and just remember that you can only call yourself a chartered management acc after your exams are completed and your experience is signed off. before that you are just a student, especially from next year, as the term passed finalist will also fall away. personally i don't see the difference between being chartered and certified, the one just means your professional body holds a royal charter (before cima got it their members were also certified), hence why you can use that word. in america the CPA's are all "certified" and theres nothing wrong with that. i guess being chartered just sounds better to some people in general. the more important thing is the standard of education and training that your body is offering you. but that said, if you can use the chartered term as cima members can, you might as well, it can only benefit you! and don't listen to members of other bodies, rather ask cima, because they will tell you the truth, not an opinion

I can only comment from talking with my ACCA boss who signed off my application. He said CIMA and ACCA are very similar in application. If you aren't sure what is involved have a look here: http://www1.cimaglobal.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-0AE7C4D1-C8B50141/live/root....

Two points:

Firstly, I think there's some confusion from the original post between practical experience and practice experience, i.e. experience gained within an accountancy practice. The practical experience of an ACA is likely to be obtained within a practice, whereas that of an ACMA is not.

Secondly, ‘chartered’ has nothing to do with working in an accountancy practice. It refers to the professional body having been granted a royal charter. The confusion stems from the fact that ICAEW, ICAS and ICAI members use the title Chartered Accountant. Anyone not belonging to those bodies can’t use those two words together without implying they are members. However, the other CCAB bodies’ members (CIMA, ACCA, CIPFA) are both chartered and accountants but use a particular distinction in their title to distinguish themselves:- Chartered Management Accountant, Chartered Certified Accountant and Chartered Public Finance Accountant.

 Does CIMA have proof that its membership requirements, both academically and experience wise, are as demanding as those of other CCAB member bodies?

 

You've been listening to too many Chartered Accountants, Emmanuel. I've no doubt CIMA is every bit as demanding but it's a totally different qualification. If you want to work in practice and specialise in UK tax, auditing and arguably financial accounting then you're with the wrong body. Otherwise have some confidence in yourself and your qualification - or no one else will!

Emmanuel it really does sound like an ACA is winding you up. Where does it show that CIMA is NOT as rigorous as ACA. It's horses for courses. If you want to go into practice, tax or want to deal with share options etc then ACA might be for you. If you want to work in the retail, service, commercial or industrial sector CIMA is more relevant. Likewise if you want to work in the public sector go for CIPFA. Look at job adverts for industry and you'll see that more ask specifically for CIMA than any other. That speaks for itself. No qualification is better than the other (despite what ACA's think). Each qualification has its merits for a specific role.

They're all broadly similar. Taking the CIMA route won't necessarily make you a better management accountant, likewise taking the ACA route won't necessarily make you better at the practice side of things. It all depends on the person and what they're interested in. What is for sure is that any ACA/ACMA/ACCA/etc has gone through the process and demonstrated that they are of a certain professional calibre.

CIMA are hardly going to say they aren't as good at assessment as ACCA etc. I know students who have given up CIMA and gone onto ACCA and vice versa thinking it would be easier but found both equally difficult. ACA can't really compare as all ACA studiers are sponsored by practice which (at least when I worked at PWC) allowed and paid for 18 weeks study leave per year. Please tell us what your reason is for persuing this. If it's an ACA ignore them. They might be better at putting Stat accounts together but ask them to something practical like a budget forecast or a costings appraisal and they'll be lost.

Why am I persuing this? I have a genuine interest in the quality of our qualification and how it compares to those of other bodies. I'm sure that CIMA has some kind of quality process and I think I'll only be satisfied when I find out what this process is. I'm also interested in knowing how the body who represents us benchmarks itself against other accounting bodies. I have raised this question directly and look forward to posting their response. Thanks everybody for your enthusiastic replies.

Dear All, As we all familiar with phrase " SUBSTANCE OVER FORM'' Chartered is a title that is a form. What matters most is our credibility and ability to balance ethics issues at all times. Eventually we get respect and wide base of clients who can depend on us. Then substance been established that win over Form in the context of Title chartered and certified. Have a nice thought of our professional credibility and clients we have in hand.

As regards the designation 'Chartered' all that signifies is that an institute has been given a royal charter. It is perhaps significant that, after years of objecting to CIMA being given such a royal charter, even the backwoodsmen in the ICAEW did not object when CIMA was finally given a royal charter, presumably acknowledging that we had the same high standards of professionalism and ethics as they did. However if the real reason for the original question is which is the most relevant qualification then for audit / public practice in England and Wales, ICAEW probably is, whereas for being a management accountant working in industry, commerce or central government, I suggest that CIMA is the most relevant qualification. For those working in local government, CIPFA is probably the most relevant qualification. So, choose what you want to do, then pick the relevant qualification. And remember that it wasn't a group of management accountants who shredded all those incriminating Enron papers and ruined a well-known firm of chartered accountants!

 

Emmanuel,

Maybe my personal experience will stand as testimony. I am a CA in Australia. The CA is the founder member of the board called GAA = Global Accounting Alliance = of which all the main CA organisations belong. The CA in Australia markets itself as Number 1 in numbers. I am ACCA too. I am CIMA also. Of the three qualifications I really found CIMA to be full on, a real test of my abilities. If my experiences are anything to go by then we can axiomatically conclude that CIMA is of high standards. Is this also to say that the CA is hyped via marketing? Is ACCA easier because of its growth strategy? I have no direct answer for all these questions. One thing which is very important is that all these qualifications are all like sets of keys. You get them to open doors, and once inside, what you do is all up to you. At least for me I am happy with the doors CIMA has opened and has kept opening for me. One other thing you will probably want to do is decide upfront what you want to get out of your qualification and then work to take advantage of what CIMA, or ICAEW or CIPFA can do for you! Indeed, there is an emphasis differences among the different accounting qualfication and CIMA has already stood apart from the rest and emphasised a strategic and business focus in its deliverables. I think any accountant will need to understand the cogs and wheels of business and CIMA has done very well here. At the end of the day it is really horses for courses and different things for different people!

 

The ICAEW since 2006 have had an entry path for qualified members of the ACCA, CIMA or CIPFA to obtain membership of the ICAEW as an 'ACA'. Instead of taking the normal examinations you submit a 'paper' based on your experience and ethics. Yu have to be sponsored by 2 ICAEW members and pay a fee. (See the ICAEW web site for detail) While there is no evidence of such but I would imagine that if you have the right 'profile' and recognisable sponsors that you will be accepted. No figures are given out but I will gues at some 200 have been accepted via this route. The real point is there are members of the ACCA, CIMA and CIPFA who the ICAEW would like to attract but it is on their terms. It gets down to, have you had the right jobs? Yours sincerely Cliff Moggs

No answer to what?  There is an answer to the original question, and that answer is 'yes'.

M&M reported? why?