what's the difference between acca, cima, aat, fca?
Wouter
Ian Clark
>
> what's the difference between acca, cima, aat, fca?
If I had my cynical hat on I would say the difference is about
£40, £35 £15 £60 pounds sterling per hour respectively..
However Acca and Fca are both accounting bodies that will license
practitioners in both general practice and possibly audit (they will
have registered auditor on their letter heading) whilst Cima
qualifications normally lead to a career in industry rather than general
practice, and the Aat qualification is a much lower qualification
normally taken by either book-keepers or employees of accountants and
often leads onto the full qualifications mentioned.
Ian Clark
Nigel Henshaw
> Wouter wrote:
> >
> > what's the difference between acca, cima, aat, fca?
>
>
> However Acca and Fca are both accounting bodies that will license
> practitioners in both general practice and possibly audit (they will
> have registered auditor on their letter heading) whilst Cima
> qualifications normally lead to a career in industry rather than
> general
> practice, a
Does this mean that Cima qualified people cannot get a practising
certificate and cannot be a registered auditor?
Nigel Henshaw
> Wouter wrote:
> >
> > what's the difference between acca, cima, aat, fca?
>
> If I had my cynical hat on I would say the difference is about
>
> £40, £35 £15 £60 pounds sterling per hour respectively..
>
I would be interested to know where you have got these figures from, as
I know ACA's who charge £45 per hour, and ACMA's who charge £95 per hour
for consultancy. I also know MAAT's who charge up to £35 per hour for
certain services.
Steve Vigors-Evans
Ian Clark <Ian....@m-a-s.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:378CE908...@m-a-s.demon.co.uk...
> Wouter wrote:
> >
> > what's the difference between acca, cima, aat, fca?
>
> If I had my cynical hat on I would say the difference is about
>
>
> £40, £35 £15 £60 pounds sterling per hour respectively..
>
> practitioners in both general practice and possibly audit (they will
> have registered auditor on their letter heading) whilst Cima
> qualifications normally lead to a career in industry rather than general
> normally taken by either book-keepers or employees of accountants and
> often leads onto the full qualifications mentioned.
>
> Ian Clark
The AAT will also licence members in general practice and while it is
considered "a lower qualification", a good Accounting Technician working in
practice can offer a much better service in terms of value for money than a
Chartered practice.
Steve Vigors-Evans
Alpha Accountancy Solutions Ltd
A Christian company offering accountancy and taxation
services for small businesses.
www.alphabss.co.uk
Mike Doyle
Nigel Henshaw wrote:
> Ian Clark wrote:
>
> > Wouter wrote:
> > >
> > > what's the difference between acca, cima, aat, fca?
> >
> >
> > However Acca and Fca are both accounting bodies that will license
> > practitioners in both general practice and possibly audit (they will
> > have registered auditor on their letter heading) whilst Cima
> > qualifications normally lead to a career in industry rather than
> > general
> > practice, a
>
> Does this mean that Cima qualified people cannot get a practising
> certificate and cannot be a registered auditor?
Cima members in practice can apply for a practising certificate from the institute.
They are not registered auditors.
The members in practice are a small but growing band within Cima, (3.5% of the
membership in 1995) but you will probably see a lot more Cima practices being
established in the years to come.
Mike
Ian Clark
>
> Ian Clark wrote:
>
> > Wouter wrote:
> > >
> > > what's the difference between acca, cima, aat, fca?
> >
> >
> > £40, £35 £15 £60 pounds sterling per hour respectively..
> >
>
> I know ACA's who charge £45 per hour, and ACMA's who charge £95 per hour
> for consultancy. I also know MAAT's who charge up to £35 per hour for
> certain services.
I was joking.... and trying gently to coax a response, I know FCA's who
charge over £100 per hour for some work, and certainly Acca's who charge
more... I would personally wonder at a MAAT charging £35 per hour, my
personal experience of MAATs would certainly not justify that, the two
students I know personally who sat their finals a few short weeks ago
would not have sufficient knowledge to practise. I do not doubt however
that there are highly competent, probably time qualified as well, as
MAAT members who could offer a good service however.
Ian Clark
Melanie
course at my local college - in order that I would be more qualified to charge
a higher rate for my work!! Should I then be considering another course? As a
mature Business Studies graduate with (a fair few) years work experience,
would be exempt from Part Is or would I have to start from scratch? Would I be
better going for CIMA (assuming this leans more towards cost & management
accounting) in order to provide a better service to small businesses?
Nigel Henshaw
Melanie wrote in message <378E6800...@ukonline.co.uk>...
>MMMMm. Well I was just considering (as a book-keeper) enrolling for an AAT
>course at my local college - in order that I would be more qualified to
charge
>a higher rate for my work!! Should I then be considering another course? As
a
>mature Business Studies graduate with (a fair few) years work experience,
>would be exempt from Part Is or would I have to start from scratch? Would I
be
>better going for CIMA (assuming this leans more towards cost & management
>accounting) in order to provide a better service to small businesses?
>
intermediate and Technician levels of AAT deal with the basics of Cost,
Management & financial accounting, and are an ideal step towards CIMA.
Although, if you are providing services to small businesses the costing and
management accounting side may not be as relevant as doing an ACCA course,
(I don't know what exemptions are available here though).
The AAT would also give you letters after your name and would allow you to
become a member of the certified bookkeepers assoc. without having to sit
the exams.
Jon Griffey
konline.co.uk> writes
>MMMMm. Well I was just considering (as a book-keeper) enrolling for an AAT
>course at my local college - in order that I would be more qualified to charge
>a higher rate for my work!! Should I then be considering another course? As a
>mature Business Studies graduate with (a fair few) years work experience,
>would be exempt from Part Is or would I have to start from scratch? Would I be
>better going for CIMA (assuming this leans more towards cost & management
>accounting) in order to provide a better service to small businesses?
>
certainly worthwhile achieving such a qualification if for nothing more
than personal achievement and to give you added confidence.
ACCA, one of the original sponsors of AAT has ditched them and now have
their own technician level qualification. This gives some exemptions
from the main ACCA qualification so is a good stepping stone. Whilst
exemptions are still available to the AAT qualified, ACCA has recently
withdrawn some of them.
--
Jon Griffey FCCA ATII
Hackett Griffey
Chartered Certified Accountants & Registered Auditors
2 Mill Road
Haverhill
Suffolk
CB9 8BD
Tel (01440) 762024 Days
Tel (01440) 708376 Eves
Simon Paskin
Or perhaps, like most and the Secretary of State, you were unaware of its
existence although it was formed in 1916.
Many members, such as myself, are authorised to practice, as opposed to
working for companies on the payroll.
Simon Paskin FFA
Paskin & Co.
Worthing
West Sussex
Wouter wrote in message
<931970259.8382.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Geoff Stephens
brand names.
The FCA will look down his nose at the ACCA, who will look down their
nose's at the CIMA, who will look down their nose's at the AAT.
In my day AAT was replaced by CIPFA, and as all the above have at some time
or another tried to merge the aforementioned poor joke seems out of place.
One day we may have a united accountancy profession is the UK so the
question becomes redundant, but equally one day it may be possible to knit
marmarlade.
Ian Casson
there is something a little bit trollish about this particular discussion.
Well, perhaps against my better judgement, I'll take the bait!
I disagree with you're "pecking order". Every salary survey I've seen
recently which addresses salary levels of those with different accountancy
qualifications puts the order ACA>CIMA>ACCA>AAT with ACA and CIMA almost
equal and CIMA higher than ACA in some areas of the country.
Sure, it's an open question how salary relates to respect, kudos etc but at
least it is objective.
Also, it would have to be emphasised that salaries range widely and the
skills and experience of the individual would have much more of an effect on
salary than which body they are registered with. I'm only talking about
averages here.
Also, with regard to high salaries for ACAs it should be remembered that a
large proportion of ACAs are "Big 5" trained and this is often considered an
additional qualification in itself.
"Officially" ACA, CIMA, ACCA, CA and CIPFA are all qualifications at the
same level, whereas AAT is "officially" a lower level of qualification than
the others and is often used as a stepping stone to them (with exemptions
from some of their examinations in many cases), sort of analogous to a legal
executive as opposed to a solicitor/barrister.
Just to show I'm not "talking out of my hat" about these salary surveys
there are two I know of on the Internet. Their URLS are:
http://www.michaelpage.net/main.asp
(choose "looking for advice", then "salary surveys")
http://www.roberthalf.co.uk/salary&benefits_survey/page_1.htm
Oh, and before anybody accuses me of it, yes I'm a CIMA student and yes I'm
biased, but face it the evidence is on my side!
Geoff Stephens <geoff.s...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:7njmi6$jcd$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Paul Copley
You should try a Big 5 ACA/FCA!
Basically, though no-one's mentioned it, to become an ACA
you do 2/3 yrs worth of exams, then several years later
(effectively just turning up for work) you are eligible to
pay ore money to the ICAEW to become an FCA. There's no
real difference - some partners in my firm are FCA, some
ACA.
What's the reals difference between all the different
Institutes' qualifications? Nearly a hundred years of
snobbery and bickering, that's all.
From my own ACA studies - supposedly the "blue-chip"
qualification, whenever we got on to the really hard
bits...our tutors told us that we'd have to do ACCA if we
wanted to know anything more. Says it all.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Martin James Thornhill
In article <931970259.8382.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Wouter
<Woute...@Hotmail.com> writes
>what's the difference between acca, cima, aat, fca?
>
>
ACCA - assn for chartered certified accts. Known as "certified". Based
mainly in public practice, often registered auditors, and have access to
an international network of ACCA qualified, thus making it a very broad
body. Has the closest links to American CPAs (certified practicing
accountants). Unfortunately, the UK branch is very badly managed and is
doing its members no favours whatsoever by being so political.
(Not to be confused with ACA - the title anacronystically reserved by
ICAEW, the insitute of chartered accountants for england and wales!)
CIMA - chartered institute for management accountants. Known as
"management accountants". Although able to practice in public (oo-er),
MAs reside mainly in commercial/industrial concerns at all levels of
accountancy, from the lowest to the highest. CIMA represents ICAEW's
greatest threat in the boardroom, because ICAEW's members believe that
the future is in audit, but wiser CIMA heads know otherwise. Other
board members are not impressed by the judgement of ACAs in this
respect, although they are beginning to recognise the need for internal
auditing. Moreover, CIMA trainees are employable at all levels of the
corporatation, whereas ICA members are typically only eligible to the
top-side jobs, which are far fewer in number.
AAT - association for accounting technicians. This is a preliminary
qualification for accountants and is often compared (favourably) with
degrees or Scottish HNDs, largely because it is a viable alternative to
university. By itself, it means little in terms of ultimate career
(except if you wish to remain a book-keeper in public practice, or a
ledger clerk in a corporation), but it is very valuable stepping stone
to ACA/CIMA.
(Not to be confused with ATII, which is the body that represents
professional tax advisors/practitioners - can't remember what its title
is!)
FCA - fellow of chartered accountants. A member who has continued to
subscribe to the ICAEW for ten years (or thereabouts) is entitled to
replace his title of ACA with FCA. It bestows greater authority within
his professional body, but means little outside of it. No longer does
it increase his salary: his job as financial director is just as likely
to be taken by a CIMA than an FCA.
(Not to be confused with FAA, the financial accountants' association,
which occupies the same market as ACCA, but without the international
scene).
If you seek to establish a hierarchy, then the current market conditions
for accountants infers that:
ATII > (FCA=ACA=CIMA) > (ACCA=FAA) > CIPFA > AAT
This is not a true and fair view, however. AAT is not a practicable
qualification and may feed into any of the others. ACA/CIMA compete
within the corporate world and CIMA is winning because of its greater
commercial awareness, but ACA dominate the audit world (although is it
worth it?). ACA is technically supreme and is the principle developer
of accounting standards, to which other accounting bodies are bound.
Also, ACA is more likely to lead to a qualification in ATII (because the
audit market is too competitive), but that is beginning to change as
CIMA recognises that it too can deal with tax. CIPFA (re: public sector
accountants) are autonomous and represent truly hard working people
banging their heads against the incompetence and self-important
arrogance of public sector bureaucrats.
Excluded from this analysis is anything related to practioners of
insolvency services (IPA, I believe, dunno for sure). Normally a
specalisation taken by ACAs, CIMA is also encouraging its members to
consider it because, although it is public practice, a liquidator/
administrator does need commendable business acumen if he is to rescue a
viable, but badly run, business.
Does this answer your question?
--
Martin James Thornhill
trainee ACA