The Conducting Officer paradox

Becoming a Conducting Officer remains one of the most sought-after career milestones in Luxembourg's asset management industry.

Yet, after many discussions with both candidates and firms, I increasingly see a paradox.

Recently, I spoke with a senior compliance professional from a major institution. Officially, this person is not a Conducting Officer. In practice, however, they work on highly sophisticated structures, regularly interact with the CSSF and possess a level of expertise that would make them an excellent candidate for many Conducting Officer positions.

And yet, their CV would probably be rejected by numerous firms.

Why?

Because many job descriptions still require:

"3 to 5 years of experience as a Conducting Officer."

The rationale is understandable. International headquarters want reassurance and perceive candidates who already hold the title as a lower-risk option.

The issue is that titles do not always reflect reality.

Some Conducting Officers are heavily involved in strategic decision-making and regulatory interactions. Others operate within much narrower frameworks.

At the same time, many Heads of Compliance, Senior Risk Officers or governance professionals may already operate at a higher technical level than certain existing Conducting Officers despite never having held the title.

Unfortunately, many of these profiles never reach the interview stage.

This is where local market expertise becomes essential.

The real questions should often be:

• How autonomous was the candidate?
• What was their actual exposure to the CSSF?
• What products and structures did they oversee?
• How much responsibility did they truly have?

In Luxembourg, titles matter.

But they should never replace a proper assessment of actual expertise.

Otherwise, firms risk overlooking exceptional talent, while many professionals remain stuck in a career paradox:

How do you become a Conducting Officer if many firms only want to hire people who are already Conducting Officers?