. While the perks and salary now are much ( far) better than they were in my day the articling CA student is about as close to legalizd slavery as you can get in Canada. While the CA is the pinnacle of the accounting world in Canada someone starting in the accounting game at a more mature age than fresh out of University might find the CMA or CGA program more rewarding initially. Not to pass judgement but to start fresh as a grunt ( yes same term as in the Army) you would really need to make a decision to put 2-3 years of your personal and fiscal life in pause mode should you choose the CA route.
As to inter designation rivalries the accounting world is no different than other groups. The CGA's have a MAJOR chip on their shoulder about not being able to perform attest ( audit) functions in Ontario and constantly lobby government to change th Act. Various levels of government are full of CGA's so they do speak to sympathetic ears and every once in awhile give it a gun run from the govt/civilservice side. They come unstuct though when faced with the reluctance of the Capital market participants to accept them on par with CA's. The fact of the matter is that the training and educational requirements of the CMA's are just not as rigourous.
The CMA's ( old RIA) are very successful in the cost/ management accounting niche. Their training is more focused in these areas and they as a group make no claims of equivalance to CA's in the areas of tax, audit, international standards etc. There is a very good working relationship between the CA's and CMA's with the CGA's ( in the private sector) generally struggling as the "hey look at me too" group. CMA's are most often found in accounting organizations that do non-attest work or within general industry in the comptroller, finance manager, internal audit type roles.
Hope this helps. And remember the cute girls all like Accountants.
I am of course biased towards the CA designation and don't want to needlessly steer people away from it but the entry level positions and demands of work/study combo are very much a young persons game. While the perks and salary now are much ( far) better than they were in my day the articling CA student is about as close to legalizd slavery as you can get in Canada. While the CA is the pinnacle of the accounting world in Canada someone starting in the accounting game at a more mature age than fresh out of University might find the CMA or CGA program more rewarding initially. Not to pass judgement but to start fresh as a grunt ( yes same term as in the Army) you would really need to make a decision to put 2-3 years of your personal and fiscal life in pause mode should you choose the CA route.
As to inter designation rivalries the accounting world is no different than other groups. The CGA's have a MAJOR chip on their shoulder about not being able to perform attest ( audit) functions in Ontario and constantly lobby government to change th Act. Various levels of government are full of CGA's so they do speak to sympathetic ears and every once in awhile give it a gun run from the govt/civilservice side. They come unstuct though when faced with the reluctance of the Capital market participants to accept them on par with CA's. The fact of the matter is that the training and educational requirements of the CMA's are just not as rigourous.
The CMA's ( old RIA) are very successful in the cost/ management accounting niche. Their training is more focused in these areas and they as a group make no claims of equivalance to CA's in the areas of tax, audit, international standards etc. There is a very good working relationship between the CA's and CMA's with the CGA's ( in the private sector) generally struggling as the "hey look at me too" group. CMA's are most often found in accounting organizations that do non-attest work or within general industry in the comptroller, finance manager, internal audit type roles.
Hope this helps. And remember the cute girls all like Accountants.
If my information is correct, the law has changed in Ontario where if you're interested in auditing and working for a big accounting firm, you'll be able to do so regardless of the designation that you choose to pursue.
Btw, anyone know which designation has nicer babes?
Btw, anyone know which designation has nicer babes?
Corey said:
Many of the majos have traditionally had non-CA staff working for them in the write up, tax and non attest areas. My answer was given working from the viewoint that Scouser1 was weighing the pros/cons of each.
The CA profession has really come a long way in terms of "babes" over the years. When I go to reunions ( cleverly cloaked networking promo sessions ) for my old firm I am amazed at the percentage of good looking females. Times sure have changed from the days of just us ugly accounting nerds on the job.
accountants here
Cory, you are correct, bill 94 has changed the landscap of public practice accounting in Ontario. The regulatory PAC structure has been changed to include members of all professional designations as well as an equal number of members of the public.
Lanc, as a CA I understand your bias toward the Institute, however as a CGA I disagree that the CA designation is the "pinnacle" of the accounting world. While the training path may differ between the organizations, there are "good accountants" and "poor accountants" in each has proposed international qualitative standards as an alternative to the Institues regime of hours based competancy.
And let's not forget that all designations can perform attest functions, including audit and reviews, anywhere west of the Ontario border. Thus the barrier to inter-provincial trade that is in place in Ontario.
Personally I wish the different groups would stop in-fighting and focus on the non-designated accountants that are under-pricing s all and eroding our businesses.
Scouser........go into law.......
Numbers
Cory, you are correct, bill 94 has changed the landscap of public practice accounting in Ontario. The regulatory PAC structure has been changed to include members of all professional designations as well as an equal number of members of the public.
Lanc, as a CA I understand your bias toward the Institute, however as a CGA I disagree that the CA designation is the "pinnacle" of the accounting world. While the training path may differ between the organizations, there are "good accountants" and "poor accountants" in each has proposed international qualitative standards as an alternative to the Institues regime of hours based competancy.
And let's not forget that all designations can perform attest functions, including audit and reviews, anywhere west of the Ontario border. Thus the barrier to inter-provincial trade that is in place in Ontario.
Personally I wish the different groups would stop in-fighting and focus on the non-designated accountants that are under-pricing s all and eroding our businesses.
Scouser........go into law.......
Numbers
I have spoken with many CGA's in Ontario and most of them did not have a clue how to perform an audit, or even the desire to do so. The issue for them is not performing an audit, but rather being able to do Notice to Readers and Reviews.Numbers said:
The CA's in Ontario have proposed that all designations be allowed to obtain a Public Accountant's Licence, however that there be just one standard for education, training, and experience. CGA's do not want this and continue to lobby because they want their own standards, in effect allowing all existing CGA's the right to perform audits without having to meet a standard criteria.
Last edited:
Numbers there are good and bad in each group, that s very true. When I get each new issue of Checkmark, the Ontario CA magazine, the first section I always look at is the discipliany area. There are always members being expelled or suspended for doing less than ethical things.
I agree with the undercutting comment on pricing for some things but generally at the high level international attest realm it has to be CA's as the International capital markets require it. No bias about the West but Ontario is still where its at as far as International dealings go and an intercompany statement attested by a CGA would not meet snuff for a US consilidation, especially under their tough new rules.
Its no different than any other industry, each group is proud of what they do and with CA's from my day part of the feeling is that the ordeal by fire we went thru is unique to the CA's . To let others in without it is like being in the Army having done the tough stuff in GMT and finding a new 1 pip that got the commission because he was a surveyor. Its all peronal bias I know.
I agree with the undercutting comment on pricing for some things but generally at the high level international attest realm it has to be CA's as the International capital markets require it. No bias about the West but Ontario is still where its at as far as International dealings go and an intercompany statement attested by a CGA would not meet snuff for a US consilidation, especially under their tough new rules.
Its no different than any other industry, each group is proud of what they do and with CA's from my day part of the feeling is that the ordeal by fire we went thru is unique to the CA's . To let others in without it is like being in the Army having done the tough stuff in GMT and finding a new 1 pip that got the commission because he was a surveyor. Its all peronal bias I know.
I would say that most CGA's do not have experience in performing audits, as most are in industry and not in practice. Auditing is part of the educational program and professional development opportunities. I have also spoken to many CA's who have no desire to perform audits. The issue here is liability. In the post Enron world, banks will look to any insured party to recover losses that they may claim resulted from financial statement information.
To be clear, the CA's proposed nothing. The Daniels report commissioned by the Ontario government to report on licencing standards, recommended changes to the licencing structure to eliminate the monolopy that was created by the old PAC (public accounting council), which of course was populated only by CA's.
The new PAC has been tasked with establishing standards that each designated body, CA's, CGA's and CMA's must meet in order to give them the rights to licence their own members. This certainly does not mean that "all CGA's" will be automatically allowed a public licence. It will set the standards that each association must meet to licence and self monitor their own members.
The issue with CGA, is that the current proposal before the AG mirrors the current CA standards of 2500 supervised billing hours in a CA training firm. There are many qualified CGA's in practice today, that will have their livelihood taken away if we must do 2500 hours of "grunt" work in a CA firm. The solution is not practical for those of us out there today. CGA's proposal is one that is used extensively throughout the world, and is competancy based vs hours based. Different standards, not lessor standards, and believe me, no less rigorous.
To be clear, the CA's proposed nothing. The Daniels report commissioned by the Ontario government to report on licencing standards, recommended changes to the licencing structure to eliminate the monolopy that was created by the old PAC (public accounting council), which of course was populated only by CA's.
The new PAC has been tasked with establishing standards that each designated body, CA's, CGA's and CMA's must meet in order to give them the rights to licence their own members. This certainly does not mean that "all CGA's" will be automatically allowed a public licence. It will set the standards that each association must meet to licence and self monitor their own members.
The issue with CGA, is that the current proposal before the AG mirrors the current CA standards of 2500 supervised billing hours in a CA training firm. There are many qualified CGA's in practice today, that will have their livelihood taken away if we must do 2500 hours of "grunt" work in a CA firm. The solution is not practical for those of us out there today. CGA's proposal is one that is used extensively throughout the world, and is competancy based vs hours based. Different standards, not lessor standards, and believe me, no less rigorous.
We can agree to disagree on this one, I was no fan of auditing and have been out of Public practice for decades. My companies use the services of 2 different CA firms and I would love to see lower fees thru competition. The mitigating factor is always the lenders comfort level with those doing the work. There is most assuredly a " club" aspect to it, one company was flat out told if we wanted the much higher financing package we required that even though we financially met all the covenats in spades the only way we would get it was to leave the smaller CA we were using at the time and go with one of the approved Big Boys. Guess what, their fees were over double what we were paying. Big surprise there.
As a soon to become CA (i will qualify in another couple of months) all I can say is that all the exams are equally tough (CMA, CGA, CA). I have looked over some of the exam papers that ppl studying for the CGA and CMA have written and didn't find any material that wasn't covered by the CA program or vice versa.
I terms of salaries, CA's tend to have a slight advantage in getting CFO/CEO type positions (but this is after putting a good 12-15 years as a qualified CA).
I don't why a lot of the Terbites have made a big fuss over auditing/public accounting as now the CICA will change the qualification requirements to allow candidates to complete an internship program in non-public accounting firms i.e. in industry (however they won't be able to perform audits until they get relevant public accounting experience). So in other words, you can get the CA designation without going through the roughly 3 yrs at an accounting firm.
Secondly, as there is a move towards IFRS (International Financial reporting Standards), it will be 2-3 yrs before the CICA re-alligns Canadian GAAP to IFRS (inspite of there being many similarities) so you may want to delay getting the designation to save yourself from re-learning GAAP (i wouldn't say this should be a major decision/hindering factor coz as accountants we're used to constantly changing rules and we can adapt).
Life at a public accounting firm - mostly sucks however you get a very good opportunity to learn best practices from a lot of companies, look at various business strategies, make business contacts which help you later on when you decide to leave for industry.
No matter what designation you get, you're looking at decent salaries (one should be able to hit a low 6 figure salary within 4-5 yrs of getting their designation). Also, it's a sellers market (especially for CAs) so it's a good time to get a designation. The job is stable. No matter what I've noticed as a CA or any other professional accountant you will ALWAYS get a job.
I agree with Numbers' comment "there are good accountants and poor accountants." I've seen a number of idiots at the Big 4 accounting firms pass the UFE and a number of brilliant ppl fail the UFE. I'm sure the similar applies for the CGA and CMA exams. Inspite of this, just having the letters to your name creates a window of opportunities.
As for babes - there are a few but nothing compared to the girls who used to take the Arts courses at my university. i've noticed once the girls get their designations they develop an attitude (maybe its just me - i could be wrong and apologise if I've offended anyone).
Hope this helps.
FJ
I terms of salaries, CA's tend to have a slight advantage in getting CFO/CEO type positions (but this is after putting a good 12-15 years as a qualified CA).
I don't why a lot of the Terbites have made a big fuss over auditing/public accounting as now the CICA will change the qualification requirements to allow candidates to complete an internship program in non-public accounting firms i.e. in industry (however they won't be able to perform audits until they get relevant public accounting experience). So in other words, you can get the CA designation without going through the roughly 3 yrs at an accounting firm.
Secondly, as there is a move towards IFRS (International Financial reporting Standards), it will be 2-3 yrs before the CICA re-alligns Canadian GAAP to IFRS (inspite of there being many similarities) so you may want to delay getting the designation to save yourself from re-learning GAAP (i wouldn't say this should be a major decision/hindering factor coz as accountants we're used to constantly changing rules and we can adapt).
Life at a public accounting firm - mostly sucks however you get a very good opportunity to learn best practices from a lot of companies, look at various business strategies, make business contacts which help you later on when you decide to leave for industry.
No matter what designation you get, you're looking at decent salaries (one should be able to hit a low 6 figure salary within 4-5 yrs of getting their designation). Also, it's a sellers market (especially for CAs) so it's a good time to get a designation. The job is stable. No matter what I've noticed as a CA or any other professional accountant you will ALWAYS get a job.
I agree with Numbers' comment "there are good accountants and poor accountants." I've seen a number of idiots at the Big 4 accounting firms pass the UFE and a number of brilliant ppl fail the UFE. I'm sure the similar applies for the CGA and CMA exams. Inspite of this, just having the letters to your name creates a window of opportunities.
As for babes - there are a few but nothing compared to the girls who used to take the Arts courses at my university. i've noticed once the girls get their designations they develop an attitude (maybe its just me - i could be wrong and apologise if I've offended anyone).
Hope this helps.
FJ
Congratulations fjdude on your soon to be designaion......tough programs no matter which one is pursued.
I also agree with your comments regarding successful employment with a designation. However I made a lot more money in industry than in practice. However had I had much less personal time, so a trade off as always.
Bear 669.......kidding about law........
I also agree with your comments regarding successful employment with a designation. However I made a lot more money in industry than in practice. However had I had much less personal time, so a trade off as always.
Bear 669.......kidding about law........
Tight deadlines,Corey said:
lot of stupid admin work to take care of which wastes most of your time,
poor staffing and budgets on audit engagements but high quality work is expected which is why you have to put in extra hours,
making up for client delays by working long hours, - if we try and overbill they can always find another auditor who'll work for less.
deal with uncooperative/dumb clients who are never willing to help and think the auditors are out to get them which is not the case (80% of my clients are like this)
working on the weekends (i have worked for the past 2 months on saturdays and some sundays) - summer months are supposed to be slow in our profession - not for me i guess
pay sucks when you think about the hours we put in (I-bankers and lawyer make much more than CAs but they put in a lot more hours)
Here's the worst thing about public accounting (Note: there's a +ve and a -ve to this) - i go out to a client for about 2-3 weeks and i'm expected to have a sufficient knowledge of their business in order to know how to audit their FS and then i get sent to another company stay there for 2 weeks and move to another one. There is a high level of expectation from my clients that I understand their systems etc. There's always this learning curve and it gets overwhelming when you go to different companies ever 2-3 weeks. It's like switiching jobs and having to learn all over again (i don't mean literally as there always things that companies have in common but it's frustrating).
I have to kiss my client's ass no matter how rude they are and be professional at all times.
Because of friggin Arthur Andersen and the whole Enron fiasco now auditing standards are becoming more stringent by the day and SOX work and other controls testing is a pain in the arse.
I'm sure others can add more negatives to working in public accounting but there are positives.
I must however respond to Numbers comment on how he's making much more -
Numbers, the salaries at the accounting firms (the bigger ones) are pretty good higher up. I'm not sure how long you stayed at your firm but the pay at the junior levels are peanuts. Unless you're a CFO/CEO at a public company i can't see you making that much more money. However note that i'm comparing you to the average partner at bigger firms who make around $500K/yr.
Not to bore people here but the CGA's were the only ones to vote against the new standards. The new PAC was comprised of 9 members who were independent public reps, 4 CA's, 2 CMA's and 2 CGA's.Numbers said:
The "used extensively" quote above is referring to those of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). Those standards were designed for developing economies and are considered "inappropriate for an advanced economy like Ontario’s – as IFAC itself acknowledges".
The big picture, existing CGA's want an easier way to qualify for a public license so that they can do Notice to Readers. Meanwhile the CA's are making it even harder for existing CA's to maintain a license, from continuing education and increase insurance requirements.
Just my two cents worth
Last edited:
