Hi everybody. Not a frequent poster here, but would much appreciate if anybody could give some input.

Is there anybody on this board working at SC or has any experience working there? I'd like to know a few things about SC and I can't seem to find any first hand info on:

- how is the work culture in terms of people and hours (is it 9-5)?
- training/professional development?
- what should I expect in the assessment centre?
- how is the career progression?
- bonuses and benefits?

I have an offer from them for the Graduate Management Exec programme, but conditional on my grades plus passing the assessment centre when I get back to Malaysia (final year, studying in UK). The offer letter says nothing else besides my salary. I have a few friends who are SC scholars, but they don't seem to know much about the latter 2 either. To make things complicated, I got a call earlier today from PwC with an offer for their Assurance programme, which is 6 weeks intensive training with a test at the end and if I pass, I get a 4 year training contract with them. So now I'm torn between the two. I guess I'm having a hard time deciding because I'm at that stage in life where I'd like to try different things but my life goals are simple, really: some sort of financial independence as I approach my 30's.

I've broken down the pros/cons with what little knowledge I have about the two:

PwC
Pros: Great training, superb experience and exposure to industry, good career progression, plenty of both local and international exit options after 2-3 years of work (if I happen to consider it)
Cons: Workload-to-hours can be grueling, initial pay and increases aren't that great sub-partner level

PwC seems like a good place for me to learn a lot about the intricate details of business, and would be a perfect launchpad if I'm thinking of joining industry in pretty much anywhere in the world, especially with that super cool ACA/ICAEW badge. On the other hand, I can't imagine myself working until midnight, throughout a weekend weeks on end. I'm the type of person that needs that "chill out" time or else the bad side of me starts to really show.

SC
Pros: Great initial pay on offer, great location, people seem generally nice, better hours (unconfirmed), exposure to risk management and compliance/regulatory experience (major plus if thinking of joining a PLC for the latter)
Cons: Exit options are very slim (local only I suppose, and not much outside risk or compliance), unknown details on progression and benefits, still need to go through assessment centre so offer not in ink just yet.

If it's true that most days are 9-5 at SC, I think I could spend that extra time and earn some income with my savings. This is more like a steady returns choice, as opposed to white collar hell for a few years and big (arguable?) payoff at the end.



Oh, and I'm studying actuarial science. I don't know if this helps, but I guess at some point somebody would ask. Cheers if you're taking the time to read all this.

This post has been edited by xeromatter: Apr 11 2012, 10:27 AM

As you already said you can't imagine yourself working until midnight, so choose Securities Commission.

In the end, you will regret working for PwC because the stress would just burn you out. And who said SC does not give much exposure to risk or compliance. There is an even the so-called investigation department in SC.

Anyway, hardly anyone works beyond 7pm in Securities Commission. I was told that there is some spooky reason for that. The SC building was said to be build on a graveyard. That I'm not sure. Go work there and tell me about it

sc of course, dun work in pwc especially pppl who study actuary, what a waste

Sorry if I wasn't being clear, but I meant that SC gives exposure mostly to risk or compliance. Unfortunately the experience (compliance especially) is transferable only to local organizations but not much abroad.


That's good to know. I'm sure they have their peak periods but I'm guessing it's nothing compared to the workload at a Big Four. Not really a superstitious person though but it's good that I have those hantus to keep me company when there's nobody in the office lol.


A very large part of me feels the same way, but bear in mind PwC is an MNC and the opportunity to work abroad is hard to turn down.

Thanks for the reply so far, guys but I'd appreciate any info on career progression and bonuses+benefits at SC.

Hello xeromatter,

You must have attended the UKEC career fair 2 weeks a couple of weeks ago. My situation is quite the same as yours, just that I am an accounting grad and I wouldn't need to go through the six week training.

I'm just curious, do they bond you for 4 years for that 6 weeks training!?

Anyway, just to contribute... I remember seeing job ads in the UK stating 'experience with FSA or its overseas equivalent desirable'. So I think working in SC doesn't mean you will be limited to working only in Malaysia.

Hope this helps.

This post has been edited by ComingBackSoon: Apr 12 2012, 02:53 AM

@ComingBackSoon

I'm not sure. I'm still waiting the paper contract to arrive in my mail, so I can't really tell you the black and white.

What I've been told so far, I won't be offered the 4 year training contract unless I complete and pass the 6 weeks training. This is unrelated but I've also been told that if I have not qualified for a designation (ACA/ACCA) then I can't move up to Manager.

I see. Yes I was told the same story - we need to be qualified before we can be considered for a managerial position. I guess we have to wait for the contract to arrive by the end of this month then.

Did you apply to that CIMB fusion programme as well?

Yes. In fact, that was the programme that I initially applied to. I sent the application through PwC, got a call the next day and was told that it's for accounting grads only and asked if it'll be alright if I was put for the regular graduate programme. I told them yes, and an interview+assessment slot was set up before the careers fair.

The funny thing was, a few days later I received a call from the hr lady at CIMB for an interview. She went through with me all the different programmes they offer and I was informed that Fusion is open to all graduates. However, since I've already confirmed for an interview with PwC, I can't be interviewed for CIMB because apparently they have this gentlemen's agreement that if a candidate picked one, the other can't have him/her.

Honestly I felt misled and I don't know wtf was going on but I suppose I was desperate enough to be happy with any offer on the table, especially after going through a whole year's worth of disappointment with my UK job apps lol.

This post has been edited by xeromatter: Apr 12 2012, 06:23 AM

Just sent you a PM.

Lol. Ukec graduan fair eh. Haha. Did u attend the pwc talk about actuaries?

Isn't the SC a regulatory body? Does compliance and securities regulation have that much to do with Actuarial? Don't actuaries price and manage risk?

@jonrwg No. Can't be bothered. I've gone through enough open evenings and talked to quite a number of actuaries/actuarial trainees and I think I can grasp what is it that they do.

@LightningFist Yes, yes and yes. I'm not here to debate whether which is more related to my qualification.

I'm asking about the "realities" of working with them, particularly on the career progression which still goes unanswered. I am leaning towards SC, just so you know. Bukit Kiara seems like a nice place lol.

This post has been edited by xeromatter: Apr 12 2012, 10:07 PM

Because when someone commented that working for PWC after studying Actuarial would be a waste, as opposed to working at the SC, you appeared to agree. That is strange, because at least PWC has Assurance. PWC in Malaysia may or may not have actuarial positions but it does overseas. FSA/SC seems to be more Accounting-related. I may be wrong but an Actuarial education at the undergraduate level shouldn't really have much to do with compliance and financial regulation. I think some don't even study enough Financial Reporting (LSE). So I don't see how going to PWC is a waste if the SC is forgone.

I understand you're concerned about career prospects rather than trivial things like "is my background going to matter".

The reason why I agreed it would be of a waste is because I'd be spending the next 4 years doing assurance, something completely unrelated to the actuarial field, not to mention the difference in pay and work hours. I don't know how they would justify the latter, but my reading on Big4 leaves the impression that they're either understaffed or just plain incompetence.

I know they do have an actuarial dept in some parts of the world, and it is certainly true in the UK, but (i) I doubt they would take a foreign transfer into actuarial from assurance, and (ii) I wouldn't think they'll bother hiring a foreign actuarial trainee when they can tap the immense local talent pool of Oxbridge/Russel group/actuarial grads in the UK.

You could argue that I could study for the actuarial papers on the side but I doubt I would have the free time to do that doing assurance.



You're right, we're less "adept" to regulation compared to somebody with an accounting background. I'm surprised LSE doesn't teach FR (my uni does) because I'm pretty sure they've got a large corporate finance/business accounting department plus financial reporting is part of the professional qualification. I admit it was one of the easiest modules in my 3 years lol.

SC is a large institution, and they'll need more than just accountants in there and I'm sure my actuarial/operational research skills would have its place there. Can't say the same for PwC.

I would think it is a waste to forgo a decent paying job with humane working hours for a white collar slave job that pays peanuts (unless, of course I could make it as a partner or get a mid/top level exec position in industry but that would probably take 6-10 years at least).

Precisely! I think a person my age should be more concerned with soaking as much skill and experience (to justify better pay lol). I'm trying to weigh what future I have with either choice.

This post has been edited by xeromatter: Apr 13 2012, 12:44 AM

Hmm.. I'm in the same situation as you but with KPMG not PWC. lol. I wanted to know how the assessment like in SC.

Glad that you brought that up, I'd like to know that as well!

I'm not getting my hopes up, though. I think at this point it's clear there are barely any SC folk surfing LYN that you can squeeze info out of. Thread pretty much derailed too lol.

True, been searching all over the internet. no luck.
I think I will email the lady who interview me and ask her about the assessment details after my finals next 2 weeks.

Hoe much tho they offer for the SC program ?

Lol if you hope to gain financial independence working with these 2 firms in your 30s, just forget it. You hardly will gain financial independence working for an employer where your salary ceiling is capped according to your experience and seniority. Caveat is you have no parents support or inheritance or you dont win the lottery, or get really lucky.

But im just lambasting 1 aspect above. As to which company is better, I'd say both are okay because u will never gonna know what will happen after 5 years. And both have good exits.

Enter a company with no expectations and u will be happier.

My 2cents.

This post has been edited by Oklahoma: Jul 1 2020, 03:00 PM

But sure, SC is a more chill and PwC is more of a slave mill and if you drill down SC pays more hourly, but other factors such as exits (PwC is more renowned worldwide), skills (accounting is a good skill to have), and the network will be very different.

In any case, just pick one and dont look back and regret. You can only move forward. Good luck.

This post has been edited by Oklahoma: Jul 1 2020, 03:03 PM

Go for SC. You will shine anywhere if you're gold.

I work in banking industry and we serve tea for SC during meeting, but not for auditor. I interviewed at pwc before. The staffs seem professional but I have some reserves on their working culture and attitude.

If for me, I will choose SC rather than PwC.

I am ex-sc and the spooky things in our building is real. Just before I left SC, they do some cleaning ritual due to mass 'kacau'.

Anyway who said SC can only expose to you risk and compliance only and restrain (exit barrier) yourself only local exposure? I do know few of SC staff who are already working in World Bank and also Oversea due to their regulatory exposure. When you go out, you're like selling like hot cakes to the banks and other financial agency like Bnm, Bursa, EPF, Isra, World Bank, IOSCO(International Securities), and et cetra. We also have exchange programme that was held by the MOF, I was sent to India and Japan for training and understanding the upcoming Fintech in others countries. It's rare but you always have the opportunity plus you dont have to wait for their training, you actually can propose to your boss where you want to undergo exchange programme in xxx country if you have some info. Don't wait for your boss.

Yes the culture is a bit relaxed and laid back, but it is you who decide to be productive or laid back. Although SC is going through some hard time where there is a mass resignations due to some benefits were retracted due to previous Government, but I still believe their facilities and exposure is very important.

In the end of the day, when you work in SC, you will know 'Connection' is above of all when you want to climb corporate ladders.


Forgot to add: I also previously involved in World Economic Forums as a committee, I've met a lot of people and exchanges business cards. Although I'm an IT guy who work in SC, but hey I have a lot of connections, I left SC also because was being headhunted through connection and jump to another 'gov financial agencies'. And I believe due to our current economic due to pandemic, it is wise to choose SC as you will have stable career and minimal risk of retrenchment compared to private.


And if you dream to work in Big4 in the future, you will always can work because they have Audit Oversight Board departments that regulate all of these Audit firm in Malaysia.

This post has been edited by Moshpit94: Jul 3 2020, 02:45 AM

Comparing experience is very subjective as there are so many variables. Factually, you will see rarer candidates with SC background compared to pwc due to how the recruitment system works. Pwc takes in hundreds of associates ok an annual basis while SC is less than a quarter of that at best. Pwc has much higher turnover too.

Hence, if I am a recruiting employer, I should expect to see at least 5 pwc candidate to 1 from SC. I think that is where SC experience is being perceived to be more valuable due to the rarity factor. The same applies if you work at khazanah, bnm or PNB. Not to mention there are dilutive effects of Big4 where most treat them with only slight distinction.

I will go for a more relevant question, what does the candidate can offer me based on their experience in their field? To me the factor of what is equally of not more important than just where you come from.

Sc