Starting in Practice to eventually move to Industry - ACA/ACCA

I've got an interview in mid September for a graduate trainee role in a small accountancy firm. They're offering either the ACA and ACCA.

I don't have much interest in working in practice anymore, I want to work in industry. But I figured that getting accountancy experience somewhere is better than nowhere, right?

So therefore should I opt for the ACCA instead of the ACA? Also, is it true that if you do ACCA then you are on an employment contract but NOT a training contract and can therefore leaver after, say, a year? But with the ACA, you have to stay for the full 3 year period or risk paying a fine?

My plan is to get finance/accountancy experience and then apply for the grad schemes 2014 entry. Or should I stick out the 3 years of ACA for the sake of getting the ACA?

Reply 1

M1011

Whether you want to work in industry afterwards or not is irrelevant to ACA vs ACCA really, both are valid.

As for the terms of your contract, those are specific to the firm in question and will probably be the same across both qualifications. They aren't enforced by the professional bodies, they are terms in your contract of employment.

Assuming all else is equal, I'd go for the ACA.

Reply 2

forever_and_always

Original post by M1011

I always felt the ACA was "better" than the ACCA. But most of the industry finance jobs always request ACCA/CIMA or equivalent so I doubt they'd rule me out for having ACA, but surely by advertising that they want ACCA/CIMA, surely that means they prefer it?

Also, any idea what a graduate trainee salary is at a small local firm? I was offered a trainee role for 15K and turned it down, but I was then told it's pretty standard for a small firm.

Reply 3

M1011

Original post by forever_and_always

There's a bit of a prestige edge, as it tends to be harder to get on an ACA training contract. I don't think going for the ACCA would work against you, but at the same time I've never heard of someone being turned down for having the ACA rather than the ACCA. So no, I don't think there's going to be a preference against ACA, but there might be going the other way on occasion.

Essentially my conclusion would be either are good, but if given the choice between the two with all other things equal than go for the ACA.

As for the salary, it'll vary quite a bit and is influenced by factors such as location and qualification (e.g. London pays more, AAT roles will pay less than CA roles etc). 'Big 4' roles in London will pay close to double that, and you're probably looking at 23ish in the regions, so with that in mind 15k is quite low but probably not surprising if you're looking at small firms.

The important thing to remember when looking at training contracts is that the starting salaries aren't that important really. You're there for the qualification, which is a big investment on the part of the firm, and the money will double/triple soon enough if you qualify and make use of the associated opportunities. So don't worry to much about whether its 15k or 20k at the start, long term it's not going to be important!

Starting in Practice to eventually move to Industry - ACA/ACCA

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you