×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务

Some opinions/discussions on the 3 designations (ZT)

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛CA's are generally regarded as a cut above the other two accounting designations. The requirements are more stringent, and the skillset and depth of knowledge is quite different from the other two (especially CMA's). Outside of public practice, CA's are primarily found at the most senior levels of an organization, typically as controllers, tax specialists, heads of financial reporting, or at the CFO level. A CA designation also provides much greater earnings potential over the longer term, and has tremendous worldwide recognition.

That's not to say that there are no good CGA's or CMA's in the business world -- I know many who are exceptionally strong. But the CA program produces, on average, the strongest accounting professionals in Canada.

You definitely need a solid accounting underpinning before taking a job in a CA articling firm (focus on the big four - trust me), which would definitely mean some more time at the university studying up on audit, tax, and the like. At this time of year, most CA firms are holding information sessions at local universities - I might suggest that you attend and ask some questions about the job, the lifestyle, the compensation, and the opportunities.

It's probably worth mentioning that I am NOT a CA, but work in the financial profession. I primarily interact with senior executives, and I can confirm that the vast majority of Chief Financial Officers are CA's.

Depending on your ambitions, one of the other two designations might be best for you. All three invest a considerable amount in recruiting, so have a look at their respective websites for more info. From my perspective, I would hate to see someone invest time and money into an accounting designation if they had aspirations that could only be fulfilled through a CA designation.

See full discussion at http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/599009962631/m/221007935731更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Sign in and Reply Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 真的要进会计师事务所吗?
    本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛有点忙, 长话短说. 近来很多人在谈论会计师事务所 (会计师楼, firms), 想和大家聊聊进会计师事务所的优缺点. 从我本人来讲, 我并不认为进会计师事务所就比在企业界更学东西, 更锻炼人.

    先说为什麽要进 “四大”工作呢? 

    1. “四大” 广招在校生, 无疑是给刚刚毕业的大量会计学生以进入著名企业的机会;
    2. “四大” 提供良好的在职培训, 很多人视“四大” 为大学的继续教育;
    3. “四大” 集中包含了个行业, 广泛的会计业务,
    4. 在加拿大“四大”提供成为CA的机会. 在中国, 毕业生向往“四大”的主要原因是, “四大”是外企, 给毕业生的薪水比本土企业高些. 在加拿大, 没有这个问题, “四大”的薪水是要向企业看齐的.
    5. 拿到CA, 决大多数CA会跳到企业界, 自己原来的客户就是最好的跳板. 而“四大”的客户也都是不错的企业.

    进 “四大”的缺点呢

    1. 劳动强度大. 特别是做审计, Deadline紧, 出差,加班是家常便饭. 大家有个错觉, 认为做审计的最 “牛”, 其实基本是错的. 成为CA有Audit Hour的要求, 不然, 我都怀疑会不会有人做这个. 大部分人刚毕业就开始做审计, 拿到CA后转去税务或咨询.

    有笑话说, 为北京的“四大”工作的都是单身, 单身进去没机会结识朋友, 有家庭的早晚离婚, 回归单身行列.

    2. 心理压力大. Busy season, 没有人给你好脸色. 每个人都是一脑儿门官司. 做审计的没几个喜欢自己的工作的. 现实生活中, 我只碰到一位说自己喜欢审计的, 此人以顽强的斗志, 若干年后转战华尔街.

    说归说, 对刚毕业的会计学生, “四大”还是有很大吸引力的, campus recruiting 竞争惨烈. 对没有进入大型firms的, 小一点的firms就是下一个目标了. 但我觉得小firms的优点就少了很多.

    1. 培训少. “四大”仗着财大气粗, 没完没了的training. 小firms资金有限, 会计training贵. 能提供的有限.

    2. 业务与客户有限. 小一点的firms客户也小一些. 业务种类, 业务额有限. 将来跳到好企业的机会也少. 跳到“四大”的呢, 往往也是被招到为中小企业服务的部门. “四大” 里有点同行互相看不起的毛病. 为大企业服务的部门少不了有点儿势利眼, 妄自尊大.

    以上是对20多岁,本科毕业的会计学生说的. 你要在“四大”坚持下来. 30多岁六位薪水还是盼的到的.

    做为移民, 已经毕业的学生, 或转行的人来讲, 我认为实在没必要一门心思进firm, 加拿大的企业界为accounting/Finance人员提供很多好的机会. 如果你对某个行业, 或会计的某个领域非常有心得的话, 让你来“四大”你还不来呢. 你也就没必要考CA, CMA, CGA都是不错的选择. 重要的是, 你要有足够的communication skills, business skills 说服好的企业雇佣你.

    就是公司大小和行业不同, 也没有那一个特别好的. 行行出状元. 路是人走出来的.

    周末发发感慨, 不一定对啊!更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
    • 极对啊,经验的高度总结概括。
    • 总结的特好,四大是很苦,是锻炼刚毕业学生的好场所,当时大学刚毕业,我们系30多人进了五大(但是安达信还没出事),三年后就剩不到十人了,现在,除了一个牛人当了partner的,其余全跳到企业去了。不过要是年轻在四大混混经验对未来的职业发展还是很有帮助的
      • 看来孩子妈们是不能进四大了。
    • 说得有道理.我们公司是被PWC审计.我们最近累得跟狗似的和他们配合.直到最后一点好气都没有了.
      上周五他们还在给我打电话.我告诉他们:"That's not material. If you have any issue about it, contact my director.We have to move on and focus on our business."

      另外,firm里分很多等级.刚进去的就是labour.我总能看到Sr.的对小立伯没好气.
      • Depend on which team you are in. Some teams are great though.
        • totally agree with "cube"
    • 好文,顶一个! 进不进Big 4 (或其它会计事务所)的确要根据个人实际情况而定。当 年大学毕业的我就是一心想进Big 4,结果还是out of luck,没能如愿。
      其实想在会计事业上progress / move up the ladder,进Big 4 磨炼几年会是一个
      很好的经历,但绝不是唯一的路。现在每次公司的auditors来做审计,都会和他们
      聊聊,基本上还是抱怨的多。很有意思的是,在和每个auditor(不管junior, senior,
      manager, or senior manager)聊天的时候,他们都会很自然的以为我是CA,觉得我
      能理解他们因为我也曾经历过,我给他们的回应就是:“sorry buddy, I'm not a
      CA, can't comment on it". 哈哈!
    • 掺和一下--学会计的作内审也未尝不可
      闲来无事,看了这个link,掺和一下。一点愚见。其实,学会计的作内审也未尝不可。在公司里对内审的态度绝对比外审要友好得多(亲身体会);时间也充裕,通过作一些好的内审项目,使你对公司内部关键的业务流程及控制还有商业运作有很好的了解;如果想转到运作部门也是很容易的事情;相反,外审们面临的压力很大,为了完成任务而整天依据四大所提供给他们的表格Paper任务,根本无时间顾及细节更别提消化了。当然,作为四大负责某企业外审的经理来说又另当别论,因为他们审过多家同类企业,知道关键的东西在哪里,但没有人一毕业就可以进去当经理的(依据你的资历也不可能承担)。四大的另一个好处是你可以接触多家同类或类似的企业(依据你所在的审计组负责的line),当你作足labour后,反复的重复就是你学习积累的过程,但绝对没有内审对企业了解得深刻。所以,看你要的是什么,如果不是为了CA的东东,我觉得在企业里作内审是很好的选择之一,而且,有心仪的企业,两三年后跳过去,内审们的机会还是满多的,待遇也比一般的会计或finance工作(同样工作年限来比)要好一些,至少目前是这样。
    • 码字辛苦了。意见中肯,顶!!
    • haha, 这坛上对四大贬得最凶, 趋之若骛得也最凶, 因为企业有万千, 四大就一个, 僧多粥少啊.
    • BIG 4 在GTA的COMPUS RECRUITING 最爱 GIRLS WITH ETHIC BACKGROUND.因为相对而言,TURNOVER在这个GROUP里还是小的, 在TAX SEASON到DOWNTOWN OFFICE里会看到大把大的ASIAN/INDIAN GIRLS; 所以有志之女士不要气馁.
      • 从某一个四大之一来的auditors好多都是看上去很年轻的亚洲男女,我经常想问他们是不是中国人。
    • Some opinions/discussions on the 3 designations (ZT)
      本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛CA's are generally regarded as a cut above the other two accounting designations. The requirements are more stringent, and the skillset and depth of knowledge is quite different from the other two (especially CMA's). Outside of public practice, CA's are primarily found at the most senior levels of an organization, typically as controllers, tax specialists, heads of financial reporting, or at the CFO level. A CA designation also provides much greater earnings potential over the longer term, and has tremendous worldwide recognition.

      That's not to say that there are no good CGA's or CMA's in the business world -- I know many who are exceptionally strong. But the CA program produces, on average, the strongest accounting professionals in Canada.

      You definitely need a solid accounting underpinning before taking a job in a CA articling firm (focus on the big four - trust me), which would definitely mean some more time at the university studying up on audit, tax, and the like. At this time of year, most CA firms are holding information sessions at local universities - I might suggest that you attend and ask some questions about the job, the lifestyle, the compensation, and the opportunities.

      It's probably worth mentioning that I am NOT a CA, but work in the financial profession. I primarily interact with senior executives, and I can confirm that the vast majority of Chief Financial Officers are CA's.

      Depending on your ambitions, one of the other two designations might be best for you. All three invest a considerable amount in recruiting, so have a look at their respective websites for more info. From my perspective, I would hate to see someone invest time and money into an accounting designation if they had aspirations that could only be fulfilled through a CA designation.

      See full discussion at http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/599009962631/m/221007935731更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
      • 怎么又是这个话题?累不累啊?好比三个女人参加选美,一号参赛者戴了顶CA牌子的帽子,二号参赛者戴了顶CMA牌子的帽子,而三号参赛者则戴了顶CGA牌子的帽子。
        请问选美的标准是看谁戴的帽子好看呢,还是看帽子底下参赛者本身的容貌,气质,身材呢?CA,CMA,CGA只是不同牌子的帽子而已,只有适合自己的才是最好的!
        • 一针见血! 顶!
        • joyce你是什么A啊...??? just curious..
          • 什么A都不是,哈哈! check your PM.
            • 很好,很强大!
        • ^_^,Joyce的话超经典~~
        • 那请问买罐头时你不是主要看包装吗?难道您还能看到内容?
    • 经验之谈,总结的很好。谢谢码字啦。