When Darren Ng stepped into the role of Group Chief of Staff at WRISE, alongside his responsibilities as Group CFO, his world expanded from the numbers that measure business performance to the people, priorities and decisions that shape it.
With WRISE entering a new phase of growth, Ng’s dual mandate places him at the intersection of financial strategy and organisational execution. But scaling a wealth management business takes more than financial rigour. It calls for leadership that can navigate change, technology that can unlock new possibilities and a workforce ready for what lies ahead.
In this exclusive interview, Ng reflects on what it will take to turn WRISE’s growth ambitions into reality.
Read his insights below:
Leadership lessons across industries and cycles of change
Looking back on more than 25 years in finance and financial services, one of the most important lessons I have learnt is that leadership is ultimately about judgement, resilience and the ability to bring people along through change.
I have had the opportunity to work across traditional banking, wealth management, fintech, digital assets and private equity-backed businesses. Each environment has been different. In established financial institutions, the emphasis is often on governance, risk management, consistency and execution at scale. In entrepreneurial and high-growth businesses, the priorities can be very different - building the business, managing uncertainty, making decisions with incomplete information and adapting quickly when circumstances change.
Both environments have taught me valuable lessons. Good governance and financial discipline are essential, but they should not become an excuse for resisting change. Equally, entrepreneurial ambition needs to be supported by sound financial management, clear accountability and a realistic understanding of risk.
Some of these lessons are also quite personal. I grew up in a family of entrepreneurs. At one point, our family business was regarded as one of the leading SMEs in Singapore. However, during the Asian Financial Crisis, the business collapsed, and our family lost almost everything. It was a difficult experience, but it shaped how I think about business and financial stewardship.
It taught me that valuation is not liquidity, revenue is not cash flow, and growth does not necessarily translate into sustainability. A business can look successful on paper, but if it does not have the financial resilience and discipline to withstand a downturn, that success can disappear very quickly. More importantly, behind every business are families, employees and livelihoods. The decisions we make as leaders have consequences beyond the balance sheet.
That experience has stayed with me throughout my career. As a CFO, I see my role as more than reporting numbers or protecting the balance sheet. It is about being a business champion - helping the organisation make better decisions, allocate resources effectively, manage risks and build sustainable value.
I have also learnt that leadership is not about having all the answers or surrounding yourself with people who always agree with you. At WRISE, we agree to disagree at times, and I think that is healthy. I would be more concerned if everyone around the table agreed with everything all the time. The important thing is to have an open and constructive discussion, challenge assumptions and, once a decision is made, align behind it and execute.
I have sometimes been described as an “Iron Man CFO”, not only because I am a multi-tasker but also I can be quite hands-on and persistent when it comes to execution. I do set high expectations, but I believe that comes with the responsibility of ensuring that we deliver what we have committed to.
I am also conscious that a CFO cannot simply be focused on being popular. I am not there to win a popularity contest. There will be times when I have to challenge a proposal, question an assumption or make an uncomfortable decision. My responsibility is to safeguard the financial integrity and long-term interests of the organisation.
At WRISE, we are at an important stage of our development - building an international wealth management platform while strengthening the institutional foundations needed to support our next phase of growth. I see that as an opportunity to bring together the discipline of established financial institutions and the entrepreneurial mindset needed to build something new.
I was also honoured to receive the 2026 CorporateTreasurer Marquee Award for Best CFO - Singapore, APAC. The category has traditionally been dominated by CFOs from global financial institutions and large conglomerates. WRISE being the first and only external asset management platform to receive this recognition since the award's inception is particularly meaningful. I see it not just as an individual achievement, but as recognition of the progress the Group has made in strengthening its financial and institutional foundations.
Ultimately, leadership is about building something that can endure beyond any one individual. It is about making the right decisions, developing people and leaving the organisation stronger than when you found it.
Bridging financial performance and strategic execution
I see the CFO and Chief of Staff responsibilities as complementary. The CFO role provides the financial perspective - performance, capital allocation, financial discipline, risk management and sustainability. The Chief of Staff role gives me a broader enterprise-wide perspective, helping to connect the Group's strategic priorities with leadership alignment, organisational coordination and execution.
For me, the value of the dual role is in bridging strategy and execution. It is one thing to agree on a strategic direction; it is another to ensure that the organisation is aligned, that the right resources are allocated and that people are accountable for delivering the intended outcomes.
At WRISE, we operate across different markets, business lines and regulatory environments. As the Group expands, coordination becomes increasingly important. Opportunities can arise across markets and business units, but we need to ensure that they are assessed against the Group's overall priorities and that we are not operating in silos.
My role is therefore to help the CEO and the broader leadership team maintain a clear line of sight between strategic objectives, financial performance and execution. This includes working with business leaders to translate priorities into measurable targets, reviewing performance against those targets, identifying gaps early and ensuring that issues requiring management attention are addressed promptly.
I place considerable emphasis on enterprise performance management. We need to understand not just whether revenue is growing, but the quality and sustainability of that growth. Are we generating the right returns? Are our business models scalable? Are we managing costs and risks appropriately? Are we investing in the capabilities needed for the next phase of growth?
The governance structure is also important. The Board provides oversight and strategic direction. The Group Executive Committee (GEC) focuses on Group-level strategic priorities, executive leadership and key decisions. The Group Management Committee (GMC) provides a management forum for alignment and coordination across the organisation, translating those priorities into on the ground operational plans and execution.
These forums need to be purposeful. We should not create meetings for the sake of meetings. Each should have a clear mandate, defined decision rights and accountability for follow-through.
I also believe in being practical about execution. We need to identify a manageable number of priorities, assign clear ownership and establish measurable milestones. If something is not progressing as expected, we should surface the issue early rather than allow it to become a surprise at the end of the reporting period.
Ultimately, the dual role allows me to connect the financial and operational dimensions of the business. My objective is to help ensure that strategy does not remain a presentation or a set of aspirations, but becomes something that is reflected in the way we allocate resources, manage performance and make decisions every day.
Balancing agility with accountability at scale
I think the key is to distinguish between institutional discipline and bureaucracy. They are not the same thing.
As an organisation grows, particularly across different markets and regulatory environments, we need stronger governance, clearer accountability and more consistent operating standards. That is necessary if we want to build an institution that is sustainable and capable of operating at scale.
However, governance should enable the business, not get in its way. We should not introduce processes simply because larger organisations have them. Every process, committee or control should have a clear purpose and add value.
At WRISE, we are focused on putting the right institutional foundations in place while preserving the entrepreneurial mindset that has been an important part of our growth. This means having clear decision-making authority, appropriate financial and risk controls, reliable management information and consistent performance oversight across the Group.
Our governance architecture provides an important framework. The Board provides oversight and strategic direction; the GEC focuses on Group strategy, executive leadership and key decisions; while the GMC supports on the ground management alignment and cross-functional coordination. Each forum has a distinct role, and we need to avoid duplication or unnecessary layers of approval.
Leadership accountability is equally important. Every business and functional leader should understand what they are responsible for, what outcomes they are expected to deliver and how their performance will be measured. Accountability should not be confined to financial targets alone. It should also encompass risk management, regulatory standards, people development and operational effectiveness.
At WRISE, we use Key Risk Indicators (KRIs) to track risk exposures and assess control effectiveness within each function. Rather than serving as metrics updated periodically merely to meet governance requirements, they give management meaningful insight into emerging risks, control weaknesses and areas needing attention.
I am particularly conscious of avoiding a tick-the-box mentality. Completing a checklist or submitting a report does not necessarily mean that a risk has been properly managed. What matters is whether the functional head understands the underlying risk, takes ownership of it and acts decisively to address any gaps.
We take this seriously. Where we see a functional head treating risk management as a procedural exercise rather than a genuine management responsibility, the matter is addressed through direct counselling and performance accountability. If the individual is persistently unable or unwilling to discharge that responsibility, we will have to consider whether he or she is the right person for the role. Ultimately, leadership accountability must have consequences.
For me, this is what institutional discipline means. It is not about creating more forms, reports or approval layers. It is about ensuring that the right people take ownership, that risks are identified early and that issues are addressed before they become bigger problems.
Cross-functional collaboration is particularly important in a wealth management platform. Finance, technology, compliance, operations, human resources and the business teams cannot operate independently of one another. A decision made in one area can have implications across the Group. We therefore need leaders who understand the broader business, not just their own functional responsibilities.
I also believe that constructive challenge is healthy. At WRISE, we agree to disagree at times, and I think that is healthy. I would be more concerned if everyone around the table agreed with everything all the time. Different perspectives help us test assumptions and make better decisions.
The important thing is to distinguish between challenging a decision and obstructing execution. We should encourage robust discussion before a decision is made. Once there is alignment, the organisation needs to move forward with clarity and commitment.
I would rather have a difficult conversation today than explain an avoidable mistake tomorrow. That applies to financial performance, risk management, organisational matters and strategic execution.
Technology and data also have an important role to play. Better systems and management information should reduce manual work, improve visibility and allow management to identify issues earlier. If our processes are well designed, technology should help us become more efficient rather than simply digitise existing bureaucracy.
Ultimately, the goal is not to build a large organisation with layers of processes. It is to build a well-governed, accountable and agile institution. The goal is not to eliminate disagreement. It is to make disagreement productive, decisions clear and execution decisive.
Building future-ready talent for an AI-driven wealth industry
As WRISE expands, our talent strategy has to evolve alongside the business. We need people who can operate effectively in an increasingly international, technology-enabled and regulated wealth management environment.
The traditional approach of recruiting primarily based on functional experience or filling vacancies as they arise is not sufficient. We need to think more carefully about the capabilities the Group will require over the next three to five years, and how we develop, attract and deploy talent to support those priorities.
I strongly believe in continuous learning. Alongside my executive responsibilities, I serve as an adjunct faculty member for Nanyang Technological University’s FlexiMasters in Fintech and the Asian Institute of Management’s CFO Programme.
Teaching and engaging with students and experienced professionals, including senior management from top tier financial institutions and multinational companies, helps me stay abreast of developments beyond my day-to-day work.
It also challenges me to keep learning. The pace of change in AI, fintech, digital assets and emerging technologies is significant. I cannot rely solely on what I learnt 10 or 20 years ago. As leaders, we have to remain curious and be prepared to continuously update our knowledge and perspectives.
AI will reshape wealth management in several ways. It can improve adviser productivity, support research and analysis, streamline operations, enhance client engagement and allow employees to focus more of their time on higher-value activities. It may also change the way we organise work and the capabilities we need within different functions.
However, I do not see AI as simply a technology implementation exercise. It is also a talent and organisational transformation exercise. We need to rethink workflows, job responsibilities and the skills required to deliver better outcomes for clients.
At the same time, wealth management remains a relationship-driven business. Technology can improve efficiency and provide better insights, but trust, judgement and personal relationships remain central. We must also be mindful of client confidentiality, regulatory requirements, information security and appropriate human oversight.
We should not assume that experienced employees and younger employees bring competing capabilities. They bring different strengths. Experienced professionals often have institutional knowledge, sound judgement, client relationships and an understanding of risk. Younger colleagues may bring greater digital fluency, new perspectives and familiarity with emerging technologies. The opportunity is to create an environment where these capabilities complement one another.
At WRISE, we also need to be thoughtful about how we organise our people. When a vacancy arises, we should not automatically assume that we need to replace the role on a like-for-like basis. We should first reassess the responsibilities, consider whether certain activities can be consolidated or redesigned, and identify whether existing employees can take on broader responsibilities.
This creates opportunities for internal mobility, career development and a more effective organisation. It also requires us to be fair and transparent about how roles are evaluated and remunerated.
My view is that remuneration should reflect the size and scope of the role, the level of responsibility, the impact and the value being delivered by the incumbent. It should not be determined simply by tenure, historical salary or a job title. If a role expands materially, the responsibilities and remuneration should be reviewed accordingly. Equally, if the scope of a role reduces materially, remuneration should be reassessed to reflect the revised responsibilities.
Ultimately, we need to build a culture where people are encouraged to learn, adapt and take on new challenges. We should reward outcomes, not activities. The objective is to develop a workforce that is capable of growing with the organisation, rather than simply filling today's vacancies.
Rethinking talent and growth with Singapore’s AI transformation and rising retirement ages
I think organisations need to rethink the traditional idea of a career as a relatively linear progression — moving up a hierarchy, taking on a bigger title and eventually reaching a retirement age. That model is becoming less relevant in a world where technology, business models and the skills required are changing so quickly.
With longer working lives, there is an opportunity to make better use of experienced talent. People should not be defined solely by their age or years of service. What matters is whether their experience, judgement and capabilities remain relevant, and how those strengths can be deployed to create value.
At the same time, we need to recognise that career development is no longer simply about moving upwards. It can also mean moving across functions, taking on new responsibilities, acquiring new skills or transitioning into different areas of the business. Organisations need to create more opportunities for people to reinvent themselves throughout their careers.
I have also tried to be intentional about my own career development. In 2020, I made a conscious decision to leave what many would consider a comfortable position as a Managing Director at a regional bank to venture into less familiar territory - fintech, private equity and US capital markets. I also had the opportunity to work abroad for an extended period, which exposed me to different markets, business cultures and ways of doing business.
It was not necessarily the easiest or most comfortable path. Moving away from an established banking career meant stepping outside my comfort zone, taking risks and being prepared to learn all over again. The journey was certainly not for the faint-hearted. There were uncertainties and challenges along the way, but each experience added a different dimension to my professional capabilities and perspective.
Looking back, had I not taken that first step in 2020, I would not have acquired the breadth of experience that I have today, nor would I be where I am now. I share this because I believe career development has to be intentional. We cannot simply wait for opportunities to come to us or expect our careers to progress along a predictable path. Sometimes, we have to be prepared to make a move before we know exactly where it will lead. It is about having the curiosity to explore, the courage to take calculated risks and the humility to keep learning.
This is also relevant to leadership succession. Succession planning should not begin only when a senior leader is approaching retirement or when a vacancy arises. It should be an ongoing process of identifying potential, providing people with opportunities to take on broader responsibilities and preparing the next generation of leaders well ahead of time.
AI adds another dimension to this discussion. It will change the nature of many roles in time to come, but I do not believe the answer is simply to replace people with technology. We should look at how technology can augment human capabilities, remove repetitive work and allow employees to focus on activities that require judgement, relationships, creativity and problem-solving.
From a finance perspective, the challenge is to balance investment in people and technology with the need to deliver sustainable growth. These investments must be supported by a clear business case. We need to understand the expected benefits, the implementation costs, the time required to realise value and the risks involved. At the same time, we should not take an excessively short-term view. Some investments in talent, technology and organisational capability may not produce immediate financial returns, but they are essential to the Group's long-term competitiveness.
At WRISE, we remain disciplined in how we deploy resources. That means continuously reviewing our organisational structure, developing internal talent, investing in capabilities that support our strategic priorities and ensuring that technology delivers tangible improvements in productivity, client experience and operating effectiveness.
Ultimately, I believe the most successful organisations will be those that bring together experienced judgement, fresh perspectives and technology. We need to create an environment where people at different stages of their careers can continue to contribute, learn and grow.
For me, career success is not simply about the titles we hold or the positions we reach. It is also about the people we develop, the opportunities we create for others and the legacy we leave behind.