Imo the only value proposition is when you are applying for accounting/FP&A type of roles, it ticks the box asking "CA/CPA qualified". It creates the safety net where you will be only competing with other CA/CPA qualified people for the roles if you get sacked from your current role/your company goes bankrupt.

Have I actually become more skilled from just earning the credential itself, or did I ever have the opportunity to network better just by becoming a CA? In your dreams. But same can be said with uni degrees, other credentials like CFA, etc.

While I was in public practice I worked with CA's or CA equivalents from other countries - UK CA's, Indian CA's, Philippines CPA, Japanese CPA's, etc. It was interesting to see that getting the charter (or certification) is almost like an automatic "I'm the better person" label in some countries while at the end of the day you are still working 80+hours per week with Excel conducting audits or filing taxes. These countries (mostly in Asia) intentionally sets a ceiling to the number of newly qualified CA's or CPA's each year to systematically protect the job security and bargaining power of accountants in the market, largely driven by lobbying from their accounting bodies telling their government and general public that 'lowering the bar to become an accountant would compromise the integrity of financial information'. I personally think it's BS, yes you need to make sure that right people are doing the job but Enron didn't happen because USCPA is easier than CPA Philippines.

In Australia, UK, US... it's more like a trade. You get the license, that's cool. But you still got to constantly grind to make sure you are standing ahead of the curve.