10 risks for employers paying less than $20 per application for finance jobs

When employers in the finance industry pay less than the standard $20 per application, they risk attracting unqualified candidates who lack the necessary skills and experience required for such specialized roles. Finance jobs often demand specific expertise in areas like accounting, financial analysis, and regulatory compliance, making candidate quality critical. Cheaper job boards or programmatic platforms may prioritize quantity over quality, resulting in a flood of irrelevant applications. This forces hiring managers to spend more time screening candidates, leading to delays in the hiring process and potentially costing more in time and resources than initially saved.

Moreover, paying below the market rate for finance job applications increases the risk of fraudulent or bot-generated leads. These low-quality sources can inflate the number of applications without delivering viable candidates. This distortion in recruitment metrics can mislead employers into believing their hiring campaign is performing well based on volume, even though the majority of applicants may not meet the rigorous standards needed in finance roles. In a field where precision, trust, and expertise are paramount, relying on a low-cost strategy for candidate acquisition can jeopardize the overall quality and integrity of the hiring process.

Data gathered from hundreds of job boards shows that the effective cost per application when employers advertise a job is $20 if the job function is finance. What quality and other risks do employers face if they pay a small fraction of the going rate to a vendor for applications (leads) from candidates who are interested in your finance jobs? Here is what 10 thought leaders have to say.

• Risks of Low-Cost Candidate Leads
• Quality Compromise in Bargain Leads
• Integrity at Stake with Cheap Recruitment
• Cost-Cutting Risks in Finance Hiring
• Quantity Over Quality in Cheap Leads
• Ethical Concerns with Low-Cost Recruitment
• Unqualified Candidates from Budget Leads
• Hidden Costs of Underpriced Applicant Leads
• Investing in Recruitment Ensures Quality
• Sacrificing Candidate Quality for Lower Costs

Risks of Low-Cost Candidate Leads

As an experienced Business Development Director in the forex and trading industry, I have encountered several situations where cost-cutting on job advertisement leads resulted in unexpected challenges. When employers opt for cheaper vendors, they often face the risk of lower-quality candidates applying for the positions. This can lead to a longer hiring process, increased time spent on vetting applications, and a possible mismatch between the job requirements and applicants’ skills. 

In some cases, the lower-priced leads may come from less reputable job boards, resulting in applications that do not meet the desired criteria. A personal experience taught me that paying slightly more for a well-vetted lead can significantly reduce recruitment overhead and ensure alignment between company goals and candidate capabilities. This approach, while seemingly more expensive, often results in higher-quality hires that can contribute effectively to the organization’s success.

Ace Zhuo, Business Development Director (Sales and Marketing), Tech & Finance Expert, TradingFXVPS

Quality Compromise in Bargain Leads

As employers navigate the complexities of hiring finance professionals, paying a fraction of the industry-standard cost per application—$20—may seem like a cost-saving strategy. However, choosing vendors offering bargain leads often results in a compromise on candidate quality.

Employers may encounter applicants who lack the necessary skills, experience, or qualifications, leading to inefficient hiring processes and increased turnover rates. In finance roles, where precision and expertise are paramount, this could result in costly errors and poor performance.

Finance professionals must adhere to stringent regulatory requirements, and an influx of unqualified candidates increases the likelihood of hiring individuals who could expose the company to financial or legal liabilities.

By investing in higher-quality applicant leads, businesses are more likely to attract top talent, reduce the risk of compliance violations, and build a more reliable and productive workforce.

Ariful Islam, Finance Expert, Sterlinx Global

Integrity at Stake with Cheap Recruitment

We’ve learned that cutting corners on recruitment can have severe consequences. Low-cost leads often attract candidates who lack the qualifications and experience necessary for finance roles, potentially compromising the quality of our $1.2 billion asset management. Our team of 20 professionals is built on a foundation of expertise and integrity, which could be jeopardized by subpar hiring practices. I can confidently say that investing in proper recruitment is essential for maintaining the high standards our clients expect.

Jonathan Gerber, President, RVW Wealth

Cost-Cutting Risks in Finance Hiring

We’ve learned that cutting corners on recruitment can be a costly mistake. When employers opt for bargain-basement prices, they risk attracting unqualified candidates who may lack the necessary skills or cultural fit. This can lead to increased turnover rates and decreased productivity, ultimately costing the company more in the long run. Instead, I recommend investing in quality recruitment processes to ensure you’re bringing on board top talent that will drive your financial team’s success.

Adam Garcia, Founder, The Stock Dork

Quantity Over Quality in Cheap Leads

Compromised candidate quality. Vendors who offer leads at a relatively lower cost prioritize quantity over quality. They tend to deliver a high volume of applicants who don’t possess the necessary skills, experience, or cultural fit for the role. In the case of finance roles, where attention to detail, precision, and technical expertise are critical, the move can lead to poor hiring decisions, long time-to-hire, and increased turnover. 

For instance, spending less money on sourcing could result in a flood of unqualified applications, which may overwhelm your HR team and distract them from identifying top talent. Consequently, you may end up spending more time and resources filtering through unsuitable candidates, nullifying the initial cost savings.

Fred Winchar, Founder, Certified HR professional, MaxCash

Ethical Concerns with Low-Cost Recruitment

In my experience, employers need to consider the quality of candidates they are receiving when paying a fraction of the going rate for leads. I have seen that these low-cost leads often result in a high volume of unqualified or inexperienced candidates, wasting time and resources for the employer.

I would mention that there is a risk that these low-cost leads may not have been ethically sourced and could potentially violate labor laws or regulations. This can damage an employer’s reputation and lead to legal consequences. I recently read an article about a company facing backlash for using unethical recruiting practices, causing them to lose top talent and face legal action.

As per my knowledge, paying a small fraction of the going rate for leads can also be perceived as undervaluing the role or industry, which may not attract high-quality candidates. My suggestion is to convey your message in a very clear and creative manner that highlights the value and importance of the role and industry. This is more effective in attracting top talent who are passionate about the field and willing to invest in their career.

Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen

Unqualified Candidates from Budget Leads

I would highlight that one significant risk associated with paying below-market rates for finance job leads is the potential influx of unqualified candidates. When a recruitment agency specializing in remote positions opts for lower-cost leads, it often results in applications from individuals who lack essential skills and experience. This scenario can lead to a substantial expenditure of time and resources as recruiters sift through unsuitable resumes.

Furthermore, cost-effective leads may originate from sources that do not conduct rigorous candidate vetting, increasing the likelihood of encountering fraudulent applications. This can result in hiring individuals who misrepresent their qualifications, which could lead to subpar job performance and financial losses.

Additionally, relying on cheaper leads can negatively impact a company’s reputation. If it becomes known that a company frequently hires unqualified or deceptive candidates, it may deter top talent from applying in the future, making it more challenging to fill critical finance positions.

Lucas Botzen, Talent Acquisition Specialist & CEO, Rivermate

Hidden Costs of Underpriced Applicant Leads

Cutting costs on recruitment in the finance function can be a perimeter walk around a minefield. My experience, as someone leading financial planning and management in a company with 201 to 500 employees, has led me to understand the risks involved. 

For starters, paying less can narrow down your potential pool of applicants. You’re likely to observe a significant drop in experienced, highly skilled applicants. Furthermore, the caliber of applicants also tends to decline, exposing your organization to potential hires lacking essential finance skills. 

My own experience revealed that cost-cutting in finance job advertising led to a prolonged recruitment process, which indirectly resulted in additional costs. We also faced scenarios where we needed to invest heavily in training due to the lack of experience of the hired individuals. 

Therefore, pursuing a lower-than-effective cost per application can generate other qualitative risks like lower employee productivity, slower team integration, a longer learning curve, and possibly, a higher propensity for employee turnover in the long run.

David Chen, Director of Finance, Srlon

Investing in Recruitment Ensures Quality

When it comes to hiring finance professionals, cutting corners on recruitment costs can be a risky gamble. Low-priced vendors might provide a high volume of applications, but the quality could be compromised, leading to time wasted sifting through unqualified candidates. We’ve seen firsthand how investing in proper recruitment practices pays dividends in finding top talent who can drive financial success.

Barbara McMahan, CEO, Atticus Consulting LLC

Sacrificing Candidate Quality for Lower Costs

Opting to pay less for job leads can seem like a savvy move, but it’s important to be mindful of what you might be sacrificing in the process. When you’re spending significantly less on acquiring applications, there’s a higher chance that the quality of candidates might not meet your expectations. Cheap leads can sometimes mean less rigorous screening or a less targeted approach, leading to a flood of applicants who aren’t quite the right fit for your finance roles.

Another risk to consider is the level of service and support you’ll receive from the vendor. With a lower price point, you might find that the vendor isn’t as invested in ensuring your job ad stands out or doesn’t offer as robust a platform for managing applications. This can result in longer hiring times and potentially missing out on high-caliber candidates who could have been a perfect match. In short, while the initial cost savings might be tempting, it’s essential to weigh these against the potential risks of lower quality and service.

Austin Rulfs, Founder, SME Business Investor, Property & Finance Specialist, Zanda Wealth