Should i reply to that? I think no. It will only embarass myself like how the chap before me do. I dont even want to quote it in my reply.

Since you are able to represent all accountants in voicing out our concerns? (Assuming you are one as you claimed) Why dont you tell them to CPA Aus?

Why should I tell anything to CPA Aust when I am not a member? And why should I even bother? Why don't you call for this forum to be taken down and everybody address everything everywhere else?

Please get your perspectives right man.

end of the day, CPA recognition is lower than CA. Based on the fact that all big4 in Aust deem their employee to take CA.

Good enough, CPA - go and do your mcq please

This post has been edited by violin_player84: Oct 12 2010, 06:41 PM

How exactly do the Aussie Big4 "deem" their employees anyway?

Are you a CA? If you are, I'm just wondering what kind of marking standards are used, since they don't use MCQ.

Below is another comment I found in google:

CA:
Reputation: Prestigious
Region: Well recognised in western countries, (Europe, Canada, US, etc)
Course: very structured, 6 compulsory units, EXTREMLY DIFFICULT (if you thought some uni subjects are hard, they are nothing to what you will be doing in CA), weekly lectures, tutorial, as well as group assignments and exam.
Duration: 1 subject per semester, 3 semesters per year, therefore you can complete it in 2 years if you enrol every semester.
Bottomline: This is the one to go for if you’re willing to go the extra yard to stand out from the crowd, but expect many late nights of studying.

CPA:
Reputation: More “basic”, everyone’s got one these days…
Region: Well recognised in asia and south east asia.
Course: 4 compulsory subjects, 3 electives (course contents recently changes, before there are only 3 core subjects), no classes, no assignments, just 1 exam per subject (mostly multiple choice)
Duration: up to 3 subjects per semester, 2 semester per year, you can complete in 1 year if you like (but there’s a 3 year work experience requirement before you qualify for the license)
Bottomline: Easy to complete, experienced jobs usually require "CA” only and not "CPA".

Also, I think a CA can convert to CPA without doing anything where as a CPA will not be able to convert to CA (need to take the course from scratch), but I forgot where I saw it…

This post has been edited by Def: Oct 14 2010, 09:20 AM

Patently untrue.

which one more recognised in ASIA? I heard the professional qualification is useless if it is not recognised in the home country. Is ICAEW more recognised in the US?
You know HKCPA is a CPA but it is a member of GAA but not recognised in Malaysia right?

I am now considering to take ACCA or ICAEW.
But it seems ACCA is more recognised in ASIA since everybody holds it. Any suggestion for me? ACCA is cheap and I only need to take 6 more papers. ICAEW is more expensive and I have to take 8 more papers+ 3 advanced paper.

This post has been edited by Materazzi: Oct 14 2010, 01:03 PM

If you want to be a commercial accountant, study whatever you want as long as it will recognized by the local professional body. As business skill, networking and survivor skills will earn you the big bucks.

If you want to be a professional accountant (Ie : with an accounting firm) then stick with sound professional qualifications. I have colleagues which hold CPA, ICAEW, ACCA, MICPA, .......etc. This is the normal perception :
ICAEW/CA : Students are more savvy as they require heavy applicational and practical skills. One of the rule of ICAEW is you MUST WORK AND STUDY at the same time so it promotes applicational skills. And the fact the last few papers are purely case study (a book) so your analysis and applications are important. So they have advantage to be in higher managerial position. Most of the CFOs and CEOs in Europe are ICAEW holders. Same goes to Tony Fernandes (also acca holder).

ACCA : They are deemed very strong in terms of technical knowledge even exceed ICAEW (supported by ICAEW students) hence they will be suitable to be auditors which requires heavy application in accounting standards. But they are deemed weaker in other areas like soft skills bcos they are not tested on this aspects compared to degree holders.

CPA : Well you are all the better judge here. Mostly taken by Aussie grads cos its more relevant for them. Normally Monash students.

Does including MCQ in the exam serves as a yardstick to determine the difficulty levels of the exam?
CFA doesn't seems to be easy.

Anyhow, recently I went to the Australian education fair in PWTC and enquire about the CPA Aus program at their booth.
It seems, other than MCQ they claims to have case studies and subjective questions like any other professional exams as well.
Can someone who have taken the CPA Aus confirm this?

As I'm currently considering whether to take CPA Aus or MICPA now.
I'm not quite into ACCA actuallly. There seems to be tonnes of ACCAs in the market right now.
Do not recommend me ICAEW as well. I know my limit.
While ICAA to me is quite new in Malaysia market. Employers will go like "Har?" when they hears ICAA.

BTW, i've compared the price/fees of both CPA Aus and MICPA. It seems that there is not much difference. (It's all about the moolah)

CPA Aus = AUD 785 per module [I have 6 more to go after exemptions]
MICPA = RM3,000 per module [I have 5 more to go]

Which comes to about the same amount after considering the exchange rates. Both of them are roughly RM15k.

How if I want to be a financial controller in the future? FC only needs strong technical accounting stuffs, so is ACCA right for me?

Many people hold ACCA in ASIA as ICAEW in UK, so is ACCA better for networking here right?

It seems easier to get ACCA than ACA ICAEW since we have to get training contract first if we do ICAEW. I am working in small audit firm which is not a approved ICAEW training firm

This post has been edited by Materazzi: Oct 14 2010, 02:17 PM

The MCQs in the CPA exam is easy & answers are directly from books.

MCQs in CFA is very difficult & you have to dig deep underground for the answers.

My instinct is that 99% of CEOs do not have professional accounting qualifications. In fact, I would opine that only a small percentage started their careers as accountants.

As for CFOs, there would certainly be more professional accounting qualification holders. But I think that many, if not the majority, would be degree holders with no professional accounting qualifications. Especially those who come from a treasury, banking or business analysis background - which is the usual breeding ground for mid-large company CFOs rather than controllers/accounting. At a CFO level, the key finance concerns are funding, order-to-cash, investor relations, M&A/use-of-funds economic evaluation, market & competitor analysis and people management (upwards and downwards)... none of the things for which any professional accounting qualification has any practical value.

This post has been edited by seantang: Oct 14 2010, 05:32 PM

I've done a bit of research, it's rather bare minimal and not complete because how time consuming it is, but it should be enough to tell u that we don't need professional qualifications to be CFOs


Attached File(s)
 Fortune_global_100___CFOCEO_representation.zip ( 32.34k ) Number of downloads: 115

+1.

Professional qualifications are only useful if you're going to work in public accounting. Apart from the accounting firms, nobody in the private sector has a mandatory requirement that you must possess a professional accounting qualification before you can join or are promoted. I could have left out some obscure industry/employer that might make it compulsory... but I don't think so. Those ads that say that CA/CPA preferred... that's for screening purposes if the candidate has no track record of significant responsibilities with a significant or reputable employer. If you're applying for a CFO/FD/FC job, coming from a business partner role making finance decisions for a billion USD of revenue or assets in a Fortune company... trust me, they are not going to care whether you have a professional accounting qualification or not, much less which one you have.

And you'll notice by scanning through ThanatosSwiftfire's file... that most of the CFOs invariably have MBAs. Many of them are not even accounting trained... but rather are financially savvy.

So are most CFOs from big 4?
That is in the US but in UK, the data showed 55 of FD of FTSE100 from ICAEW,9 from CIMA, 6 from ICAS, 5 from ACCA, 5 from SAICA. 80% of FDs hold professional qualifications. And they don't have MBA!!
In OZ,70-90% of FDs of ASX hold CA or CPA.

This post has been edited by Materazzi: Oct 15 2010, 11:43 AM

Link please?

No need link to prove that. Everyone knows about it.

You're committing a logical fallacy :
16. APPEAL TO THE CROWD: (ad populum or playing to the gallery) refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Often the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.

As an auditor, I will need a source document, otherwise your claim cannot be corroborated. Since you can cite numbers, I'm sure you got your data from somewhere, so all I need, is that "somewhere"

The point is what I can get if I'm giving you a source?
Many people seem ignorance, sometimes you have to believe without seeing the source, it is the name of faith. They need facts, if warren buffett needs facts then he will not become rich. Because of that, many auditors are not rich??

This one is the source: http://www.accountancymagazine.com/Accy_Ma...ay%20survey.pdf

Can you say that I'm committing a logical fallacy?
Whether I provide a link for source or not I'm still correct right?

---

Added on October 15, 2010, 2:17 pmAnd what I see from the long term tenure of the FDs of FTSE, CIMA qualifieds are longer in their tenure. Most of them as a FDs from 90s.

This post has been edited by Materazzi: Oct 15 2010, 02:17 PM

At least you're not drawing figures out of the sky, that's all I'm asking for. And until you prove that you're not drawing figures out of the sky, you're still committing a logical fallacy by claiming that it is 'common' knowledge. Just saying everyone knows it, is equivalent to me saying every 1/5 malaysian is chinese, but would you know until you did a census or some form of sampling?

And the argument on the need for 'facts' would make me not rich, is irrelevant. We're having a discussion, and therefore we should support our claims. If you don't support your claims, what you're giving is just lousy hearsay.

Anyway, thanks for the link. It's good to know that not everyone's pulling numbers from their pockets. There's a saying that 9/10 statistics are made up on the spot.