CPA vs. CMA and Other Certifications

A key point is that one must sell to the customer (and we are not the customer for our own services). As such, to be CFO, VP-Finance, Controller, etc. one must get in the door -- which is often controlled by non-finance types in HR or Operations.

For better or for worse, many of the "gatekeepers" place more value on the CPA credential than on CMA/CFM. While it's true that many Fortune 50 CFO's don't have any certifications, it's also true that many firms use CPA certification to quickly winnow the number of candidates and/or ensure some level of competence in technical accounting (something they don't know how to test during the interview).

I have been a CPA (active) since 1977 and have an MBA. The accounting profession has been around for over 100 years and has numerous governing bodies, pronouncements, regulations and guidelines to protect investors when it comes to how to prepare and present fair and representative financial statements that are recognized through the modern financial world.

In addition to financials, taxes, SOX, internal controls, external audits, etc. the CPA is recognized as having developed all of those skills through high quality training and hands-on experience. I know, because I've been there and done it. My training was with the best in the world (BIG 4 - KPMG) and my experience with them and the experience I've gained in private industry has geared me towards being able to deal with business issues and their solution from many diverse angles. If someone can tell me that there are BIG 4 CMA or CFA firms with international presence that qualify one to be able to transition into the Controllership or CFO roles within a company and do both at the same time (if necessary), please advise.

I see many people who have MBA designations or MBA, CMA and CFA credentials and I applaud them for their hard work and dedication to their goals. But, I agree with the fact that not only there a perceived value but a real value to having a CPA for most companies.

First, my short-sighted answer is that while credentials often do not supersede experience, credentials can be critical in getting opportunities to amass that experience.
Second, my bigger picture response is that we, as a profession, need to consider the impact of globalization on credentials and experience. For instance, will the CPA designation remain as prominent worldwide once IFRS takes effect? Or, will the CA become the generally accepted and dominant certification? And if so, will we have any level of reciprocity or will additional testing be required? Will the ACCA sneak in there as state accountancy boards are now starting to recognize it?

Well, those are questions that warrant their own discussion, likely under another banner. Back to the topic at hand. My CPA credential has undoubtedly opened doors for me that would not have been available without it. Did it mean I was better equipped to do a job? Not necessarily. Does it mean that someone else perceived me as better qualified? Without question.

Recognize that when posting required vs. preferred, your candidate pool automatically self selects to a degree and you do not see the entire talent pool. This may or may not be desirable to you. Plenty of talented, capable people have elected not to take the CPA exam, just like plenty of talented CPAs decided not to pursue an MBA.

I don't think any designation is more important for a CPA/CMA/CFM than an MBA. And any of these designations is almost worthless without that, or at least 10 years of operational business experience. And tax work and auditing is not business experience.

I have cleared the CPA(USA) exams in May 2010 from New Hampshire Board. I reside and work in India ( bank of america) abd earlier was working with american express. as per new hampshire state board of accountancy i am supposed to work for 1 year ( 1500 hrs) in a public accounting firm and under CPA to earn the CPA designation. but since i am in India and no firm in USA will sponsor me for the training. how should i go about it ? secondly is there any state board to whom i can transfer my passed papers and who do not have experience requirement stipulations ? and who can give me CPA designation ? since i am working in banking industry i do not need the public firm experience at this stage of my career.

The discussion has moved afar from CPA/CMA to Certification to no-Certification to Experience.

Several members have, IMHO correctly designated any certification as a minimum knowledge base, who has past a series of exams. Passing exams may prove you have book knowledge, but not that you know how to apply it. It may also prove you are an excellent test taker, but have no knowledge outside that test taking.

Employment related to the certifications is proof that you worked, not that you a) did a good job or b) really learned anything (though the assumption is that you did). See Vikas entry.

Doing public accounting is not doing managerial accounting. They are two separate animals that diverge at graduation from college and the career choice made by the new "accountant".

What makes a good CFO? Certifications, no. Experience and relevant experience, yes. Anyone can debit and credit. Anyone can lookup a FASB and apply it. You learn that getting your BS degree. Can anyone do tax, sure. SOX, yup. Do it well, absolutely - but it takes time to learn your craft.

CFO's or those who have chosen managerial accounting (MA) have spent the time to learn their craft (and like anything and everything else, there are good MA's and bad MA's). But what they have learned is different from what a public accountant (PA) has learned.

These are two different animals at opposite sides of the spectrum. So saying that a CFO needs a CPA is wrong and is as wrong as requiring a CMA for the same job.

It takes looking at someones experience in business to determine along with other factors whether or not they will be successful in YOUR business. A fancy certification is not proof of success.

By the way, in New York State (and I only speak based on the laws in NYS) the only difference between a CPA and any other accountant is that the CPA can sign an external audit or review. Since it is unethical to sign an audit if there is a fiduciary relationship between the CPA (auditor) and the client company, then having a CPA as your CFO does nothing for the company, except give you a CFO with a unusable (albeit possibly bankable) title.

So we have established that right or wrong a CPA after your name has greater marketing value in the job market, I am curious as to thoughts on the root causes of that difference. I will throw out two to start.

1. CPA designation simply has greater name recognition due to being around longer or even maybe better marketing by AICPA to the non-accountants.

2. Access to CPA designation is controlled by government entities. Even though both exams are developed by private organizations the CMA is totally controlled by one organization while state agencies control access and maintenance of the CPA credential.

Would like to hear others thoughts or ideas on root causes for the difference.