Navigating lunch in Central can often lead to a delicious but heavy meal. If you're looking for lighter, more nutritious options that don't compromise on flavour or convenience, Hong Kong's bustling financial district has you covered. Here are seven great spots for a 'healthier' bite, perfect for a busy workday.

In Hong Kong's competitive Financial Services landscape, the search for top talent is constant, meaning forward-thinking companies are always looking to improve their hiring strategies. Increasingly, we hear buzz around "skill-based hiring" – a promise of unlocking diverse talent pools and finding truly capable individuals. But for busy hiring managers and Talent Acquisition professionals grappling with immediate needs, tight deadlines, and stringent regulatory demands, the question isn't just "What is it?" but, more importantly, "Is it truly a viable path for my team, and what are the honest realities of adopting it?" Let's cut through the hype and explore skill-based hiring with a realistic lens, acknowledging both its potential and the very real complexities it introduces for Financial Services organisations. What Exactly is Skill-Based Hiring? (Beyond the Buzzwords) At its core, skill-based hiring is an approach that emphasises a candidate's demonstrable abilities, core competencies, and inherent potential over solely relying on traditional proxies like specific degrees, rigid years of experience, or a highly conventional career path. It focuses on objectively assessing the critical skills (both technical and soft) a role truly demands, and how a candidate can apply their knowledge and experience. It’s about complimenting essential questions like : "Where did they gain their experience, and what specific qualifications do they hold?" with : "Can they effectively [manage a complex derivatives portfolio / interpret new regulatory guidelines / build robust fraud detection models]?" This approach typically involves: Deconstructing Roles: Breaking down a job into the specific, measurable skills and competencies needed for success, rather than just a list of responsibilities. Objective Assessment: Designing interview questions, practical exercises, or assessments that directly test those identified skills. Considering Potential & Learning Agility: Looking for candidates who demonstrate an ability to learn and adapt quickly, even if they lack an exact match in traditional experience. The Attraction vs. The Unvarnished Truth. While skill-based hiring holds significant promise, it's crucial to weigh those aspirations against the very real operational and strategic challenges it presents, particularly in highly regulated sectors in Financial Services. The Potential Attraction (Why the Industry is Talking About It): Access to Broader Talent Pools: It can open doors to candidates from non-traditional backgrounds, or those with highly transferable skills, potentially addressing talent shortages in niche areas. Improved Quality of Hire (Potentially): If executed well, assessing actual capability can lead to hires who are a better functional fit and add a diverse perspective. Reduced Bias: Focusing on objective, demonstrable skills can, in theory, mitigate unconscious biases that might creep into traditional, unstructured interviews. Future-Proofing: Identifying learning agility might help build a workforce more adaptable to rapidly evolving industry demands (e.g., AI integration, new FinTech). It can also improve employee retention. The Unvarnished Truth (The Realities & Obstacles): The Mindset Shift Isn't To Be Ignored: This isn't a small tweak; it challenges decades of ingrained hiring habits. Hiring managers are accustomed to leveraging pedigree and direct experience as initial filters. Moving away from this comfort zone involves real perceived risk, especially when the stakes are high. Regulatory & Compliance Non-Negotiables: For many roles in FS (e.g., licensed traders, qualified actuaries, senior compliance officers, audit partners), specific certifications, legal qualifications, or direct regulatory experience are not just "preferences" but mandatory requirements . Skill-based hiring cannot, and should not, circumvent these legal and ethical obligations. Perceived Workload & Risk for TA's / Hiring Managers: Increased Screening Complexity: Without traditional filters (university, years), the initial application volume might seem overwhelming, fearing it will swamp already busy TA teams and hiring managers with unqualified resumes. Assessment Design & Execution: Creating truly objective, valid, and efficient skill assessments (e.g., case studies, simulations) is time-consuming and requires real consideration and planning. Risk of "Getting It Wrong": The fear of making a costly mis-hire on a less traditional candidate can be a significant deterrent. This might seem small, but it's a genuine barrier. Remuneration & Internal Equity: This is a real concern. How do you fairly compensate a highly skilled individual with a less traditional background when they're working alongside colleagues with extensive, recognised experience at the same level? This can create significant internal friction and salary band challenges. Onboarding & Development Burden: If you hire someone with high potential but "less traditional" experience, are hiring managers and their teams genuinely prepared and resourced to provide the necessary onboarding, up-skilling, and mentorship? This requires a significant time investment that current team structures might not easily absorb. Devaluing Proven Paths: For many roles in FS, graduating from a reputable university with a relevant degree, and accumulating experience at established firms, provides a strong, reliable indicator of foundational knowledge, discipline, and industry understanding. Dismissing these entirely would be a disservice to valuable talent pipelines. Finding the Fit: When (and If) Skill-Based Hiring Makes Sense for Your Roles. Given these realities, skill-based hiring is most valuable when applied strategically and selectively . It's about identifying where its benefits genuinely outweigh the implementation challenges, rather than a universal adoption. Assessing Which Business Functions & Roles Are "Skill-Basable" for Your Firm: You can evaluate roles by deconstructing job requirements and differentiating between non-negotiable foundations and assessable skills. Category A: High Skill-Based Potential (Where demonstrated skills lead): Roles where core abilities (analytical, technical, problem-solving, behavioural) are highly transferable, and where deep financial services-specific regulatory knowledge can be quickly acquired or up-skilled. Examples in FS: Technology roles (FinTech, RegTech): Data Analysts, AI/ML Engineers, Cyber Security Analysts, Software Developers. Operational & Process-Oriented roles: Process Improvement Specialists, Junior Business Analysts (focused on process), Change Managers. Category B: Hybrid Approach (Credentials + Skills are equally critical): Roles where specific licenses, certifications, or core domain knowledge are essential foundations, but success heavily relies on how those are applied, along with critical soft skills (e.g., communication, leadership, problem-solving). Examples in FS: Mid-to-Senior Compliance Officers (must have regulatory knowledge, but also strong application, communication, and influencing skills), Experienced Auditors (CPA/ACCA required, but ability to critically analyse, identify discrepancies, and manage teams is key). Category C: Predominantly Credential/Experience Driven (Where skill-based is supplementary): Very senior, highly specialised, or legally mandated roles where a long track record, specific licenses, and deep, context-specific industry knowledge are often non-negotiable prerequisites. For these, skill-based assessment can still help differentiate top candidates among those who meet the strict traditional criteria. Examples in FS: Chief Compliance Officer, Appointed Actuary, certain highly specialised front-office trading roles requiring very specific market access experience. Taking the First Steps: Practical Pilot Approaches (If It's Right for You). If, after a pragmatic assessment, you believe skill-based hiring could offer a strategic advantage for specific roles, here are some smaller, practical steps to begin exploring its potential without a full-scale overhaul: Identify a Pilot Role: Choose one or two roles in Category A or B where you face consistent talent shortages, or where you suspect traditional filters might be unnecessarily limiting your options. Collaborative Role Deconstruction: Work closely with the hiring manager and a top performer in that pilot role. Instead of just reviewing the existing JD, engage in a focused discussion: "What are the top 3-5 things someone must be able to achieve or do to succeed here, regardless of their specific background?" Refine Your Job Descriptions for Clarity: Based on these core skills and outcomes, re-craft the JD for your pilot role. Focus on what the person will achieve and contribute. While still clearly stating essential credentials (e.g., "CPA qualification required"), emphasise the skills needed to perform the job effectively. This helps filter out inaccurate applications by clearly defining expectations. Pilot a Targeted Screening Question: For your chosen pilot role, include 2-3 brief, mandatory application questions that directly assess a critical skill or foundational knowledge point. For example, for a Junior Risk Analyst: "Describe a real-world scenario where you used data to identify a potential financial risk. What was the outcome?" (short text response). This can be a highly effective, low-effort filter that provides early insight. Designing the Gateway: Accurate JDs & Smart Initial Screening. Optimising your initial application gateway is crucial to ensure you're attracting the right talent for skill-based roles without overwhelming your teams. DIY (Human-Led) Approach for JDs & Screening: Focused JD Review: Conduct internal sessions with hiring managers to strategically rewrite JDs for pilot roles, emphasising outcomes and core skills. Manual Screening Grids: Develop clear, skills-based metrics for initial resume reviews. This allows TAs to efficiently assess candidates against identified core skills and non-negotiable credentials. Standardised Phone Screens: Implement brief, skill-focused questions for initial phone screens by TA, ensuring consistency and a quick check for key competencies. AI-Enhanced Approach for JDs & Screening (as a Supporting Tool): AI can provide analytical support for these initial steps, but human oversight is a must. Use AI to optimise your Job Description in line with a Skill-Based hiring approach, and for generating initial screen questions as part of the application process and screening calls, as a first and second line of filtering.

Crafting job descriptions that genuinely attract relevant top talent can feel like a significant drain of time. But what if you, as a recruiter you could streamline the entire process, improving the quality of the description and the candidates applying, effortlessly? In this blog we'll provide you with an editable, copy-and-paste AI prompt and show you exactly how AI can transform your approach, making it faster and easier to engage high-quality applicants.

Looking to break free from the office (or home) for your next meeting in Central?

In-House Vs Consulting: What’s the Right Move for You? If you’ve worked in a professional services firm — whether in Audit, Risk, Tax, or broader advisory work — chances are you’ve considered going in-house at some point. For many, especially those who’ve qualified in the Big 4, the natural question after a few years is: “What’s next?” Having spent over a decade helping professionals transition across both sides — from consulting into industry, and sometimes back again — I’ve had hundreds of these conversations. There’s no single right answer, but there are consistent themes that come up when professionals weigh the trade-offs between the two worlds. Whether you’re still progressing through the ranks of a professional services firm or already testing the waters for an in-house move. This is a candid, experience-based look at the differences — not the clichés, but the realities I’ve seen play out in real careers. Big 4 & Professional Services Firms: High Standards, Diverse Exposure, & Navigating the System Working in a professional services firm — whether one of the Big 4 or a similar consultancy — gives you a foundation that’s hard to match. The expectations are high, the learning curve is steep, and the exposure to clients, industries, and senior stakeholders happens earlier than in most in-house roles. What draws people in — and keeps many there: High-calibre environment and strong brand equity These firms attract smart, driven professionals. You’re part of a high-performing peer group, working with complex businesses on real problems. The brand recognition opens doors, both internally and externally, and gives clients confidence in your work. Variety, pace, and intellectual challenge The range of client work — whether across sectors, business functions, or issue types — means you're rarely standing still. The work can feel repetitive in some areas (especially annual audits or recurring engagements), but the client personalities, internal politics, technical nuances and pressure points vary just enough to keep things engaging. You develop strong muscle memory for problem solving and communication under pressure. Structured progression and investment in development Promotions, pay bands, and learning paths are generally clear and well-communicated. Formal training, access to leadership, and mentoring are all part of the model. That said, internal mobility — such as moving from audit to advisory — often depends on factors outside your control: timing, staffing capacity, or how difficult you are to replace. It’s well known in the industry that Audit Partners are often hesitant to lose CPAs to other teams, as replacing an experienced auditor can be much harder than hiring for advisory roles. As a result, many professionals who want to shift focus find they need to leave their firm entirely to do so. Client exposure and executive interaction Even at Manager level, it’s not unusual to be sitting across from CFOs, CROs or business heads. You learn to communicate, influence, and manage expectations — skills that are essential for future leadership roles, wherever your career takes you. In-House Roles: Depth, Ownership, and Strategic Perspective Moving in-house — into a financial institution or a company you once advised — is about shifting from external influence to internal accountability. You become part of the fabric of the business, with a seat at the table for decisions that shape its direction. What people often value most: End-to-end ownership You're not just assessing or advising anymore — you’re responsible for making it work. Whether that’s a financial control, a risk framework, a compliance policy or a transformation initiative, you see the full cycle through: planning, execution, iteration, and business impact. Many professionals describe this as finally being able to “finish the job” they once only reviewed. Functional depth and commercial understanding Over time, you gain deeper knowledge of how your function integrates with the business. You learn how strategy is formed, how risk and finance influence decision-making, and how resources are prioritised. You see where the friction lies and how different teams — front office, ops, legal, finance, risk — come together in practice. It gives you context that consulting rarely offers, because you're inside the machine rather than observing it. Strategic involvement In-house roles can offer genuine influence over business direction, especially in mid-sized or growing firms. You may find yourself shaping product development, market entry strategies, internal controls, or regulatory approaches — particularly as you rise through the ranks. Work-life balance — but not guaranteed Many professionals move in-house expecting more predictable hours, and in many cases, that’s true. But it’s not universal. Larger or more innovative firms — especially those going through change — can demand just as much time and energy as consulting. Culture, leadership, and internal expectations often matter more than job description alone. So, Which Is Better? That depends on what you're looking for. Some professionals thrive in the dynamic, multi-client pace of consulting. Others crave deeper influence, stability, or the chance to own something long-term. Some eventually come full circle: spending time in-house before returning to consulting with sharper insight and greater empathy for their clients. Others build long, fulfilling careers on either side. Whatever you’re considering, the most important thing is to ask the right questions — of yourself and of the roles in front of you. Don’t get caught chasing a title, a brand, or a vague idea of “better work-life balance.” Every role has trade-offs. The key is to understand them upfront.

The Reality of Switching Big 4 Firms When people think about their next career move after joining a Big 4 firm, the most common path is out—not across. Most professionals use the Big 4 as a launchpad before moving into industry roles, in-house positions, or even outside the financial world. While many professionals take that route, switching between firms is a fairly common step for those looking for a change without leaving the Big 4 environment. As a recruiter who works closely with professionals and teams across the Big 4—particularly within Financial Services—I’ve had a front-row seat to these kinds of moves. So here’s a balanced, honest take on what it really looks like to switch from one Big 4 firm to another. Why Do People Consider Switching? The reasons vary, but here are some of the most common motivations: Promotion Opportunity – Sometimes people feel they’ve hit a ceiling in their current team and believe another firm might offer a faster path to manager, director or Partner. Culture or Team Fit – Not all Big 4 environments are the same. A team’s culture, leadership style, or even just personalities can have a big impact on your day-to-day life. Location or Visa Needs – A move might be driven by a desire (or need) to relocate, and another firm may be more supportive or flexible with international transfers or sponsorship. Frustration with Current Role or Manager – It’s not always about the firm itself, but the dynamics of the current team or reporting line that make someone look elsewhere. Client Exposure or Project Variety – Some candidates perceive another Big 4 firm as having more interesting clients or a broader range of projects in a specific sector. What Are the Potential Benefits? Switching firms can offer a valuable refresh: A Clean Slate – If you’ve been stuck doing the same kind of work or feel overlooked, a new environment can help reset perceptions and open new opportunities. Broader Experience – Each Big 4 firm has its own methodologies, client portfolios, and internal structures. Exposure to multiple can strengthen your CV and experience. Expanded Network – New firm, new relationships, new mentors—this can matter more than people realise. Promotion Leverage – Sometimes, moving firms can fast-track a promotion, especially if you’re already operating at the next level but blocked internally. What Should You Watch Out For? It’s not always the right choice, and expectations should be realistic: High Expectations from Day One – You’re not treated like a graduate hire. You’re expected to ramp up quickly, often without much handholding. Not That Different – The Big 4 are more alike than different in many ways. If you’re expecting a totally new lifestyle or culture, you might be disappointed. Culture Fit Is Still a Gamble – Even within the same service line, culture can vary between firms—or even between teams in the same office. Burnout Can Follow You – If you’re switching to escape long hours or high pressure, those challenges may exist at the next firm too. So, Is It Worth It? The honest answer: It depends. If your goal is to reposition yourself, break out of a box, or align with a team that better fits your personality and career goals, switching can absolutely make sense. But if you're hoping for a radically different experience or relief from the usual pressures of Big 4 life, a switch might not deliver what you're looking for. If You're Considering a Move… Here are a few thoughts before making the leap: Get Clear on Your "Why" – Is this a strategic move or an emotional one? What do you hope will be different? Do Your Research – Speak to people who’ve made the move. Ask real questions. Culture isn’t just a buzzword. Be Realistic – No job is perfect. Every firm has internal challenges, politics, and pressures. Think Long-Term – Will this move help you get where you want to be in 3–5 years? Final Thoughts Switching from one Big 4 firm to another isn’t a bad move—but it’s also not a magic fix. It’s one of many options, and for the right person, at the right time, it can be the right next step. Whatever you choose—whether it’s staying, switching, or stepping out of Big 4 altogether—the key is being intentional about your path.

Congratulations on your new role! As you embark on this journey, the first 30 days will play a crucial role in setting the tone for your success and growth within the organisation. This period offers a unique opportunity to make a lasting impression and establish a strong foundation for your career. Within the first 3 months (average probation period) you're on probation, you're still being assessed on your capabilities and fit for the role, team and company. Here's a comprehensive guide on how to make a powerful start in your new job.

The success of any hiring process in the financial services sector heavily relies on attracting top-notch talent, and an essential aspect of this is crafting a compelling job description. A poorly written job description can be a major turn-off for skilled professionals, leading to low applicant numbers or attracting the wrong candidates. In this blog, we will explore the common problem of writing a bad job description and provide practical solutions to help hiring managers create job postings that attract the best talent in the industry. 

In today's highly competitive job market, attracting top talent has become a challenge for Financial Service companies. As demand for skilled professionals in Accounting, Audit, Compliance and Risk outpaces supply, hiring managers must adopt innovative strategies to secure the best candidates for their organisations. In this blog, we'll explore the common problems faced by companies in this scenario and provide effective solutions to overcome these hurdles.