MAS for Mid Career Professionals

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am a female, MAS pay match-ed my salary from pte sector, say cannot offer higher. Was i clearly lowballed?

Seems like it

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am a female, MAS pay match-ed my salary from pte sector, say cannot offer higher. Was i clearly lowballed?

Its not uncommon. Up to you to take or not.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

i joined as an AD earlier this year (2022). Joined from pte sector with several yrs of exp there. Was offered 5.3k+

I have to be stuck in AD role for at least 3-4 more years?
What is the annual increment likely to be? Heard it could be from 300/month to over 1k/month?

depend on how many years of experience you have. how old are you? worked for 3 years in private, then joined mas as AD is considered ok

Originally Posted by Unregistered

depend on how many years of experience you have. how old are you? worked for 3 years in private, then joined mas as AD is considered ok

Hi original poster, suggest to exercise caution in overly identifying yourself.

We do not know how large is the pool of females recruited as AD in early 2022 but this is after all a public forum.

As for the comment, there have been others with more years of experience joining as AD. All depends whether prior experience and qualifications deemed how relevant.

Starting grade is also only one of the factors in projecting how successful your career path will be.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

That seems pretty low for an AD. Most third year associates are already getting $5,915. The TOs that become ADs are also getting ~$6,400 for guys. So, it seems like they are low balling you. How much were you getting before you joined MAS?

I am doubtful whether the figures represent general pay level of TOs. $5300 should be on the lowe end for AD and higher end for a third year Associate. You also wont expect an AD working in a generalist ops to be paid the same one AD who is hired for his professional skills and experiences.

The AD pay range is eide and bear in mind there are 2 Grades within AD designation so if you are entering as G12, just about 3 years relevant exp... 5300 is prob the usual offer

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am doubtful whether the figures represent general pay level of TOs. $5300 should be on the lowe end for AD and higher end for a third year Associate. You also wont expect an AD working in a generalist ops to be paid the same one AD who is hired for his professional skills and experiences.

The AD pay range is eide and bear in mind there are 2 Grades within AD designation so if you are entering as G12, just about 3 years relevant exp... 5300 is prob the usual offer

TOs are paid more because they're under the graduate scheme and the higher salary is to attract talent, similar to such programs at banks and FIs

Originally Posted by Unregistered

TOs are paid more because they're under the graduate scheme and the higher salary is to attract talent, similar to such programs at banks and FIs

MAS doesnt really have a proper management trainee sort of program. The starting for TOs is rather competitive but after that the increments are quite standard until you are redesignate As As AD.

MAS might pay more if you have the tech and data skills even at little exp level. And well the truth is MAS hardly hire TOs in significant batches now.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is a patently bizarre argument.

If it is indeed true that because of budget reasons, MAS cannot hire additional staff who are needed to meet the rapid development of emerging risks, then the right answer would be for MAS to inform its paymaster that it will henceforth limit its engagement on these emerging risks. This is not to say that MAS will completely be oblivious to these risks, but rather, we will not undertake any work that is beyond necessary.

Instead, MAS has gone the other way round. Despite being without sufficient resources, it has adopted an aggressive "I-must-be-the-hero" attitude and volunteered way beyond its capabilities. How can this be right? I suppose part of the problem stems from cultural issues where we are too inhibited to say no. Management has very fancy ideas and sometimes loses sight of our mandate. Or perhaps they interpret our mandate so loosely that everything that occurs on earth is something we should look into.

It is also puzzling that you consider MAS a "revenue-generating agency". Tell me which other Central Bank in the world is considered a "revenue-generating agency" by its government. This classification in and of itself is ridiculous when applied to a Central Bank. The mandate of the Central Bank is clear, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the "revenue" it generates. You simply can't measure how much "revenue" we have generated through our efforts to maintain non-inflationary growth and macroprudential stability.

In fact, if we are indeed penalized by MOF (or whoever else) because we are hiring the staff that we need to safeguard our mandate, then the real question is whether we need to be more independent in this area.

This is true. Some management really drunk on power. They think they have the ability to dictate what companies in foreign countries do. They keep asking poor staff what we going to do about this company and that company. All this when they don't even provide telephones, much less iDD calls

Curious question - anyone knows how much support staffs are paid?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is true. Some management really drunk on power. They think they have the ability to dictate what companies in foreign countries do. They keep asking poor staff what we going to do about this company and that company.

I don't think they are drunk on power la.

It's just that they have some difficulty comprehending the limits of MAS' powers. We are indeed a regulator but we can only act in accordance with the law. We can't just override the day-to-day operations of the company because we don't fully agree with it.

In fact, I think the FIs here are generally co-operative and receptive to advice. If this were in the US, the FI/state may well bring a lawsuit against the regulator for overstepping its mandate.