Same as the other thread, this statement is rubbish. The professional recognition is there. For American MNCs with offices in Australia (they outnumber Aussie MNCs btw), CPA is preferable to CA as it's much easier to convert to US CPA.

This post has been edited by seantang: May 6 2010, 02:09 PM

Let me put it this way. Australian CPA is the only CPA qualification eligible for the American IQEX exam. Not HKICPA, ICPAS or MICPA etc. And the Americans put it on par with a selected clutch of CAs. Even your beloved ACCA or ICAEW is not eligible.

"Currently, only members of the following professional bodies are eligible for the IQEX:

Certified Practicing Accountants of Australia
Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
Instituto Mexican de Contadores Publicos
Chartered Accountants in Ireland
New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants

Candidates who are not members of one of these organizations and want to be licensed as a CPA in the U.S., must pass the Uniform CPA Examination."

NABSA


Perhaps it's you who doesn't have much knowledge with regards to American MNCs. I however, am in the fortunate position to be involved in hiring accountants into one.

All in all, in terms of professional recognition on the other side of the Atlantic, you are talking rubbish.

This post has been edited by seantang: May 6 2010, 06:56 PM

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

You listed many qualifications - all of which are supposed to be "more recognised" than CPA Aus. I was not specifically talking about any particular qualifications as the net I cast captures many qualifications. My only concession is that I have loosely used the word 'reciprocal' to encompass all forms of recognition, mutual or otherwise.

In any case, anyone who has CPA Aus doesn't need reciprocals or exemptions from ACCA or ICAEW in terms of recognition.

In Malaysia, CPA Aus can join MIA just like ACCA, ICAEW or ICAA. With MIA membership, they can practice as accountants or apply for an audit licence from MOF.

In Singapore, ICPAS admits CPA Aus members just like ACCA, ICAEW or ICAA after a pre-admission course and local law proficiency test. After that they can apply to ACRA for public practice.

In Australia, both CPA Aus and ICAA both issue public practice certifications that allows holders to provide public accounting services in Australia. Members of CPA Aus, ICAA and NIA with the prescribed experience are eligible to apply to ASIC to be registered as a Registered Company Auditor.

In the US, NABSA allows CPA Aus and ICAA members to take the IQEX conversion exam, while most of the other CA and CPA qualifications have to go through the entire uniform CPA exam. After that, they can get a licence from one of the states.

HKICPA which is the licensing body in HK and it has reciprocals in the form of automatic conversion with most of the CA bodies but only a MRA with CPA Aus where they have additional requirements to fulfil as opposed to automatic conversion. However, if this is seen as 'recognition inferiority' of CPA Aus in HK, then ICAEW, ACCA etc must be seen inferior in the US.

Anyway, the list goes on.... but it's late, I'm tired and you're not worth it.

THIS is recognition. No amount of subjective opinion about exam standards or having "practising vs public" in the name or childish behaviour is going to change that. That's why I said if anyone is unhappy about CPA Aus being recognised as so, then MIA members should lobby MIA and MOF, ICPAS members should lobby ICPAS and ASIC, ICAA should lobby ACRA to remove their recognition of CPA Aus. ACCA members don't need to lobby anyone as they don't get to regulate anything.

So, again... I go back to your original statement that CPA Aus is not recognised... well, it's still rubbish statement. And you are still a pathetic name-calling retard... but then again, where else do rubbish statements come from, no?

This post has been edited by seantang: May 11 2010, 04:14 PM

So, you are expecting me and other people reading this thread to put the subjective and unsubstantiated opinions of a few anonymous forumers who might or might not even be in the accounting profession ABOVE the published and implemented recognition criteria of the established accounting governing bodies in multiple countries?

You must be drunk or high, or both. Get real.

All of you CPA bashers should simply get a life, get a girlfriend or pay money to get laid or something. Until the day that CPA Aus is no longer recognised by the profession, whatever you say is just your petty, little opinions. And from all your arguments that CPA Aus is too easy, this pettiness probably stems from the fact that you are angry that you suffered more than the CPA Aus folks to get your professional qualification but are unable to obtain a higher payback in terms of recognition and career progression. If you feel so strongly about it, then for goodness' sakes grab a hold of your balls and do something about it. Attend the AGMs and state your point. Better yet, those of you who say you are CPA Aus members, attend the CPA Aus AGM and state your case. Or write to their "In The Black" monthly magazine. Screw them thoroughly for letting their standards dive. What's the point of shooting from the darkness in LYN?

Anyway... this thread has become meaningless. Revive it to take victory when the professional bodies stop recognising CPA Aus. Otherwise, put your tails between your legs and slink quietly away as you have been vanquished by published facts and reality.

Selecao, while you're at it... can you also check if Murusundram has gotten his head out of his ass yet? Last time, it was so far up.., it wasn't funny anymore.

This post has been edited by seantang: May 13 2010, 12:00 PM

People who read this thread can just Google for terms like "CPA Australia" + "low quality" or "inferior" or "substandard" etc.

I did and all I could find was this thread and a couple others in LYN, and a couple of discussions in Facebook. If you take the time to read them, you'd find that one or two nicknames appear in all of these... both LYN and Facebook. And the arguments plus the tone, phrasing etc is the same. Look at those people here who have been most vocal against CPA Aus. What's their post count? Is the same person posting the same arguments using multiple accounts?

Isn't it strange so few other people have posted blogs, written articles or posted similarly unsavoury comments about CPA Aus' lack of quality on the whole Google-able internet? Australians are not a shy bunch. Is it not strange that none of them are as vocal as the few chaps in this thread?

In any case, if anyone has doubts or complaints about CPA Australia... well here's your chance to make your voice heard. The outgoing President of CPA Australia has a wordpress blog and he posted a blogpost saying how good the quality of CPA candidates are. Go to his blog and debunk his claims so that we can all see how Richard Petty responds.

http://richardpettyblog.wordpress.com/2010...0%93-an-update/

Or maybe you can email the new incoming president, Low Weng Keong. He's the former Managing Partner of EY Singapore. He will definitely have some very interesting answers why he is inextricably associating himself with such a worthless organisation.

http://vrl-financial-news.com/accounting/t...cpa-austra.aspx

This post has been edited by seantang: Oct 2 2010, 08:01 AM

You must be using another version of Google from me

And I'm still eagerly waiting for your enlightening comments on Richard Petty's blog.

By the way, stop quoting statistics without quoting the source. Otherwise it's just unsubstantiated hearsay. And quoting "quotes" from your acquaintances... is it even possible to come up with a lower quality argument?

How about this one... slightly better quality than your argument because it's my true experience: I have not met one ICAEW or ACCA out of the 250 finance people in my MNC's Asian division. My conclusion is that ICAEW and ACCAs are shunned by MNCs, obviously for lack of quality and suitability. And since none of our divisional CFOs and functional finance directors are ICAEW or ACCA holders, I also conclude that ICAEW and ACCA are not suited to be CFOs.

This post has been edited by seantang: Oct 3 2010, 08:02 PM

No, my comments were designed to show how worthless hearsay and unsubstantiated comments are.

Take a dart, throw it at a list of CFOs of companies listed on DJI, DAX or Topix etc., where the majority of MNCs are.

What did Richard Petty have to say about your "proof" when you commented on his blog?

Source?

You make a claim, then prove it. Otherwise do not say you have backed your claims with facts and figures.

Even those inferior MCQ-loving CPA Aust holders know this basic rule of research, statement and debate.

Why have you not presented your arguments to Richard Petty in his blog and posted his response here? Isn't that a more logical step if you want to raise awareness of this issue, rather than post unsubstantiated comments in this thread?

You are forming a worldview on something based on what a trainee said and arguments that when Googled, are confined to a couple of threads in LYN and Facebook where the "issue" is raised and answered by the same one or two people?

I have a whole Fortune 50 MNC that will only pay a technician's salary to a fully qualified ACCA holder if he does not have a degree as well. Would you then accept a motherhood statement that ACCA is like a diploma at most?

This post has been edited by seantang: Oct 7 2010, 07:27 PM

Why don't you verify all the comments that you and White Knights have made first.

One more time... why do you few supposedly disgruntled CPA members think it's better to spew wildly on LYN rather than to air your views on Richard Petty's blog and get answers straight from the horse's mouth?

Because there's been 8 pages of hearsay and my friend's friend said anecdotes. The external blog is where the proof of the pudding is.

Unless those individuals are legion, I don't see how their personal experiences can extend to making motherhood statements about "all accounting firms", "all CPA holders", "all companies", "everyone", "all Australians" and such, or giving specific %s and ratios about who are in which position etc.