[law0915]

What are any voting member thoughts on this? I’m still trying to understand the benefit to licensed CPAs. I don’t have or ever intend to get the “CGMA” cert.

I voted No 🙂

Before You Vote On the AICPA-CIMA Merger, Follow the Money

Also-gotta love the way the author put it “…..Chartered Global Management Accountant” (CGMA). For its part, the AICPA sold CGMA certificates initially to any member who wanted to pay the fee. Perhaps sensing the sham of gaining a new credential without even having to pass a test of competency, only about 10% of the AICPA members bought in.”

“Hence, there is a real possibility that the public will be confused regarding the distinction between a real CPA and non-CPA CGMA — and a wide gulf separating the two in the form of competency.”

REG 77 Feb14
BEC 13*, 79 Aug14
FAR 64**, 76 Nov14
AUD 89 Feb15

*Exited exam after first testlet
**Only studied F1-F6 out of 10 Becker chapters

Licensed Arizona CPA

[ScarletKnightCPA]

I was waiting to see a discussion regarding this merger here. I too am trying to understand the benefits versus the disadvantages. So far all I've received have been emails telling me to vote yes, but no real breakdown of why other than it will make the AICPA more globally competitive, and no actual support to demonstrate that this is a true statement.

I doubt that the reason they did not buy in to the CGMA certification is due CPAs thinking it was a sham. In my conversation with others, I was surprised by how many CPAs knew nothing about the CGMA… even on this forum! Additionally, the AICPA has done the same in the past for other certificates.

Far: 76 (Wiley Test Bank)
Aud: 77 (Wiley Test Bank)
Reg: 61, 76 (Wiley book, Wiley Test Bank)
Bec: 86 (Wiley Test Bank)

MBA in progress

[law0915]

I think they thought it was a sham or even maybe unethical knowing what it took to get licensed. As a CPA, the idea if an organization giving a certification solely based on “experience” as a complementary credential to the CPA, insinuating the CPA isn't enough, with no exam is a sham to me. How much value do people put on these credentials if they're easy to get?..I mean easy to buy?

REG 77 Feb14
BEC 13*, 79 Aug14
FAR 64**, 76 Nov14
AUD 89 Feb15

*Exited exam after first testlet
**Only studied F1-F6 out of 10 Becker chapters

Licensed Arizona CPA

[PleaseDontDeleteThanks]

My office had several people join AICPA just for the letters; however, our most skeptical auditors (fraud investigators) stayed away, and are worried that their credibility would be tarnished.

FAR 72, 89
BEC 80
REG 90
AUD 79

[law0915]

I share your fraud investigator's sediments-I'd actually feel embarrassed obtaining the credentials that way. I'd be very particular about letters after a name. e.g. never using MBA after a name. What is worse is they keep spamming my e-mail with the state boards and have people even commenting on accounting sites pushing it and debating others' opposition to it. I can understand for people that are in the business of making money from CPA dues, CPA prep, CPE, etc. but for CPA candidates and CPAs that likely the only credential/license/cert we will ever need and it is THE prestigious golden standard. My mom who works at a grocery in the meat department told a random customer about me being a CPA and their response was “wow that's HARD!”. Word gets around and makes it that more rewarding. Anyways I fully support the AICPA with regards to the CPA as it is in our interest and they work hard for us in that regard maintaining the brand and the fitness of the exam, but I don't need anymore friends 🙂

One last thing-I was at my state society of CPAs volunteering months ago, the lady said that the CGMA was becoming a “big deal”..I rolled my eyes and said good luck justifying for those that didn't sit for an exam. Her response was “but there's an exam now” *rolls eyes*

REG 77 Feb14
BEC 13*, 79 Aug14
FAR 64**, 76 Nov14
AUD 89 Feb15

*Exited exam after first testlet
**Only studied F1-F6 out of 10 Becker chapters

Licensed Arizona CPA

[ScarletKnightCPA]

Well my company was pushing the CGMA certificate through email communication regarding learning opportunities, and my company was a major fortune 100 company. This occurred like the month that the test came out. Of course, it was probably from some HR person who may not have known that the test had just been rolled out for it that very month.

I think that the one thing that the CGMA does signal is that professionals who obtained it are people who are keeping up-to-date regarding the current developments of the profession. A lot of folks who didn't secure it when they could simply were not aware of it.

Anyway, I want to hear a more balanced perspective regarding the merger, so far all the communication I have received that it's great and wonderful and amazing. Feels kind of biased to me.

Far: 76 (Wiley Test Bank)
Aud: 77 (Wiley Test Bank)
Reg: 61, 76 (Wiley book, Wiley Test Bank)
Bec: 86 (Wiley Test Bank)

MBA in progress

[ProudCPA]

I hold both the CPA and CGMA designations, and I voted yes for the proposal for this next step in the AICPA and CIMA joint venture. The idea of bringing CGMA to the US is not included in the proposal because that has already passed. As a member of the AICPA, I look forward to being part of a more international association, which is a topic being proposed with this vote. Many more CPAs are taking international secondments, and the combining of forces between AICPA and CIMA will help provide more resources for these secondments. Also, the international presence of AICPA and CIMA will help us influence international standards that inevitably affect standards in the US. The association being proposed will make us more competitive in the world overall, which benefits members of both AICPA and CIMA. For more information, see: https://accountinghorizons.org/

[law0915]

ProudCPA, Interesting you registered solely to reply to this one topic and have never contributed to this forum, but felt so strongly about this particular topic it compelled you to register to reply. You must be that guy or girl from the AICPA or state societies going around commenting on every blog about this topic pushing it. We are Americans (most of us) and the CPA is an American credential. Non-Americans come to the USA to sit for the exam and become a US licensed CPA and it has a global presence that way. I trust the AICPA already has a strong global presence and has long before the CIMA and will can grow the AICPA body, with that name, to represent America in the global world-there doesn't need to be multiple associations or a new association merging the two. There doesn't need to be a separate body or have a politically correct name change-The CPA is the only credential needed for accounting in the USA and likely globally and is likely the most sought after credential in the world. I'm not interested in a sham credential which has no relevance to practice as a CPA in US public or private accounting. Industry and business want CPAs…not “CGMAs”. Congrats on the CGMA-how was the exam? How many hours did it take to prepare?

REG 77 Feb14
BEC 13*, 79 Aug14
FAR 64**, 76 Nov14
AUD 89 Feb15

*Exited exam after first testlet
**Only studied F1-F6 out of 10 Becker chapters

Licensed Arizona CPA

[Anonymous]

law0915 – I just registered today to reply on this thread so let me me completely transparent in why and how.

I am a 34 year old CPA licensed in both AZ and SD. I recently sat for the CGMA exam and received that credential as well. I only received my license 3 years ago, however, I have been in public accounting since 2002 (I started with a small tax firm while finishing my accounting degree, graduated in 2005 and took 8 years to make the time to sit for the exam and pass while working in both tax and audit for large firms). I moved to SD last summer and transitioned from public to business & industry.

I am on a task force at the AICPA of young CPAs who believe that the proposed joint venture between the AICPA and CIMA is a well considered proposal that allows the AICPA to plan for the changing future. I am not paid by the AICPA in any way and the only benefit I receive from participating is to my own career so please be certain that my reasons for posting here are purely selfish and do not reflect my need to “sell” for the AICPA.

A few things for you to consider –

(1) The CGMA designation was offered to licensed CPAs at a fee initially because the AICPA believed that those with a CPA license would already possess the essential knowledge for obtaining a CGMA. It is correct that roughly 10% of the membership took advantage of that opportunity and that was likely due to the “sham” argument posted above. I was one that did not want to “buy” a credential. However, the reality is that most CPAs do not have the skills that are necessary for the CGMA. I know this because I spent over 60 hours studying for the CGMA and the exam was intense. I barely passed (received a score of 90 and 80 is passing). The exam tests your proficiency not only in your technical knowledge, but in how you apply your business knowledge, understanding of people and your leadership. During the 3.5 hour exam, I literally never stopped writing (no multiple choice by the way, 100% case study with only written responses). I invite you to research the competency framework for the CGMA. It will help understand the changes you will see to the CPA exam for 2017 (i.e. the CPA competencies are changing because CPAs are realizing that it takes more than just technical skills to be a great CPA.)

(2) The proposed joint venture has little to do with the CGMA. This is an opportunity for CPAs (through the AICPA) to leverage the resources and locations that CIMA already has. CIMA has been certifying management accountants globally for years. Although you make valid points regarding the CPA brand in the US, you are not correct regarding brand recognition outside the US. The AICPA has been and will continue to work on the CPA brand globally (including that candidates can actually sit for the exam outside the US), however, leveraging CIMA's already built international presence allows us to do this at a much faster pace.

(3) What's the down side? Why vote no? On the plus side – we now have access to increased advocacy efforts in the accounting profession as a whole, we have access to the business acumen and leadership education that CIMA has already developed and tested, we get the benefit of a global reach, we have a say in how management accounting is regulated, our membership dues remain the same, and much more. The down side is that you vote no and everything stays the same.

I know change is scary and when I first heard the proposal I thought it wouldn't matter either way, but the reality is that the world is becoming more and more global and if we want the CPA designation to survive and flourish that globalization we need to be ahead of the curve and leverage every opportunity we have. I can't see how this would negatively impact me so I voted yes. Yes to moving forward, yes to innovating, yes to me having a say in how valuable my designations are. Thanks for asking your questions and making your points! That is the beauty of voting, we all have a say. I hope you will respond if you have more comments or questions that I can directly answer and although I know you weren't happy with ProudCPA (or me for that matter) only registering to join this post, I hope you will give both our comments consideration.

Congrats on passing your exams! It is a huge accomplishment and regardless on how you vote, we are all CPAs and need to protect each other!

[Anonymous]

I'm not a voting member of the AICPA, so didn't originally post here…but since the long-time-members of this forum are so one-sided in their posting (and only 3 total have posted), I guess I'll go ahead and post anyway to provide a post from the other side from a long-time member. I've been here nearly 3 years and have posted in over 1600 topics, so guess I'm allowed to comment. 😉

I think having the AICPA and CIMA merge kinda makes sense. The environment we work in – as business people and as accountants – is becoming increasingly global. Our policies are accordingly becoming more global. For example, standards are changing to try to make GAAP and IFRS more similar. In order for the CPA to remain a competitive designation going forward, it needs to have a global acceptance. Having its administering organization – the AICPA – be merged with an international accounting organization would help move towards that. Right now, the CPA is the American accounting certification, and there's different accounting certifications for different countries. What if the CPA could become the international standard? Wouldn't that be protecting the CPA? Some certification is going to become the international standard, and it might as well be ours.

More importantly than that, though, in order to move forward in an increasingly international world, it's importantly to have an increasing level of international input. Merging is an easy way to gain that input. I'm less sure why CIMA would want to merge than why AICPA would want to merge, as I'm not sure what CIMA would have to gain, but I can easily see what AICPA has to gain. Once upon a time, all we had to do was keep up with what was happening in our own city-state. Then in our state-size region. Then for a long time keeping up with our country was more than sufficient. But now, we need to be keeping up with and making decisions based on global factors. Poor accounting practices in a foreign country that causes their stock market to be unreliable can cause our stock market to tank, affecting our clients. So, having accounting standards uniform globally is important. And…that means that having ours uniform with other countries is important to the other countries, too.

As I look to the future, I see a lot of reasons that having standardized accounting standards makes sense, and very few reasons they don't. If we're going to have standardized accounting standards, why not have merged overseeing bodies like the AICPA and CIMA?

[ScarletKnightCPA]

That's what I want to know. Is there a down side. So far the AICPA is making it sound like it is all gravy. If this is the case, why haven't we engaged in the creation of a global organization in the past?

For instance, the entire goal towards convergence with IFRS had some very real down sides. This included giving up ownership of the shaping process of accounting standards and moving towards standards with less precisely defined rules which allows organizations to play games with ‘immateriality' and in my mind actually reduces standardization of financial reporting.

By the way, your argument in favor of the CGMA being initially given out without a test appears to be more of an argument against it actually.

Far: 76 (Wiley Test Bank)
Aud: 77 (Wiley Test Bank)
Reg: 61, 76 (Wiley book, Wiley Test Bank)
Bec: 86 (Wiley Test Bank)

MBA in progress

[ProudCPA]

law0915 – Thank you for your comments, and I am happy to talk about my experience with CPAs in business and industry. While corporations hire CPAs, I believe it is rare that they help to continue to pay for CPA maintenance once CPAs are hired. People tend to drop the CPA once they go into business and industry.

The CPA credential itself is “certified public accountant,” which does not have an industry focus in the title. I want the AICPA to continue to focus on the CPA credential, and the joint venture with CIMA will give AICPA members more resources for both CPAs and CGMAs in business and industry.

As for the CGMA designation, I did not take the exam, but I did have the experience requirement. The CPA credential was offered in the same way to people before it was an examed credential.

[ScarletKnightCPA]

That's a better argument in favor of the CGMA being free initially. Thank you ProudCPA,

And yes, I agree, changing requirements for certifications has been a norm, with folks getting grandfathered in. Same applied to the CPA license.

That said, I am not so sure about your assertion that most CPAs drop the CPA once they go into business and industry. Do you have any source to support that?

Far: 76 (Wiley Test Bank)
Aud: 77 (Wiley Test Bank)
Reg: 61, 76 (Wiley book, Wiley Test Bank)
Bec: 86 (Wiley Test Bank)

MBA in progress

[law0915]

“The CPA credential itself is “certified public accountant,” which does not have an industry focus in the title”

While that may be true, however, the credential is said to “protect the public interest”, whether that be clients, investors, other businesses, other countries etc. So actually, it could be interpreted quite broadly in its application and is a stronger title in my opinion and “public” can be expanded to everyone in the global world. As an example, in Arizona, industry experience qualifies for state licensing as a CPA and I have full practicing power as a CPA. CPAs in industry do not need a competing or complimentary credential. At all of the several places I have worked in my career both extremely large public and private companies, controllers and accounting managers generally have the CPA and all companies have supported maintenance. Maintaining an active license prior to a hire shows you are committed to the profession and generally enhances your business persona. Our controller and old CFO (recently hired) both maintain active CPA licenses as well as two senior accountants, and a financial analyst. It has been a long, long time since anyone has been in “public accounting” at a firm. The CPA is the credential to have in finance no matter your role. That is my opinion.

I'm very patriotic and like that the CPA is an American credential and to let others come to the USA to sit for the exams as well as in other countries further proves the desire of this credential and that it is global and there was no need for an additional credential. People in the middle east want to be US CPAs-why? Because it is the most sought after certification in the global world. The AICPA should stay AICPA and the resources from the CGMA should be consolidated and the CGMA discontinued.

I have nothing more to discuss. Good day.

REG 77 Feb14
BEC 13*, 79 Aug14
FAR 64**, 76 Nov14
AUD 89 Feb15

*Exited exam after first testlet
**Only studied F1-F6 out of 10 Becker chapters

Licensed Arizona CPA

[Anonymous]

I'm in private, and have my CPA, and nothing is paid for by my employer. All CPE, all renewal fees, etc., are up to me to cover. I did get the CPA for going into private (by the time I was taking the exams, I was working in private and knew I didn't want to return to public), but not because the CPA really applied to private, but rather because – as has been said in this thread and others – at this point in time, the CPA is the “golden standard” of accounting certifications. In a way, though, it's like studying to be a brain surgeon in order to be a dentist. Sure, there's a lot of medical knowledge that's general, but if I could get a dentistry exam prior to being a dentist, that'd be better than a brain surgeon exam. While having one standard certification makes it easy for kids early in their careers to pick what to study, it doesn't really help employers know who they're hiring. Someone who can pass the CPA exam may not be able to do a bit of what's needed in private. So, I thought very seriously about getting the CMA instead of the CPA, since the CMA applied more to the work I wanted to do. However, the CMA wasn't as well known. Then the CGMA came along, and maybe it will take over as the well-known credential.

I think in an ideal world, we'd get to the point that CPA is the credential that's expected and recognized for people in public accounting, and something else – CMA/CGMA/something new – is the credential that's expected and recognized for people in private accounting. Yeah, that'd mean I had to take another exam, but I'm willing to risk that. When I'm hiring, I'd like to know that the person I'm hiring for the Controller or Senior Accounting or CFO or other role has knowledge needed for private accounting, not just knowledge needed for public accounting.

For now, though, private accounting management has CPAs, because the CPA has been “the name” in accounting designations. That keeps things simple, but simple isn't always better. Will merging AICPA and CIMA bring closer the day that the certifications that are expected in the “real world” more closely match the work being done? I don't know if it will or not, so this is probably a side-tracking from the original topic. But, let's say it does. If it does, I don't think that's bad for the CPA; it just means that the CPA is able to be more purely focused on what it's supposed to be. As law0915 said, he was able to get his CPA license in industry and have full practicing power. My state would allow that, too, and part of my qualifying experience was in industry. However, our industry experience doesn't qualify us to do an audit. Maybe anything that moves towards separating the credentials will help move towards a point that the CPA can be restricted to public accounting and thus more properly protect the public interest, if only auditors are able to get an auditing credential, while also allowing people in industry to get a credential that is widely respected in industry. Right now, I don't like states that require attest experience to get the CPA license, cause I don't plan to do audit but still need the CPA to advance in my private accounting career. However, if we had a private accounting designation with the same weight as the CPA – CMA/CGMA/whatever – then I could be in full favor of the CPA being restricted to public accountants only, so that people were only authorized to do the work if they were trained in the work.

[Author]

Replies