Hiring Finance Staff With the Right Regulatory Experience

For a regulated firm hiring finance staff, getting the regulatory experience right is one of the most important and most difficult aspects of the hire. A regulated firm’s finance roles often require regulatory understanding and experience alongside the finance capability, but assessing whether a candidate has the right regulatory experience — and deciding how much regulatory experience a role genuinely requires versus how much can be learned — is genuinely challenging, and getting it wrong can leave the firm with finance staff unable to handle the regulatory dimension, or cause it to pass over capable candidates who could readily learn it. For a regulated firm making finance hires, understanding how to approach the regulatory experience question — what to look for, how to assess it, and how to balance experience against aptitude — is genuinely valuable. This guide addresses hiring finance staff with the right regulatory experience.

This guide is written for those hiring finance staff at regulated firms — the firm’s leadership, its finance leaders, and those making the hiring decisions. It covers why regulatory experience matters in finance hires, how much regulatory experience a role genuinely requires, how to assess a candidate’s regulatory experience, how to balance regulatory experience against finance capability and aptitude, and how to make good finance hires for the regulated environment. It is a practical guide aimed at those hiring finance staff for regulated firms. The aim is an understanding of how to approach the regulatory experience question in finance hires, getting the right people for the regulated finance function without over-weighting or under-weighting the regulatory experience.

Why Regulatory Experience Matters in Finance Hires

Regulatory experience matters in finance hires at a regulated firm because the finance roles often involve regulatory responsibilities that require regulatory understanding, and a candidate’s regulatory experience bears on their ability to handle these. The regulated firm’s finance function handles the regulatory reporting, the regulatory capital work, the client money or safeguarding where relevant, and other regulatory matters, which require the regulatory understanding that experience in the regulated sector builds. A candidate with relevant regulatory experience brings this understanding, able to handle the regulatory dimension of the role; a candidate without it must learn it, which takes time and may not suit every role.

This means that regulatory experience is a genuine consideration in finance hires at a regulated firm, because it bears on the candidate’s ability to handle the regulatory responsibilities the role involves. But it is not the only consideration, and it must be balanced against the finance capability and the candidate’s aptitude to learn the regulatory dimension, because a candidate strong in finance with the aptitude to learn the regulatory dimension may be a better hire than one with regulatory experience but weaker finance capability. Understanding why regulatory experience matters — because the role involves regulatory responsibilities requiring regulatory understanding — is the foundation of approaching it in hiring, while recognising that it must be balanced against the other considerations. Regulatory experience matters, but as one consideration among several, and understanding its role is the basis for weighing it appropriately in finance hires.

How Much Regulatory Experience a Role Genuinely Requires

A key question in hiring is how much regulatory experience a role genuinely requires, because over-specifying the regulatory experience can unnecessarily narrow the field and cause the firm to pass over capable candidates, while under-specifying it can leave the firm with staff unable to handle the regulatory dimension. Some roles genuinely require specific regulatory expertise — a role centred on complex regulatory work may need a candidate who already has the relevant regulatory experience, because the role cannot readily accommodate someone learning it. Other roles require regulatory understanding that a capable candidate can develop — a role with a regulatory dimension that a strong finance professional could learn does not necessarily require prior regulatory experience, and could be filled by a capable candidate who will develop the regulatory understanding.

Distinguishing how much regulatory experience a role genuinely requires — the roles that need existing regulatory expertise versus those where the regulatory dimension can be learned by a capable candidate — is important, because it determines how to weigh regulatory experience in the hire and how wide to cast the net. A firm that over-specifies regulatory experience for a role that does not genuinely require it narrows its field unnecessarily and may pass over strong candidates; one that under-specifies it for a role that genuinely requires it may hire someone unable to handle the regulatory dimension. Understanding how much regulatory experience a role genuinely requires — assessing the role realistically to distinguish essential regulatory expertise from learnable regulatory understanding — helps a firm weigh regulatory experience appropriately and cast the net rightly. Getting this judgement right is key to hiring well for the regulated finance function, neither over-weighting nor under-weighting the regulatory experience the role genuinely needs.

How to Assess a Candidate’s Regulatory Experience

Assessing a candidate’s regulatory experience involves understanding what regulatory experience they genuinely have and how it fits the role, which requires looking beyond surface claims to the substance. The firm should explore the candidate’s actual regulatory experience — the regulated environments they have worked in, the regulatory responsibilities they have held, the specific regulatory areas they know — to understand the substance of their regulatory experience, rather than accepting general claims. Understanding the depth and relevance of a candidate’s regulatory experience — what they have actually done in the regulated sector, and how it relates to the role’s requirements — is the basis for assessing whether their regulatory experience fits the role.

The firm should also assess, for a candidate with less regulatory experience, their understanding of the regulated environment and their aptitude and willingness to learn the regulatory dimension, because these bear on whether a candidate who will develop the regulatory understanding can do so successfully. A candidate who demonstrates genuine understanding and aptitude, even without deep regulatory experience, may be well-placed to develop the regulatory dimension. Assessing a candidate’s regulatory experience therefore involves both understanding the substance of the experience they have, and, for those with less, assessing their understanding and aptitude to develop it. Understanding how to assess a candidate’s regulatory experience — exploring the substance of their experience, and assessing understanding and aptitude where experience is less — helps a firm gauge whether a candidate fits the role’s regulatory requirements. Assessing the regulatory experience substantively, rather than by surface claims, is key to getting the right people, and it is where recruitment support that understands the regulated sector can help distinguish genuine, relevant regulatory experience from superficial claims.

Balancing Regulatory Experience Against Finance Capability and Aptitude

A crucial aspect of hiring is balancing regulatory experience against finance capability and aptitude, because the best hire is not always the candidate with the most regulatory experience. A candidate strong in finance with the aptitude to learn the regulatory dimension may be a better hire, for a role where the regulatory dimension can be learned, than a candidate with regulatory experience but weaker finance capability, because the finance capability is the foundation and the regulatory dimension can be developed. Over-weighting regulatory experience, at the expense of finance capability, can lead a firm to hire a candidate weaker in the fundamentals, which is a poor trade for a role where the regulatory dimension is learnable.

Balancing these considerations means weighing the candidate’s finance capability, their regulatory experience, and their aptitude to develop the regulatory dimension, in light of what the role genuinely requires — giving appropriate weight to the regulatory experience where the role genuinely requires it, but not over-weighting it where the regulatory dimension can be learned and a stronger finance capability would serve better. A firm that balances these considerations well makes better hires than one that over-weights regulatory experience or neglects the finance fundamentals. For roles where the regulatory dimension can be learned, prioritising strong finance capability and aptitude, and accepting that the regulatory understanding will be developed, often produces better hires. Understanding how to balance regulatory experience against finance capability and aptitude — weighing them in light of what the role genuinely requires — helps a firm make good hiring decisions. Balancing these considerations well, rather than over-weighting regulatory experience, is key to hiring the best finance staff for the regulated environment.

Making Good Finance Hires for the Regulated Environment

Making good finance hires for the regulated environment brings together the appropriate weighting of regulatory experience, the substantive assessment, and the balance against finance capability and aptitude, into hiring decisions that get the right people. The firm should assess what the role genuinely requires in the way of regulatory experience, assess candidates’ regulatory experience and finance capability substantively, and balance these appropriately, to hire the candidate who best fits the role — which may be a candidate with regulatory experience for a role that requires it, or a strong finance candidate with aptitude for a role where the regulatory dimension can be learned. Making the hire on this balanced, substantive basis gets the right people for the regulated finance function.

Making good hires for the regulated environment also benefits from recruitment support that understands the regulated sector, because assessing regulatory experience substantively, judging what a role genuinely requires, and finding candidates who fit — whether experienced or capable-and-aptitude — is where specialist knowledge of the regulated finance market helps. A firm that makes its finance hires on a balanced, substantive basis, with good support, gets the right people for its regulated finance function; one that over-weights or misjudges the regulatory experience, or assesses it superficially, risks poorer hires. Understanding how to make good finance hires for the regulated environment — the appropriate weighting, the substantive assessment, the balance, the specialist support — helps a firm get the right people. Making good finance hires for the regulated environment is a matter of weighing the regulatory experience appropriately and assessing candidates substantively, and doing it well gets the right people for the regulated finance function, which is what the firm needs. This connects to the guides on building the finance function at a regulated firm and the skills that make a regulated-sector FC.

Avoiding the Common Hiring Mistakes

Regulated firms make recognisable mistakes in hiring finance staff with regulatory experience, and understanding them helps a firm avoid them. The most common is over-specifying the regulatory experience — requiring more regulatory experience than the role genuinely needs, or requiring very specific regulatory experience for a role where the regulatory dimension could be learned — which narrows the field unnecessarily, excludes capable candidates, and can leave the firm unable to fill the role or paying a premium for regulatory experience it does not genuinely need. The remedy is judging what the role genuinely requires and casting the net appropriately.

The opposite mistake is under-weighting the regulatory dimension — hiring on finance capability alone for a role that genuinely requires regulatory experience or understanding, leaving the firm with a finance professional unable to handle the regulatory work. The remedy is ensuring the role’s genuine regulatory requirements are met. A further mistake is assessing regulatory experience superficially — accepting general claims of regulatory experience without exploring the substance, which can lead to hiring someone whose regulatory experience is less relevant or substantial than it appeared. The remedy is substantive assessment of the regulatory experience. And a further mistake is neglecting the finance fundamentals in the focus on regulatory experience, hiring someone with regulatory experience but weaker finance capability. The remedy is keeping the finance fundamentals central. A firm that avoids these common mistakes — over-specifying, under-weighting, assessing superficially, neglecting the fundamentals — hires finance staff with the right regulatory experience more effectively. Understanding and avoiding the common hiring mistakes is part of hiring well for the regulated finance function, and it helps a firm get the right people without the errors that commonly undermine regulated finance hiring.