Q: Big4 - Yearly salary increment

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The fact that most CA members are your aunties/JHKs converting from acca via 5 days PAC doing GL entry, AR/AP already made this SCAQ a joke. Go ask every existing 5 days PAC members to retake the CA exams to renew their licence and see if they can pass.

And hence, it is perfectly alright to look down on those with shitty crap like ACCA

Originally Posted by Unregistered

******** la a1 to am do same thing... what kind of **** jobs have you been doing?

either an overperforming A1 or a downright nub AM

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Huh? But the EDGE news say this "move" is in support of the Accountancy Workforce Review Committee set up by the Ministry of Finance.

In this context, the "move" means increasing the salary for fresh graduate effective from 1st September 2024.

There are a lot of suggestions in Accountancy Workforce Review Committee that firms should increase salary for fresh graudate.

So how is the the salary increment connected or motivated by the "MOM's EP Renewal Date 1st September 2024"?

Y u so innocent lol. They can say whatever crap laa but they won’t tell the truth 1

Originally Posted by Unregistered

And hence, it is perfectly alright to look down on those with shitty crap like ACCA

Not say look down. ISCA should relook into their current pool of CA members and determine who is actually qualified. If not, there is no credibility in this qualification at all. Those who are in commercial accounting now will see majority of the CA members are 5 days PAC batch. Like previous posts say, should not say this profession is prestigious when it is clearly not.

Originally Posted by unregistered

if you think commercial accountants don't required isca scaq ca, let me quote this from the accountancy workforce review committee (awrc) article:

"with accounting standards and business transactions becoming increasingly complex,
accountants in in-house finance and accounting functions of companies need to be well equipped to produce accurate and high-quality financial reports and deliver valuable
financial insights to the organisation. The scaq, and the access it offers into the
professional accountancy body isca and the wealth of professional development,
networking and other resources available, ensure that accountants have the
necessary professional development to meet these needs.

Regulators should emphasise to companies the importance of employing professionally qualified accountants in their key finance functions. This is particularly crucial in companies with high public interest such as listed companies, where accountants play a key role in assisting the company directors to discharge their fiduciary duties over their financial statements and protect the public interest."

look at this paragraph suggested by some smart alec "regulators should emphasise to companies the importance of employing professionally qualified accountants in their key finance functions. This is particularly crucial in companies with high public interest such as listed companies, where accountants play a key role in assisting the company directors to discharge their fiduciary duties over their financial statements and protect the public interest."

seem like this person or committee is saying or implying if a person did not take scaq, the sgx listed companies' commercial accounting department should not hire that person.

The folks in commercial accounting or finance departments of listed companies don't bother much with the singapore chartered accountant qualification (scaq). Their thinking goes like this, "why bother with ca singapore? I'm just doing commercial accounting lah! I don't need that isca ca (singapore) title or go through the hassle of getting scaq. Only auditors aiming to become pa care about ca."

then this person is saying, "okay, never mind, lor. I will tell acra, the regulator to mandate a law, that sgx listed companies must hire accountants who have isca ca membership to handle their accounts. Let's see if you all commercial accountants still think ca isn't necessary then!! In the future, you guys better have ca sg if you wanna touch listed company accounts."

truly, this person who suggested such ideas can be quite the troublemaker, eh?

Is this person unbalanced? I guess he is guy a below.

Imagine two individuals working in a singapore exchange (sgx) listed company. Guy a, who holds the designation of scaq ca and a degree from ntu, is responsible for overseeing 10 subsidiaries.

Meanwhile, guy b, with only a degree from a private university, is also tasked with overseeing 10 subsidiaries.

Guy a, however, strongly believes that only individuals with the scaq ca qualification should handle the accounts of sgx listed companies.

Guy a feels a sense of imbalance, questioning how guy b, with only a degree from a private university and lacking the scaq ca qualification, can manage accounting responsibilities for an sgx listed company.

In this context, guy a equates being professionally qualified with holding the scaq ca designation.

Consequently, individuals like guy a will advocate for regulators to stress the importance of employing professionally qualified accountants, particularly those with the scaq ca designation, in critical finance roles.

In essence, guy a's perspective implies a division among accountants based on qualifications, fostering a potential environment of animosity where scaq ca holders may look down upon those without the qualification.

tldr. Just google number of listed co in sg. U have your answer

Originally Posted by Unregistered

either an overperforming A1 or a downright nub AM

Whats the diff from a1 to am. U dont hold port, u not involved in business development. Just doing diff section leading diff ppl. Tell me whats the diff.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Y u so innocent lol. They can say whatever crap laa but they won’t tell the truth 1

Even the current ep holder dont meet the minimum. Whats the woo ha. Ep up ur local also up lo. Nothing new. No local do get ft. Sal must go up so can have that exception lol.

I knew one jhb acca holder who can’t even differentiate between prepayment and accruals. Dk how she even managed to pass the interview in big4. Now you telling me they are going to be CA in the near future? Eh pls, this is like the biggest slap to our local accounting grads…

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The fact that most CA members are your aunties/JHKs converting from acca via 5 days PAC doing GL entry, AR/AP already made this SCAQ a joke. Go ask every existing 5 days PAC members to retake the CA exams to renew their licence and see if they can pass.

The first joke is about this "Accelerated Pathway" where undergrads can attempt two SCAQ papers with ISCA's sponsorship.

The second joke is they can get two exemptions for SCAQ papers when they graduate because of the modules they've done in university.

So, when they graduate in 2028, they would have cleared four out of five SCAQ papers.

But here's the kicker, it's funny because it's kind of like the CPA exam, but back in 2013, the rule was different—it was a combo of 3 years work under ATO and 5 exams paper with zero exemptions.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not say look down. ISCA should relook into their current pool of CA members and determine who is actually qualified. If not, there is no credibility in this qualification at all. Those who are in commercial accounting now will see majority of the CA members are 5 days PAC batch. Like previous posts say, should not say this profession is prestigious when it is clearly not.

The existence of ISCA's SCAQ programme could potentially create a rift between Chartered Accountants (CAs) and non-CAs within a company.

An ISCA SCAQ CA member might hold the belief that non-CAs shouldn't be hired by SGX-Listed Companies or entrusted with accounting responsibilities because they lack the professional qualifications of a ISCA SCAQ CA.

This sentiment could lead to division among accountants in the workplace and foster an environment of animosity.