NikiL

Couldn't agree with you more - every qualification has its different strengths and weaknesses. CIMA for example is not that strong on taxation or audit, whereas CA is. It would seem ridiculous to expect to be able to transfer CIMA direct to CA without some additional studying.

I want CA status, but I'm not naive enough to believe that it should be handed to me on a platter.

JAJ

It is unclear why ACCA and CPA Australia have been unable to negotiate mutual recognition for their qualifications.
Of course, while this situation persists, the Australian CPA qualification is of relatively little use in the United Kingdom.

Olibeneli

I think you are missing the most relevant thing...the practicing certificate.

If I were to serve the public in Oz as their accountant........I should have to learn Oz tax and law and be tested on it. That is pretty bleeding obvious or should be to the OP...if it isn't then he needs to go back to school. I should not have to be tested again on, say, costing or audit or IFRS or any generic accountancy issue.

Now, if I am a ICAEW, ACCA or CIMA but want to work in commerce in Oz and have little to do with tax and the law, then a recognition would seem pretty relevant and sensible for getting a job. Debits are still on the left down under aren't they ?

I know many qualified accountants that are a mile away from tax and law but heavily involved in negotiating deals......bloody good negotiators. Should they have to take exams they did 20 years ago to do a job that is far removed from the content of those exams?

Local tax and law advice does need local tax and law expertese period.

RCoight

Other than (maybe) OP I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

This is the bit I don't agree with and I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think ACCA is as intellectually rigorous as ICAEW. This is based on my experience of working alongside / above ACCAs.

On the other hand I always like to look at people's actual work experience and that usually has primacy over the qualification. Especially where, say, a first time passer with ACCA and several years relevant experience is up against an ACA who took several goes to pass all the exams.

What I don't agree with is the idea that doing one type of qualification should automatically qualify you for any other that you choose. That to me seems to be the point of OP's post.

NikiL

I couldn't agree with you more on this one - and for exactly the same reason. I'm not an ACA btw so no bias from that perspective.

Olibeneli

Have you taken the ACCA exams recently to make such a bold statement ?

You experience of a few ACCAs is not exactly relevant nor enough to make a sweeping statement like that in todays world. They may have been the case 15 years ago. ICAEW enrolments are falling I believe.

There are excellent people who have different quals.....and likewise vice versa with some people who struggle yet have different quals.

I have 4 ICAEWs working for me at least plus some ACCAs and CIMAs....very easy for me to see who is sharp but it has little to do with the flavour qual they have. What is clear though is the breadth of their studies and I believe your comment is outdated.

RCoight

The irony is that when I have been recruiting I'm very keen to look beyond qualifications and look at other factors such as experience, personality, team fit etc. My general point of view is that it's the process of having done the qualification that matters, not necessarily which qualification.

I expect in reality our opinions on what matters in terms of skills, qualifications and abilities in our workforces are very close, despite what the posts on this thread might make you think.

I too have worked closely with CIMAs, ACAs and ACCAs and I too have my opinions as to which qualifications give what benefits. I therefore stand by my comments though I have no issue with you saying what you say!

NikiL

ACCA is probably broader than ICAEW, but I agree with RCoight that the exams are not as rigourous. ICAEW enrollments are most likely falling as it seems to be viewed as an auditors qualification rather than a business qualification - hence more people go for ACCA or CIMA. It will be interesting to see what happens with the new ACCA case study requirement, as in my personal experience its the big picture perspective that ACCA seem to miss.

Bermudashorts

ACCA is also chartered, as is CIMA. Hence one of the two C' in ACCA.

It is the same level of qualificaiton as ICAEW and CIMA as recognised by governing accountancy boards, although it does still suffer from some misunderstanding even in the UK as the holders generally do not train in practice (although some do). It may not be as well known in Australia and therefore some understandable hesitancy for employers, but that does not meal it is a lesser qualification, like ACT is for instance.

Anyway I have just joined today and very interesting discussion, certainly good to know in advance that there is this perception as an ACCA myself.

pusky123

I simply cannot agree with this. I'm an FCCA, and in my experience in industry and public sector ACCA's seem to have the most expertise. Having said that , a couple of the most brilliant minds I have met are CIPFA qualified, which is deemed by most (including me) to be one of the least demanding qualifications.

Conversely, I've met ICAEW's who might know very well how to rip a set of books apart, but they dont have a clue about putting a set of books together. I guess it depends on an individuals experience - put me into an audit role and I'd probably struggle.

I'd also say that if CIMA has secured mutual recognition then ACCA should too - CIMA is (was, in my day) weak on tax. There can surely be no debate about that?

louH

Its my belief that while ACCA and CPA compete for members in Asia there will never be mutual recognition.

Comparing ACCA to Chartered Accountants (from any Institute) is I think a little unfair. Those from a chartered background tend (and I stress tend!) to be brighter students coming directly to the profession. ACCA has in the past tended (that word again) to attract those coming to the profession later in their career - perhaps after gaining some experience. I think its less about the qualification are more about the abilities and motivations of those holding the quals.

I'm FCCA and hope I have not insulted any ACCA's! I personally think its a great qual. I won't be converting to CPA as I feel further study will yeld me little (if any) further skill. If I were to study again I'd specilize in a specific area in order to offer employers a higher skill level in that particular area.

I accept that some employers will discriminate against me purely on the basis of my quals (ignoring years of experience), but then some will discriminate against me because I am British, or because I am female. That's just part of life!

JAJ

Why two institutes, one from the United Kingdom and the other from Australia, feel a need to "compete" in third countries for membership is something of a mystery.



Your choice as to what you do, it's your career. But if you are going to make the effort to convert, it would usually make more sense to do the CA Program rather than CPA.

louH

While I agree that CA makes more sense I did talk to ICAA and was told I would need to go back into practise to gain the relevant experience. I could not go through that again - once in a lifetime is enough for anyone! As far as I know conversion to CA via ICAEW is not an option. As I understand it ICAA don't recognize CA membership via this method. (Additionally I only know one ICAA member and need two for conversion - seem to know a lot of scottish chartered for some reason)

Would be delighted to hear from anyone who thinks/knows any of the info I have gathered is incorrect.

Bermudashorts

ACCA is deemed equivalent to the other accountancy qualifications by the accounting standards boards, who we have to assume look into the syllabus, exam difficulty etc. So I think that some of the comments on this thread that the qualification is not as intellectually demanding in its content are not properly researched and based on anecdotal evidence nt facts.

But the ACCA qualification does attract people who come into accountancy late or without a degree or take the exams over many years. Not all of course, but some. Whereas with ICAEW a typical candidate will come in straight from univeristy and finish all the exams in three years. If I were recruiting, had two candidates one a newly qualified ACCA and one a newly qualified ICAEW but I knew literally *nothing* else about them, I would take the ICAEW feeling it were a safer bet. (And I am ACCA).

But if I had all the information and had a ACCA with good academics, passed the exams in a reasonable time frame and had good work experience, I would not see ACCA as an advantage or a disadvantage over other qualifications.

I have not asked ICAA about converting to CA / CPA and don't intend to as I have no intention of doing any more studying. I am FCCA, qualified 13 years ago and have held senior finance positions in large global organisations. Of course the job market is tight at the moment, but in the right conditions I expect my experience to be more important than what syllabus I followed in 1992 - 1995 when I did my exams. I have discussed with two of the big accountancy recruitment agencies and they both concurred with that opinion.

JAJ

Not true! As far as I am aware, you can work in any organisation provided you are supervised by an Australian CA.

They don't - but having ICAEW through direct entry might help your CV somewhat due to better "brand recognition".