Promising AI Finance Start up Or Stay Put at my UMM
Hi, I reached out and was invited to interview at one of those new finance AI startups (Hebbia AI, Rogo, etc). I currently make all in ~$415k at my UMM, and not yet feeling the burnout or intention to leave asap. I assume I will get shoved out and will not make VP.
I have the potential to just coast and collect $400k+ for 2 more years. Should I instead take the hot AI startup? Thoughts?
Both Hebbia and Rogo suck at the moment. Could have zero terminal value so would be careful
The company I’m talking to is neither, but very adjacent and similiar. Thank you though helpful.
Curious why you say that about those two companies ?
Bump
Also interested
As someone who recently left a MM fund as an associate, I’ll give you my biased 2 cents
1. IMO rogo, hebbia and even to some extent Harvey (to a lesser degree) I think are structurally challenged by the foundational models inevitably encroaching on their “bespoke / verticalized” value prop. Open to criticism but anecdotally my PE shop went all in on ChatGPT + Claude and the underlying logic is just they do everything and eventually will have the PE finance specific workflows integrated as well. I just can’t organically think of a situation where I’d seek out rogo or hebbia vs use Claude? Pulling comps, analyzing CIMs, mapping a data room, analyzing lender term sheets, pulling together IC decks - pretty much across the board I think the trajectory and use case optionality of the foundational models is superior. Maybe the MF assos / VPs have a different take here.
2. There are some interesting seed and series A AI bookkeeping and accounting software companies I’ve seen like Kick and Rillet which are actually trying to solve the general ledger reconciliation layer, beneath quickbooks. IMO that’s actually a really difficult, moaty and worthwhile problem in the broader professional F&A services space.
3. There are also interesting AI rollup / Holdcos like Thrive Holdings, the NMC healthcare rollup and the general catalyst backed rollups I think are more downside capped (and upside capped) but have interesting services multiple rerating stories you can potentially believe in based on the sub-vertical thesis.
Unless you really believe in a long-term differentiation / moat story vs the foundational models I think it’s a non-starter to leave PE given how saturated every AI adjacent startup and strategy has become, the abundance of capital and the lack of true barriers to entry in software. If you cant even get comfort that the foundational models won’t release an update that destroys your startup, I don’t know how someone could stomach all the other factors that make joining a startup from PE unpalatable.
As a heavy AI user who's helped evaluate what to use at my firm, we basically settled on exactly this logic and have not committed to any of the verticalized players because what's the point, who knows who will win, and Claude is already 90% as good. Would be nice if it could read our drive/deal CRM, but guessing that is coming.
I really, really appreciate the detailed write up. Thank you so much. Mind if I ask you one question im debating? I just landed an exit at a corporate the title is "Strategy Associate" and the pay all in is $355k. Hours are quoted 9pm-7pm. I think this is an anomaly offer right and I should take it? Aren't most roles that are Ex IB ex PE juniors like $180-$250k all in?
speaking from experiences in my network, but I can attest that anything beyond $250k USD for Strategy Associate is an anomaly. Earning high salary in industry is a double-edged sword; if you don't produce, have good politcal standing, or if the business suffers, your name may be drawn come layoff season.
My view of things - others can chime in if they've heard or seen differently.
Can you please message me? I’m looking for a strategy role like this and would appreciate any guidance on finding these roles.
Yeah would love to hear how you landed that, please pm me if you’re willing to share, trying to get out now and would be super helpful
I'm pretty sure this says less about whether a verticalized solution is the right answer and more about hebbia and rogo being BAD vertical solutions....
If I saw a vertical solution that was MEANINGFULLY better than claude/gemini, it would change my mind completely.
I also think from a business perspective you are completely missing the point - foundational models are not going to go verticalize every sector. They will do some lazy "Claude for Finance" type things, which are garbage.
If you think models are going to magically get enough better to just "do an LBO" right from chatgpt, you just dont understand LLMs very well and their fundamental limitations....
There seems to be a noticeable change/improvement as of lately for companies like rogo/hebbia with their acquisitions of other players, introduction of more substantial AI agents, and releasing their own versions of Claude for excel
Curious on your framing of Harvey (I haven’t used it), is there anything specific about it that reduces the vertical encroachment relative to the other guys? Or is your point regarding proprietary data/confidentiality issues
Yeah so if you see my thoughts below on accounting, legal falls into the same framework to me. Agentic workflows are more attractive the more deterministic and rules based they are, and less vice versa. On that alone, I see more value on the Harvey side, even though law is more judgement and open to interpretation than accounting, it’s still less than PE Imo.
Thanks for this. What did you leave PE to do then?
Can you explain the moat in accounting applications that foundation models or new competitors can’t simply replicate?
I left to do 3.
The reason I think accounting is a much harder and moatier problem to solve from an LLM perspective is because, in theory, accounting is a rules based job. An extremely complex one with lots of edge cases, but a rules based job with deterministic answers. In the short run, this is in theory a more attractive problem set in my opinion for an AI wrapper startup to tackle, and add substantial value on top of the foundational models that is much harder for them to encroach on. If you can capture all those edge cases reliably, and truly automate the workflow, that’s a multi hundred billion dollar TAM and workflow (eg, everyone wants to be the quick books killer)
The job of a PE associate is also rules based, but largely comprised of synthesis tasks that involve some judgement and non-deterministic answers. In that case, copilot use case is inherently favored -> foundational models are cheaper, 80/20 a specialized solution, and more flexible / customizable.
Unless the startup has real revenue, a clear path to profitability, and you're getting meaningful equity, stay at the UMM. The optionality from a name-brand PE fund on your resume is worth more than most people realize — it opens every door for the next 10 years. AI startups are exciting but 95% of them won't exist in 3 years. You can always leave PE for a startup later, but going back to a UMM after leaving for a failed startup is nearly impossible. If you're genuinely passionate about AI in finance, build on the side while keeping your seat. The best time to take startup risk is when you have a safety net, not after you've burned your bridges.
I really, really appreciate the detailed write up. Thank you so much. Mind if I ask you one question im debating? I just landed an exit at a corporate the title is "Strategy Associate" and the pay all in is $355k. Hours are quoted 9pm-7pm. I think this is an anomaly offer right and I should take it? Aren't most roles that are Ex IB ex PE juniors like $180-$250k all in?
$355K all-in at a corporate for 9-7 hours is a strong offer — don't overthink the title. You're right that most ex-IB PE juniors land $180-250K, but those are fund roles with carry upside and worse hours. At $355K with work-life balance, your effective hourly rate is probably higher than most Associate seats. The question is whether you want optionality (stay in PE/fund track) or quality of life now. If you don't plan to go back to a fund, take the corporate role and don't look back.
Keep ripping PE cash comp and find ways to get exposure to AI privates if you want potential upside from that, wouldn't bet your career on it for one startup. Valuations are already too high for most of them to be that big of a homerun for a run-of-the-mill employee anyways
I really, really appreciate the detailed write up. Thank you so much. Mind if I ask you one question im debating? I just landed an exit at a corporate the title is "Strategy Associate" and the pay all in is $355k. Hours are quoted 9pm-7pm. I think this is an anomaly offer right and I should take it? Aren't most roles that are Ex IB ex PE juniors like $180-$250k all in?
how many times are you going to copy/paste the same fkn question? no shit its an anomaly offer - any dunce with a functional internet connection could spend 5 min and figure that out themselves.
most AI startup moats will probably be obsolete in like 2-3 years (and that’s being generous), so there isn’t much long-term upside there
ask yourself why a company would pay for some external AI when they could just hire a team to build exactly what they need in-house
Claude is also launching AIs almost weekly killing hundreds of AI startups before they even launch lol
This is incorrect and highly inconsistent.
Eius qui non autem adipisci. Sequi nihil et error et ipsa repellat. Iste deleniti ab voluptatem sit illum corrupti rerum. Praesentium est occaecati ipsum aut harum a et.
Numquam recusandae aliquam officiis et iusto qui sapiente. Ab ut rerum et dolores sed qui omnis. Ut rerum consequatur molestiae.
At vero aut voluptatibus veritatis. Tempore nam eum voluptas illo. Deserunt et cumque molestiae. Iusto sed dignissimos repellendus eos officia doloremque.
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...
Et alias aperiam debitis qui aut. Veniam quam iusto atque doloribus iste et.
Quia neque et consequuntur amet animi quibusdam quos. Facilis laboriosam voluptatem ut quia et laudantium laborum et. Perspiciatis sapiente ut enim. Accusantium fugit et voluptatem est dolores eum.
Sunt quia vero deleniti quam error quis ut. Magnam quia debitis eligendi sunt tenetur optio deserunt praesentium. Voluptas nesciunt iste illo aut.