Is it really a matter of when with AI?
First of all, I'll admit that much of this post is motivated by fear, because I want to working in banking/PE/HF & I think it's a cool career, but it's also a conversation that I've been hearing from various sources for about a year or so now: will artificial intelligence tools remove jobs from the IB industry? Lately, this has been presented as more of a "when" than an "if".
My basic understanding of a first-year analyst IB role (particularly in M&A) is that of a information gatherer/analyzer - get the CIM or public statements, build the models, value the target, build a presentation, help on roadshow, etc. In theory, the first 3-4 steps of this wouldn't be hard for something like ChatGPT to do if you feed it the proper info. It would most likely fail in several areas/build things badly in some cases, but it removes a lot of the human work, and lets an analyst take more of an oversight role.
As this idea evolves, it isn't difficult for me to imagine someone building and training an LLM specifically for banking, making it better at churning out valuations. The most extreme version of this that I've heard is an imagined firm where analysts are removed entirely from the hierarchy and replaced by AI that is supervised by associates etc. that verify and fix its work. The idea is that jobs will be removed, and/or income will be lowered, and/or undergrads will start hiring with associate roles rather than analyst roles.
I'm not as informed as I'd like on AI, tech, etc. (nor am I a banking expert by any means), so I wanted to put this forward to see if anyone more experienced/in the industry already has any thoughts.
I'd say AI may streamline tasks like data gathering and basic modeling, but it won’t replace human bankers. It just frees up juniors to concentrate on strategy, client relationships, and nuanced judgment.
That sounds to me like you need less juniors.
I don't see why AI-driven efficiency gains would accrue to the benefit of the worker, rather than to the bottom line.
Same in PE and any other research- / process-driven job.
Interesting outlook. I suppose it also depends on if juniors will be allowed to take on more responsibility like that. An evolution of the industry either way
If juniors are freed up from certain tasks people can find a whole lot of other things for them to do.
AI will only increase the need for junior bankers
the same way excel and ppt did
Curious about this take - I can see AI reducing the amount of grunt work for juniors but isn't that inherently the bulk of junior work? What's left for them to do or are we foreseeing trickling work downward from the top so that juniors are going to be handling higher seniority responsibilities that associates/VP's were previously tasked with? (And associates/VP's getting trickle down of MD/D responsibilities.)
The alternative would be that junior hours get significantly better but I'd be even more surprised to see firm leadership opt to keep the same number of juniors at lower hours required per junior vs. just hiring fewer juniors.
Agreed. AI will make research more efficient, but it would do so for every company. Just like when PPT was released, it was not like they needed less people now that these didn't have to draw slides. Work evolved. PPT just made one part of the process efficient -- and as it became more commonplace, any competitive advantage because of this efficiency was removed. Work evolved.
I think this is where we are. In short-term, jobs might reduce (if at all). But as the marketplace evolves and the profit opportunities from AI get exhausted, jobs will bounce back.
When any new innovation comes up (like industrial revolution), profits jump a lot, way more than the normal. But the profits decline and margins get lower with time until a new innovation comes and disrupts the market again.
This is completely false.
Yep
Yes, but it’s not going to happen when you’re competing for junior roles. AI has unbelievable potential, but right now is a bit of a parlor game, and people, or AI itself, hasn’t figured out how to not be moronic. The amount of poorly written slop and blatantly incorrect answers doesn’t have me worried for job loss anytime soon.
It’ll happen, but it isn’t happening tomorrow.
Bankers are the LAST people on Earth to ask about this topic.
If the labor-capital mix in an industry shifts dramatically toward being more capital-intensive and less labor-intensive, the only way you could keep the raw amount of labor input constant is if production ramps up dramatically.
Is that technically possible? Of course. But in practice, it would probably turn out more like coal mining did. Some of the guys who had been swinging pickaxes will get trained on operating the mechanized machinery. The older ones will probably just retire early. But the younger and middle aged ones will have to find something else to do.
If nothing else, I think a bunch of 40-year-old laid-off banking managers having to take their severance packages and go sign up for nursing or physical therapy classes to start a new career from scratch might do a number on the way we talk about displaced workers and work in general. People love to mock laid off factory workers and underemployed humanities majors and claim they should have made better choices in life and majored in something like business or STEM. Well, who's laughing now?
I think this is an excellent take. I believe this will cause trades to gain popularity again after having reached peak college education. At the end of the day, everything is cyclic
I don't think it's that you're wrong. I think you are probably not considering that there are other systems beyond the status quo though. A system where many high paying jobs (e.g., banking, PE, legal, etc.) get cut will close the window to wealth for a lot of people. The whole monetary system is built on trust and if you remove the window to move up, it breaks down. Also, cutting a lot of high paying jobs would be massively deflationary and for many reasons the US cannot exist in a deflationary environment.
Someone has forgotten how retarded chatgpt is – wrong thing to ever worry about
weirdly enough today I asked a major AI for an example of companies doing [specific thing] on their earnings call- the AI came back with a lengthy answer about how Google did that in their Q4 2019 earnings call and it caused lots of confusion and speculation and such.
I go and pull the transcript- no such thing happened. I pulled the transcripts for the 3 calls before and after that one- nothing. Totally made up, even about it causing confusion and speculation. Like talking to a pathological liar.
Technology has already wiped out thousands of jobs in S&T. Now, AI is coming for IB. Harsh but inevitable.
What are those S&T people doing now?
doubtful. my shop has a guy who uses ChatGPT exclusively in lieu of actual reading legal doc, memoranda, and industry research. 99% of the time I cannot tie to what he saying the AI said to the actual source. He's basically synthesizing an AI summary of a complex legal document. It's never right. I don't know why people think a large LANGUAGE model is going to be able to do MATH. It's like asking Tom Brady to ice curl.
Anyways prime example. Dude had ChatGPT summarize a 100+ page energy outlook report (think EIA, ExxonMobil energy forecast) focused on combined cycle power generation. AI said the relevant pages was in pg 8, 11, and 12. I open up the actual report pg 8 was about high speed rail, pg 11 was nuclear energy, pg 12 was some other nonsense. I think genuine human comprehension and intelligence is a little better than a statistical language model that shat out words in the correct probabilistic order with no semantic association.
In my example, the time "saved" in the front-end ended up costing extra time in the back end because the person failure to actually read & comprehend the document leading to erroneous decision necessitating hours of extra work all because there was one embedded line that explained the person's question.
To your second statement. Do you plan on never confirming the veracity against the source? I literally provided an actual example of how it failed to provide accurate sourcing. The AI literally just made up information out of thin air. The naivety of source page citation being a non-issue causes me to question your decision making ability. If you trust anything AI says without primary source documentation, then you should trust a taxi driver giving you investment advice. Both are unsubstantiated and unverified sources thus should be viewed with equivalent value.
why is he still there?
Actually yes, I was playing with DeepResearch and have to admit that it's better than some interns and terrible analysts. Might even need less handholding than them. There will always be banking junior jobs, because you can bet that MDs are not going to want to even talk to Chat GPT if they can help it (hence why secretaries / "lazy girl" jobs still exist today), but the same amount of work can definitely be done with less (but smarter juniors).
That being said, AI today still seems heavily heavily context dependent. You can have a master list of prompts, but you're still going to have to hand hold it and correct it / focus it on the impt bits. All of that is context.
I think most people build that context through being forced to do said desktop research and other annoying junior legwork, plus guidance. Some people have enough common sense to get there on their own very fast, some people in fact never get there. So an incoming analyst in the future is going to have less runway to pick up those skillsets, and the bar is going to be set higher.
I rmb that when I started, alot of the less egoistic MDs would look at CVs and comment that if they'd applied to the same jobs today, they would have never gotten in. So the bar is going to be higher in terms of critical thinking skills. But the bonus for those who get in is not having to do stupid shit for 1,000 repetitions.
FWIW, I think the assertion that MSFT office increased demand for junior bankers is completely wrong. The outsized growth of finance is what increased the demand for junior bankers. We're always shortstaffed because MDs only hire when they absolutely need to.
And income is always just a matter of different industries fighting for the best talent. Doesn't take more than 3-4 years (bout the length of time for an undergrad degree) to correct itself.
Tenetur cumque illo quis eligendi rerum rerum eaque minus. Sed qui nihil beatae ipsa perferendis quas. Ipsum sint qui rem ab distinctio laboriosam esse.
Vitae quia est eos vitae dignissimos adipisci. Perferendis sed consequatur molestiae labore unde. Earum id fuga provident nemo assumenda.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Perspiciatis eius porro vel debitis officia harum veniam. Quae deserunt doloribus cupiditate voluptatem. Voluptatem quod sed facere provident. Rem neque in et. Aut perspiciatis dolores dolorum aliquam non accusamus sit nesciunt.
Vel ea quis voluptas numquam et nemo reprehenderit. Amet consequatur aperiam tempora a id asperiores quis. Sequi corrupti doloribus odit dolorem. Magnam velit illo et repellat est occaecati ipsum.
Omnis voluptatum enim nihil quibusdam voluptatem voluptate. Consequuntur sed deleniti temporibus maxime quia est non. Possimus rem placeat debitis cum rerum dolorem.
Necessitatibus aperiam quis corporis possimus. Non totam et ullam. Dolores sit earum architecto repellendus.