lol~ create an account for this?

Seantang,
What I had commented on ACCA/ICAEW in our previous discussion topic, "ACCA vs CPA" are the true facts but it doesn't mean that I belong to or love ACCA/ICAEW. In that topic, I also mentioned that I am a member of both CPA Aust & ICAA if you still can remember.

On our current discussion, I find that your statements are inconsistent and contradicting.

You mentioned in your earlier post "CPA is preferable to CA as it's much easier to convert to US CPA"
BUT in your latest post you mentioned "Certified Practicing Accountants of Aust, Institute of Chartered Accountants in Aust plus others are the only eligible bodies for the IQEX"..... meaning to say that both CPA(Aust) & ICAA are equally prefered based on what you said, am I right?

So you're twisting & contradicting your statements & by doing so, you're not only making a fool of yourself but you've also disgraced yourself by showing you're not sure with what you're talking.

The actual fact is that, CA is the only one preferred by the MNCs & not the CPA (eventhough there's a MRA/MOU between CPA & US CPA). As aware the CA & US CPA are equivalent in standard and quality & the exams of these 2 bodies are equally tough.

So, on the Big 4 in Aust, I even suggested to you in our previous discussion topic, to call up or email an inquiry to any of the Big 4 which one is recognised, CA or CPA. Have you done so? Most probably you know very well that only the CA is recognised & not CPA but you don't want to admit it.

Correct me if I m wrong, I guess you're also a CPA (Aust), am I right? Maybe you're hurt & angry because the true facts about the CPA is being revealed. I m a CPA too (and also a CA). In Aust, ICAA is the only premier prof accounting body that produce accountants who are technically sound, highly competent & skillful.

Come on, Seantang, we must accept the reality & cannot simply deny the true facts. If this issue is allowed to continue, it will further damage the CPA qualification. To remedy the situation, all CPAs must stand up & voice our concern & demand that the CPA Program must be set at a high standard as comparable to ICAA.

So, are you willing to do so?

Well guys, what a hot debate & I appreciate all your comments. At least now I know where does CPA stands compared to other bodies. I agree that the quality of CPA (Aust) qualification is way too low compared to other bodies. The only compliment is that it is still recognised by MIA.

Most members of major accountancy bodies use the "Chartered" or "Certified Public Accountant" designation. Both ICAA & CPA (Aust) have already existed for more than 100 years and the ICAA was granted with a Royal Charter in 1928.

Unfortunately for CPA (Aust), members only use the "Certified Practicing Accountant" designation & NOT even granted the royal charter or entitled to use "Certified Public Accountant" designation. Is it because the CPA (Aust) exam is too easy & low quality?

I also acknowledge that the "Chartered" & "Certified Public Accountant" titles are protected by law and not every prof bodies are entitled to it.

No, I don't keep track of you. In any case, it was a rhetorical statement.


Conceded. I'm guilty of grouping ICAA and ICAEW together and neglecting to correct my earlier post after quoting NABSA.

No problem, it still soundly rebuts your point that ICAA is more recognised than CPA Australia. The Americans obviously put them on par. And as far as recognition is concerned, CPA Australia is more recognised than some of the other CPAs and CAs you quoted.


Oh please lah. As if so drama. Even if I made the mistake above about ICAA and ICAEW being equal in the eyes of US CPA - the fact is that you're still wrong about CPA Australia being inferior in recognition to both of those CAs. Shouldn't you be the one who's disgraced, fool?


In actual fact, no. You don't have a monopoly on what's "actual fact".

Companies like American MNCs are pragmatic. They will favour whoever gets the job done. And in accounting, recognition and getting licensed is a big part of getting the job done.


Again, rubbish. Both ICAA and CPA Australia are regulatory bodies in Australia, able to license accountants and accounting firms that provide prescribed statutory services. The Big 4 are as pragmatic as the MNCs.


I'm not hurt or angry. I can't be bothered about whether CPA Australia or ICAA comes out tops. Would it surprise you if I said that I do not hold a professional accounting qualification? But that I just happen to hire, supervise them and approve their leave & expenses related to these professional bodies?

And for this discussion, I'm just a busybody when it comes to fanboy forumers who can present no better evidence other than ranting about the subjective difficulty of examination methods, telling people to make phone calls and largely ignoring the fact that the largest population of professional accountants, MNCs and generally the largest economy in the world recognises CPA Australia on par with or above most CA or other CPA qualifications.

Even within the Commonwealth, there are NOT many jurisdictions and/or regulatory or professional bodies which do not give equal professional standing to CPA Australia compared to CA and other CPAs.

On this "true" recognition factor alone, you ARE talking rubbish.


As I said above. Murusundram does not have a monopoly on "true facts".

The standards of the exams do not concern me. But it's whether the qualification allows the accountant to practise in various jurisdictions with the minimum additional undertaking. On this front, CPA Australia is not deficient. In fact, as far as the US is concerned, it is superior to many other qualifications, which you hold to have superior recognition.

Until the regulatory bodies in various jurisdictions change their recognition criteria, your assertions about the CPA Australia's rubbish recognition remains just that, rubbish.

This post has been edited by Murusundram: May 7 2010, 11:05 PM

No need. Your last reply was all subjective prattle based solely on your own misguided perceptions which you keep referring to as "true facts". Fact is that CPA Australia is recognised by professional bodies and regulatory bodies governing the profession - and in the US, more so than some your favourite 'other' professions.

And your response is still "call them up" or "ask the employment market" or quoting your own psychological assessment why they use practising instead of public or why there is no charter... FEEBLE. Nothing concrete, nothing published or mandated by the profession itself and NOTHING that DETRACTS from the fact that they are recognised.

Again, everything you have said is either unsubstantiated or irrelevant rubbish.

As for me being professionally qualified... what does it matter if I am or am not qualified (note that I did say "what if")? You apparently have 2 professional qualifications and you still don't know your arse from your elbow.

This post has been edited by seantang: May 8 2010, 12:26 AM

I lean towards Seantang. The question of whether CPA's exam structure will undermine its level of recognition will remain debatable for some time, but you can't really respect the opinion that CPA is a joke and comparable to PMR, despite the multitude of recognition it obtains from professional accounting bodies all over the world. I agree that the ICAA curriculum is more rigourous than CPA, but getting a CPA does not pose any technical barrier to the job functions typically performed by an accountant. And the idea that getting an ICAA after CPA would make up for any possible shortcomings entailed by CPA is immature to say the least; who really pays attention to your qualification once you begin working. Under the close scrutiny of employers, to what extent could a qualification work in your favour in portraying yourself as being competent?

Anyway, Murusundram did imply something worth bearing in mind: two fresh graduates, all other things being equal, in applying for a job; the one pursuing ICAA might have an edge over CPA students bacause the willingness to go after the rigour of ICAA might be perceived as being more committed to the accounting profession.

This post has been edited by scribdutd: May 8 2010, 02:04 PM

Mr Non-accountant or Mr 'What If' Accountant,
Thanks for your prompt reply. Congratulation on your new stupidity status - Stupid Cow.
Let me justify my reasons:
Until now, you still think that "Practising" is of a more superior or higher status than Chartered or Public despite I had done you a big favour by telling you the right or true facts (or "true facts" as what you mentioned) about the CPA (Aust) so that you would be more knowledgeable concerning the whole accounting profession. Also I had explained many times, in terms of recognition, CPA (Aus) is only recognised in Aust, NZ, M'sia, S'pore, China & HK. Unfortunately you deny the reality & you've no guts to check out with the Big 4/MNCs in regards to its recognition. An independent 3rd parties evidence are always reliable & accurate. Btw, as stupid cow, do you know what is "Independent 3rd parties evidence"?. It seems like you still think that a Proton car (Practicing) is more expensive & prestigious than a Mercedes or BMW (Chartered or Public). Isn't that make you a stupid cow?

Let me conclude (though not final) 2 scenarios abt you.

Scenario 1 as Mr Non-Accountant
As what you said, you're just a busybody non accountant who's not in the accounting profession at all. Can you answer me as non-acccountant, what you know abt the whole profession & the exams? The answer is you know NUTS becoz you're not in this profession. Basically all busybodies just create their own theories or facts irrespective whether true or false and make a big fuss of it. This applies to you.

You just 'happen' to be involved in hiring, approve leave/expenses....that relates to prof bodies, then as busybody, you made a big deal as though you know everything abt the profession. Only fools will do such thing.

I have been in this profession long enough as member of both CPA (Aust) & ICAA and I have worked in M'sia, S'pore, Aust & a short working contract of 1 year in HK (I did mention in the previuos topic). I have seen & experienced more things as qualified accountant.

I advise you to go & sit for the prof exam & get yourself into this profession, learn & expose yourself as much as possible in this profession, then only you come and talk to me. The more you give your comments as non-accountant, the more you make yourself as a fool. As proven in the previous few posts, you don't know what you're talking & all your statements are not consistent.

Scenario 2 as 'What If' Accountant
Since you mentioned 'What If', I guess maybe you're in this profession plus you're a CPA (Aust) qualified accountant. The question is IF you were really a CPA (Aust) member, why you're denying yourself as member? why you never admit it openly? This is becoz the whole CPA (Aust) qualification is no different from the PMR exam or even easier & makes it a laughing stock in the market. Therefore you're too embarassed or ashamed to admit it. There's nothing to be ashamed of, eventhough it's a rubbish qualification & many people poke fun & laugh at it, so what? Let it be.

From the beginning of previous topic until now, I openly admit that I 'm CPA (Aust) qualified & if people poke fun at it, let it be. Let me share my experience in HK with you. Some accountants in HK are quite snobbish & if they ask me which body I belong to, I would first say CPA(Aust). Then they will start to laugh & poke fun of it & say in Cantonese "Lap Sarp" meaning rubbish. When I continue to say I m also an ICAA member, they became amazed & say "its brilliant" or in Cantonese they said "Hou Yeh" or "Keng Yeh" meaning great.

So Mr Non-Accountant/'What If' Accountant, you're either falls into scenario 1 or 2 or maybe 3. I welcome your reply again (if you don't mind to upgrade your stupidity level).

Stop the ridiculous ranting, personal attacks and name calling lah... does nothing but show exactly how childish you are. You've been proven wrong, so just take it on the chin like a man. Disgraceful!

+1 Murusundram.

Technically speaking, comparing CPA (Aust) to ACCA, ICAA or ICAEW, the syllabus/topics covered under CPA (Aust) is so much lesser compared to the rest of the professional papers. I have seen a lot of CPA (Aust) who can't understand the concept of deferred tax, or can't even do up simple consolidation entries. Even people who are taking CPA (Aust) exam admit that they are taking it as it is the easiest paper, and none of them did even mention about CPA (Aust) being more superior than ACCA, or comparable with ICAA or ICAEW.

seantang, I would suggest that you take a look at the syllabus covered by CPA (Aust) and compare against ACCA, ICAA, ICAEW and you'll be able to see clearly what is the difference. Or, just speak to an ACCA grad and compare what he/she knows, against your knowledge, if you happen to be a CPA (Aust), and you'll be amazed by the gap between CPA (Aust) and the rest of the papers.

In terms of your statement that "Companies like American MNCs are pragmatic. They will favour whoever gets the job done", I do not foresee how CPA (Aust) can get the job done better than ACCA, ICAA or ICAEW grad, with their very limited knowledge on accounting.

There's no point arguing that CPA (Aust) is more superior merely because it requires a degree/any other reason. What we are looking here is the quality, and so the question that you should be looking at is-Do CPA (Aust) graduates have the same level of knowledge compared ACCA, ICAA or ICAEW. I believe this will be the most appropriate yardstick to gauge which professional qualification is better. Its not rocket science, just a simple question.

Well, I do agree that perhaps certain MNC may have preference over certain qualification, and you may be right to point out that US MNC have preference over CPA (Aust), but there are also many UK MNC out there which prefer ACCA,ICAA or ICAEW. But we aren't here to share which prof qualification is more preferred by employers. What we are talking about here is the quality.

I strongly agree with Murusundram that all CPAs must stand up & voice our concern & demand that the CPA Program must be set at a high standard as comparable to ICAA. I believe that is the right thing to do to keep up with the pace of other prof bodies, rather than limiting the exposure through simple syllabus to make life easy.

Gd job Murusundram for pointing all the facts out (though it's a little bit harsh), but you have my support.

Regards
Member of ACCA and ICAEW

This post has been edited by wilsonseeee: May 9 2010, 02:51 PM

All are to bear in mind that none of us take both profession. Unless you do, or else, none of us qualify to make a statement here (I believe its less likely for a person to have take these 2 papers).

Added to that, both qualify for MIA, so their recognition is the same @ M'sia. There's no point critic over the other profession as it does not benefit you at all.

It's up to the individual to make his/her own decision on which papers to opt for.

Lastly, for those that claimed themselves as ACCA/ICAEW should feel shameful on providing such non-evidence statement over CPA.

---

Added on May 9, 2010, 4:39 pmSir, CPA does make some changes early this year. Most of the syllabus have change.




This post has been edited by yiivei: May 9 2010, 04:39 PM

Not much changes, it's still very much the same & back to square again.

How do you know? Since you had completed the CPA program early this year, how would you know the different?

I suggest you take a look at the lists of qualifications recognised by various regulatory or professional bodies. You will be able to see clearly that they don't agree with you.


If their knowledge if so limited, then how come they get recognised by all the same bodies as you do?


You don't believe that entry criteria is also one of the cornerstones of quality? Must be the ACCA side of you talking.


Your stuff on 'quality' and knowledge is quite rich, since both your qualifications are not recognised in the US and have to take the full CPA exam, while the CPA Aus is eligible for the IQEX conversion exam.

At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding... ie. are they recognised. If you think your qualification is so superior to CPA Aus, then you should go to your association's AGM and insist that they stop giving reciprocal recognition to CPA Aus and lobby the regulators to stop recognising them.

Then come back and tell us if the management of your 'superior' organisations agree with you.

Hmm. I'm leaning towards Murusundram's argument.

I have an Auditing senior lecturer at Monash who is also the course coordinator for the Honours degree of accounting in both campuses (Caulfield and Clayton).

She is a CPA Aus holder and also a ICAA holder. She sits on the panel of some international accounting organization... and there has been strong sentiments that the CPA Aus is beginning to be more fee-oriented and is mainly interested in gaining more and more members. Many professionals in the field and also students taking CPA are disgruntled over the fact that non-accountants or those from non-accounting backgrounds can become a CPA holder easily now.

Previously, they had to do more modules or start from scratch with an accounting related degree or something like that, and now, they only need to sit for a few papers. Something along those lines.

I also spoke to many aussies and international students in my uni, and also several academicians, and they share the same sentiment. However, my lecturer still tells us that the answer to "should I do ICAA or CPA?" would be "do whatever your employer wants you to do" or do both if you can. For now.

Honestly, if any of you is right, what effect does it have? Muru are you still paying your CPA membership fees? No matter who wins there's no actual 'result' or 'output', just some ego boost, so just forget about this matter, and go back to work

I always monitor closely the latest development of CPA (Aus) as I have serious concern abt the quality of its exam.

I disagree with you on your statement. You DO NOT need to take both papers to qualify to make the statement. It is a well known fact that CPA (Aust) is easier compared to the rest of the prof papers, so if you are trying to twist and turn the fact around, you'll just end up to be the laughing stock. If you are suggesting CPA (Aust) is as tough as ACCA/ICAEW/ICAA, please do up some research before making further comments. Try to look at the syllabus, exam questions etc and tell me which one demands higher level of knowledge.



Non evidence? The evidence is out there. Stop being a laughing stock and tell people that there's no evidence that CPA (Aust) is easier/is as difficult as the others. If you do not have any idea about the structure of the papers, do yourself a favour and spend some time to do up some research. Then we talk.



I believe Selacao has already clarified this matter on my behalf.

It's good to see that there's a general increase of concern over the syllabus of CPA (Aust). For those who claimed that there's no evidence that CPA is easier than the rest/ CPA (Aust) is as difficult as the others, sorry to say this, you are just showing how contended are you with the limited knowledge you gained while being ignorant over the development of the rest of the prof qualifications. Well, whether to stay behind and continue with this sort of standard, or to raise your concern in order to keep up with the pace and development of other prof bodies, its up to you.

This post has been edited by wilsonseeee: May 9 2010, 11:33 PM

It's good to see that there's a general increase of concern over the syllabus of CPA (Aust).
[/quote]
In fact, more than 50% of CPA (Aust) members are very concern abt the low standard & quality of the entire CPA exam.

---

Added on May 10, 2010, 7:00 amI agree with all the valid points raised up by Murusundram, Wilsonseee & Grimm. It makes sense.

Let me explain on the "Recognition" issue raised up by Seantang. I agree with Murusundram that CPA (Aus) is only recognised in Aus, NZ, Msia, Spore, China & HK.

Seantang, I jz need to share this info with you, pls don't get too upset. When you said that it's recognised by other "prof bodies", it's all becoz of the MRA/MOU signed between the bodies. By signing the MRA/MOU, it does NOT mean that it's recognised by that body & more so in that country alone. Members still need to sit for the exam of that particular body or to satisfy other stringent requirements in order to be admitted as member so that they can be recognised in that particular country. Another reason of signing the MOU/MRA is none other than marketing or expansion reason. Every prof bodies wants to increase their membership so that they will become stronger & have more influence & to capture the market in another region.

Seantang, hope the above will clarify your understanding in terms of "Recognition". No offence please, we are here to share info.

Cheers.


This post has been edited by Selecao: May 10 2010, 07:00 AM

Selecao

As long as they are given exemptions or concessions, or allowed to practice in a certain jurisdiction, that means recognition... plain and simple. If these accounting bodies and regulatory bodies have any interest in maintaining quality standards, they will ensure that ALL routes meet their requirements. They will not as you've described, leave their back door unlocked.