What are the financial jobs that will not be replaced by automation?

Updated on : January 17, 2022 by Brodie Garza



What are the financial jobs that will not be replaced by automation?

This is my guess:

  • Personalized accounting / personal service for people who don't want robots.
  • Expert accounting for billionaires who want human-managed (managed) services or software management.
  • Representation of services, for example, in antiquated banks, especially banks in the developing world or newly opened chains that do not yet have robots.
  • Personal secretaries (possibly volunteers or interns) for people who don't want robots.

See also: How can workers be retrained or helped to become more resilient in the face of losing their jobs due to automation?

Someone has to drive the bus, or at least select the destination. The purpose will likely take a while to automate (at least until AI mastery occurs), so those who select, design, and implement the purpose (value) will still be around: controllers, CFOs, implementation consultants, etc. . the last to go.

Liquidity risk revolves mainly around two factors

  1. Not being able to convert assets to cash easily and quickly.
  2. Not being able to meet short-term financial demands.

Each asset is different and so is its liquidity. Cash / treasury bills are considered the most liquid assets, while something like real estate can be considered on the less liquid side.

Liquidity Risk is for both individuals and institutions.

Let's say a person wants to convert their shares and a property to cash to meet their current financial needs. You can easily sell your shares on the market and get cash as the shares are very

Keep reading

Liquidity risk revolves mainly around two factors

  1. Not being able to convert assets to cash easily and quickly.
  2. Not being able to meet short-term financial demands.

Each asset is different and so is its liquidity. Cash / treasury bills are considered the most liquid assets, while something like real estate can be considered on the less liquid side.

Liquidity Risk is for both individuals and institutions.

Let's say a person wants to convert their shares and a property to cash to meet their current financial needs. You can easily sell your shares on the market and get cash, as the shares are highly liquid. But you may have to sell your property at a discount, since you need the cash right away and real estate is a liquid asset.

This is one of the main concepts of liquidity risk.

  • Being forced to sell an asset at a discounted price to meet short-term needs.

A company can also face the same liquidity problems when it does not have enough liquid assets to cover its short-term liabilities.

Ways to manage liquidity risk

  • Check liquidity regularly
  • Create a contingency plan / emergency fund for highly liquid assets.
  • The current ratio (current assets / current liabilities) is often used to measure liquidity.

Some fun facts about liquidity risk

  • It was one of the most important factors that led to the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2007-08 and this caused tremors throughout the global financial system.
  • The Great Recession or Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 is also called a liquidity crisis.

NO. Not now. Never.


I. Humans and Computers / Robots

When considering artificial intelligence, it would be wise to remember the lessons of previous technological revolutions: focus on the effects of technology rather than chasing broad-based fears about the technology itself. Technology has steered us towards a cleaner and greener planet. We do not need to deviate in a new direction. If we do so, we run the risk of delaying progress.

However, I see that many people are afraid of the "revolution" of Artificial Intelligence. Most people are afraid that they will lose jobs and ruin their careers.

* Technology is neither good nor bad. That

Keep reading

NO. Not now. Never.


I. Humans and Computers / Robots

When considering artificial intelligence, it would be wise to remember the lessons of previous technological revolutions: focus on the effects of technology rather than chasing broad-based fears about the technology itself. Technology has steered us towards a cleaner and greener planet. We do not need to deviate in a new direction. If we do so, we run the risk of delaying progress.

However, I see that many people are afraid of the "revolution" of Artificial Intelligence. Most people are afraid that they will lose jobs and ruin their careers.

* Technology is neither good nor bad. It is a tool that we must use wisely to benefit all of us.

On the subject of the future of humanity along with technological advances, history has shown that such developments have the power to change the world, but are "never deterministic" on their own.

Technology itself is neutral, neither good nor bad, and it's up to us to make sure we use it for something positive in the workforce. How you view AI depends on which side of the hustle spectrum you are on. While it may seem like a rat race when it comes to embracing new technology, it's crucial not to neglect the humans who will ultimately drive that change.

While the last great revolution brought discoveries like trains, cars, electricity, and television, it didn't tell us what to do with it.

As emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and biotechnology, become increasingly important, humanity still has a choice about how they will be used. We are still in control.

Technology can be used unconsciously or consciously. The key is to put it to work for you rather than being pushed around by it.

This is the job of governments. The problem is that many administrations around the world focus on "old problems" and do not pay enough attention to the potential of emerging technologies.

Compounding matters is the fact that the public remains "quite ignorant about these issues" and subject matter experts in private business or academia do not have the political mandate to regulate these new inventions.

So we should spend less time worrying about the AI ​​getting out of control and more time worrying about the people who control the AI.

* While it may be true to some extent, the one thing AI can't replicate is creativity. The logic is replaceable. Anyone can count 1 + 1.

Computers are fast, accurate, and stupid.

Humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate, and brilliant.

Machines follow rules.

Humans use judgment and reason.

As the speed of computing doubles roughly every eight months, humans will soon cease to be the fastest computer. However, the human brain is in no danger of being replaced. Computers can mimic how we process information. But how we feel, and how it affects what we do with information, that can never be encoded. Human beings possess the ever-in-demand skill of creativity that computers cannot master. With our creativity and soft skills, we can change and adapt to an environment. Computers are not capable of thinking outside the box in ways they were not programmed for.

However, computers can facilitate that change and adaptation to advance human intelligence. Computers are very fast jerks who are very good at doing easy (but tedious) work. And by taking over those tasks, you free up human workers to do the most challenging jobs (i.e. financial advisors, etc.) that require intelligence (beyond what automation is capable of today). Therefore, activities that can be easily automated only include physical activities in highly predictable and structured environments, as well as data collection and processing. Especially for many workers in routine and repetitive jobs, the risk of being replaced by robots is very high. Definitely,

* It was inevitable that one day AI would take over logical jobs. But the answer to technological disruption lies in our ability to apply humanity to the challenge.

The question is not whether automation will eliminate jobs. There is no finite number of jobs that we have been dividing since the Stone Age. New jobs are being created and they are generally better and more creative jobs. So the question is: how quickly will this transition occur, what types of jobs will be deleted, and what types of jobs will be created?

I believe that automation, over a long enough period of time, will replace all non-creative jobs. This is not a new problem: throughout history, automation has replaced jobs. But it has always freed people for new creative jobs. Technology makes jobs obsolete, but there is no upper limit on the number of technology jobs per se. Temporary displacement, not permanent.

Society will always create new jobs, but it is impossible to predict what those jobs will be. Could you have predicted, 10 years ago, that people could create vast amounts of wealth through podcasting? - NO.

The Internet has vastly expanded the possible space of racing. Most people have not yet realized this. Technology makes jobs obsolete, but there is no upper limit on the number of technology jobs per se. Temporary displacement, not permanent.

If you look at the technologies that have been introduced over the years and how they have impacted what people do, new jobs have always emerged. If you think about the number of emails and the number of documents that you write yourself. In the past, a large company would have had a group of people in a room somewhere writing those documents. Now they don't do that. What I see is not so much the disappearance of jobs but the shift, for the most part from a productivity standpoint, to something higher, something more productive, something bigger in that combination. The jobs will remain, but they will require a whole new set of skills to perform. New technologies will make some jobs obsolete; Nevertheless, they will also reduce costs and drive expansions that will lead to job growth in new areas. In all jobs, individuals would be required to take on new or expanded tasks that have a greater element of judgment and creativity, while tasks of a more repetitive and rule-based nature are automated. While machines will become more and more powerful, humans will actually be more essential.

The challenge of the next decade is not Artificial Intelligence, but Human Intelligence. Can we retrain the workforce as knowledge workers?

Believing that technology will create permanent unemployment is the same as believing that people cannot be educated to build technology.

One of the myths we have today is that adults cannot be reeducated. We see education as a thing where you go to school, you go to college, you go out and you finish ... no more education. Well that's wrong.

The race is not a destination where we stay for the rest of our lives; it is an ever-changing journey that provides the opportunity to learn, grow, and be recognized for our efforts. This is especially relevant, since the half-life of the learned skills has been reducing, and some suggest that at this time we could reduce it to five years. In other words, half the knowledge you acquired five years ago is now out of date.

So the problem in finance is not that technology replaces jobs. These are old skills that don't match the new jobs. With many finance professionals fearful that their jobs are being replaced by machines, we actually see banks scrambling to find the right talent - that is, people who understand both finance and technology. So the problem we're starting to see today is not technology replacing jobs, but a mismatch between new jobs and old skills. The question is how do we automate without leaving low-skilled people behind. Finding out that will require employers,

The best way to solve that problem is by training professionals. Over the next decade, our world will be tasked with solving some of the most pressing problems it has ever faced, including climate change, wealth gaps, and health costs in rapidly aging societies. Only by building a strong foundation for the new skills economy, investing in our youth, and supporting lifelong learning programs for our existing talented workforce can we ensure that our nations and people are ready to face a turbulent tomorrow. In this age of technology-driven transformation, helping our people train in technology is essential.

The people least likely to be replaced by machine learning are machine learning. The key is to ensure that the workforce receives adequate training and that the old educational norms that we take for granted must be changed. You need to retrain three or four times throughout your career. You go to high school, you go to college, you learn a career, you do that for 30 years, that's over because you're going to need to be retrained three or four times in the course of your life. This is a very different educational model.

Be perfectly imperfect and start exploring now before it's too late. Focus on creative skills and sharpen your thinking skills. This is how you take advantage of life in the post-internet world and make a living doing it. If you are constantly on the go, trying to increase added value for yourself, and looking for new ways to challenge and improve yourself, then AI will help you reach your goals faster. History shows that technological innovation, from the combine to the computer, can make work safer, more productive, and ultimately strengthen the economy. It is clear that technology will not replace many of the skills needed for the jobs of the future. It will simply act as a supporter and integrator, making digital fluency as important as literacy and numeracy in the future. Together,

If you're not willing to change and adapt, and you just want to rot in the same job for 25 years, forget about AI, anyone can replace you. Yet innovation can also produce losers - the often low-skilled workers displaced by technology and the communities that depend on those workers. In the 21st century, the really great fight will be against irrelevance. It is far worse to be irrelevant than to be exploited.

The demand for technology skills will grow much faster than the supply. All industries must plan for workforce transformation and develop talent. All industries must address the challenges of adapting technology head-on by addressing the talent gap that will eventually form in today's workforce.

Unions have a responsibility to defend the interests of more than just their current members, just as industry has a responsibility to help the next generation of workers prepare for a new kind of job.

The government has to prepare communities for the changes to come, while doing a better job of ensuring that the benefits of increased efficiency and productivity are not captured only by employers who hire fewer workers. One thing we can do to protect ourselves against automation. We need a culture of adult education (orienting them towards creative professions). What could it look like? Every 5 to 10 years, the government would pay you to go back to school / re-educate yourself in a different profession.


II. Human Investors and Advisors

Financial advisor and financial analyst are two extremely different jobs. Here I am talking about financial advisers, including stock brokers, insurance agents, tax preparers, stock brokers, money managers or portfolio managers or fund managers, wealth planners, bankers, financial planners, and more.

Basically, we cannot and should not compare humans to robots, or human advisers to robo advisors. Theft services do not provide the qualities that people want in an advisor. Digitized advisors can function as a complement to humans, but they can never replace the expertise of a flesh-and-blood adviser. Creating and advising households by carrying out an optimal comprehensive financial plan still depends on the responsiveness and communication that only a traditional advisor can provide.

Theft advisers do a great job of maintaining client portfolios. But that's only part of the job of financial management. Many investors want to grow (1) their wealth quickly and need the kind of personalized and professional service (2) (3), and that is why human advisers cannot be replaced.

1. Returns

Computers are better at investing in the public market than humans.

Returns on public markets will not be as good, for whatever reason. (Perhaps because efficient investing in robots and indices has raised valuations and lowered expected future returns?)

Humans are better than computers at investing in strange markets.

Returns in foreign markets will be better, for whatever reason. (Because robots haven't gotten involved yet, or are they getting paid more to take liquidity risks?)
.

Financial firms are always coming up with new and complex instruments to trade and invest.

Human advisers are the ones who can look beyond the public markets (which include multi-billion dollar stock exchanges, bond trading platforms, and big deals backed by private equity and venture capital, etc.) and put money from your clients in strange illiquid things. where computers can't compete. The point about these investments is that they require "high human capital" to manage, even if they are abundant. It is like "dark matter": they dwarf the visible things illuminated by the markets.

As such, customers will not be able to compare their performance to that of computers. Money managers certainly underperformed the S&P 500, but they can't be compared to the S&P 500. They were investing in refugee camps, where of course the risk / return profile is completely different.

Therefore, human money managers should flee to assets where computers cannot follow them, because weird things will be better for customers. But perhaps what money managers should do is resign. It depends on whether strange assets are a good idea.

2. Personalized service

High net worth investors need, and want, the human touch. Human advisers will be needed for the foreseeable future to advise wealthy clients with complicated financial planning needs.

For the machine, it's about using data and machine learning to make market predictions and identify business opportunities.

While artificial intelligence is very promising (63% of fintech professionals cited it as the key technology most worth watching), its application is too unpredictable to fully rely on a family's peace of mind and financial savings. . In finance, a machine may excel at making accurate market predictions, but it does so in a "black box," a very dark and unknowable group for high-net-worth investors in particular. These people are used to high trust relationships, as in private equity, where there is a premium for explaining how an investment strategy is structured and expected to work. Even the most accurate black box probably won't earn the trust of a high-touch customer who relies on a human relationship. While retail investors accept robo-advisors, high-net-worth clients who are used to high-touch services will still need the human side of the mind-machine collaboration. For this clientele, it is a matter of trust.

The main problems you would have with robo advisors would be the quality of the data entry. Have you ever done a personality quiz online? In doing so, have you ever been aware that the answers can be tailored to what you want the results to be, knowing that you are under a test? Until there is a true way to tie together an individual's mosiac theory and their needs, whether through IOT or other methods, the tricky part of automated financial advice will always be the true quality and relevance of the data entry. Simple risk tolerance questionnaires, which serve as the core of the robo advisers' customer discovery process, they do not get to the heart of understanding the totality of an investor's financial needs and goals and how their investment portfolio works in the context of their entire financial situation. situations.

For humans, it's about relationships and building trust, an area of ​​expertise in which people still have a considerable advantage over computers.

For most wealthy investors, handing over a lifetime's savings to an advisor of any kind requires a level of trust that a purely electronic interface cannot replace. Traditional human advisers can provide the kind of hands-on, personal service investors consistently say they want. Investors have consistently cited an advisor's willingness to take the time to understand their needs and goals, look at their full financial picture, and explain the analysis clearly as the most important qualities they look for in an advice provider. By working with an advisor, clients can create personalized plans that address everything from the changing insurance needs of a growing family to balancing multiple savings goals and,

Just as important, advisors can also offer ongoing training to address challenges clients face along the way, from market volatility to cash flow needs, to ensure transient issues don't devastate your long-term strategy. Critics say human advisers are prone to unscrupulous moves, such as pushing investments that are suboptimal for the client but profitable for the advisor. There are bad actors in any profession, of course, but the vast majority of consultants are doing their best to serve their clients. In addition, it is important to note that the use of robo advisers does not eliminate this type of conflict.

3. Professional management

Why are there still teachers when we are able to read books on our own?

Why are there postmen when we can deliver mail on our own?

Why are there waiters when we can take our orders on our own?

There are many people who give their service for things we can do alone, but they prefer not to. While there are many computers / robots that allow you to choose stocks for yourself and buy and sell them yourself, human advisers are the ones LICENSED to do so. They exist to guide and offer help in many cases or while you are using a computer.

A professional investment manager looks after your investment through careful research and skillful negotiation. Mutual fund managers are professionals, which means that they will help you avoid some of the risks you would take if you bought your own stocks personally. Not to mention, active mutual funds can be a great way to get diversified exposure to just about any asset class (discipline diversification). Since you pool money from many smaller investors, you can invest in certain assets or take larger positions than a smaller investor could take. For example, the fund may have access to IPO placements or certain structured products only available to institutional investors.

This means that robots cannot replace human advisers.

Legacy Big Box financial advisers introduced automated investment services, while robo advisors added a human touch after admitting their algorithms alone were insufficient. Neither has struck the perfect balance. I stand firm in my belief that nothing on the market can match the benefits of an experienced, conflict-free, technology-enabled bionic financial advisor.

Human advisors will work alongside rapidly evolving machines to address customer needs, which will require human skills to evolve as well. By bringing together expertise in each field, those who know the algorithms and those who finance can deliver powerful collaboration. A collaboration between humans and computers makes an unbeatable combination. Together, the "brain on a bike" partnership can lead to "Human Version 2.0" - accelerating breakthroughs and advancing discoveries.

Those of the tech people should guide her to augment humans, not replace them. And business and society as a whole must invest in education to ensure that we and our children are prepared for jobs we can't even imagine yet. By doing that, as our ancestors did in the early 20th century, we can help ensure that AI ushers in an era of opportunity and wealth for all. People must position themselves for a lifetime of learning, as the skills demanded by the workplace are changing faster than ever. Traditional college degrees no longer lead to stable long-term employment opportunities; new training in new skills has much more impact.

4. Investment strategy

After all, you get what you pay for:

High cost = High risk / return + Personalized service

Low cost = Low risk / return + Public service

Some say that a passive and automatically managed portfolio will outperform a portfolio actively managed by a human being. While money has moved from more expensive actively managed funds to less expensive passively (theft) managed funds, and more generally from mutual funds to exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which are for the most part passively managed, that's just one investment question. strategy, not an argument to go exclusively with digital advisors.

Many human advisers can recommend passive investment strategies, depending on the client's needs.

Clients whose financial goals are fully met by achieving market performance, minus a minimal spend fee, are advised to stick with robot-managed index funds, while those who need (or want) to generate more are You can recommend that they select more active funds.

* Here is the route I recommend for beginners:

Index Funds => Mutual Funds => Index Funds or ETFs

The starting point should be an index fund, with due diligence done on any available active fund options. For beginners, an easy way to invest is to expose yourself to the market as a whole, such as the S&P 500. Building your own portfolio of stocks, bonds, and other securities provides the highest level of control. You have to understand how to put your money to work for yourself before taking any further steps.

After that, consult an accountant, attorney, and financial advisor so these professionals can explain the tax consequences and other ramifications for you, your family, and your heirs.

The end point should be index funds or ETFs. Once you have mastered all the investment techniques, you can become passive if you wish to avoid unnecessary fees (index funds or ETFs).

NONE. After looking at the mechanics and processes that are required for humans to do what they do, I have determined that there are no jobs safe from robotics and AI. That's right. NONE. The beginning of the end has already begun: Research is underway on AI creativity and music composition, key things that were thought to be human traits.

When it comes to the banking industry, FORGET IT. Artificial intelligence and robotics could do 100% of banking and financial work. Especially analytical work. When all the jobs are done by AI, guess what happens next? The need for all these people diminishes and

Keep reading

NONE. After looking at the mechanics and processes that are required for humans to do what they do, I have determined that there are no jobs safe from robotics and AI. That's right. NONE. The beginning of the end has already begun: Research is underway on AI creativity and music composition, key things that were thought to be human traits.

When it comes to the banking industry, FORGET IT. Artificial intelligence and robotics could do 100% of banking and financial work. Especially analytical work. When all the jobs are done by AI, guess what happens next? The need for all these people diminishes and with that certain industries that serve people will be threatened. Right now we have an economy based on consumption. That will end with the AI ​​taking over. People will not have jobs or will have some kind of good. You can't support the economy the way we know it as well.

There are some people who will see the obvious: get rid of all these extra people that aren't necessary. So you have the context for a war. I think it will be a war like none that we have seen before because everyone will use it as an excuse to launch their blows against each and every one of those who have a grudge.

Some folks here are talking about the AI ​​threat being in the distant future. Let me ask you a question: if you see a wispy cloud of dust from a huge army of homicidal maniacs armed to the teeth with every type of conventional weapon imaginable, and you're sitting there, outgunned, outgunned, short on supplies, and out of shape. win in the moment you're going to do. Just sit down and say, “Hey! They are still SO MUCH WAITING AWAY! "Or do you do something about it?

Here's the deal: With AI, we're now at the point where human existence, as we know it, is being threatened. That's why pro-AI folks like Mark Zuckerberg keep talking about how much better AI will do for us. Firstly, most suffer from a psychological disorder that I call digitalcentrism that prevents them from seeing reality outside of the construction of some computing cultural bias, and secondly, those at the top of the movement toward AI, who really will benefit. of that - don't give a damn about the rest of us anyway.

The writing is on the wall. People will have to decide: are they for humanity or not? Discussions are over ...

  1. Step 1: Realize that your CFA was a waste and will lose its importance over time. Do not regret the hours and the money. Just take it and get rid of the silly CFA in your name. You are not making anyone think better of you for it.
  2. Step 2: Do you want to take advantage of artificial intelligence? Why don't you want to lose your job? Machines are taking over many jobs in the finance industry. But AI is too far away. The financial industry is not that developed yet. Currently it is the transition from manual to automatic work. I have assisted in this process. Specifically related jobs t
Keep reading
  1. Step 1: Realize that your CFA was a waste and will lose its importance over time. Do not regret the hours and the money. Just take it and get rid of the silly CFA in your name. You are not making anyone think better of you for it.
  2. Step 2: Do you want to take advantage of artificial intelligence? Why don't you want to lose your job? Machines are taking over many jobs in the finance industry. But AI is too far away. The financial industry is not that developed yet. Currently it is the transition from manual to automatic work. I have assisted in this process. Specifically, reporting and control-related jobs, as well as a lot of business reconciliation and any risk assurances or audit puppets you look over your shoulder, are at risk. Reports are currently being automated through developers at work. A scheduler is a simple tool that runs a .vbs script that can run all kinds of things automatically. Like running a query to get data from SQL, run an analysis via Excel macros, make it look like a report, add text, and at 9am send it to senior management. This is a completely automated process. This way you don't need the 4 guys in India who create the report, the guy in London to review it, the manager in New York to sign it and send it to the executive. Nor do you need the risk, risk and investment assurance analyst or the risk audit manager. Shot, shot, shot. Currently, these processes are all automated by firms such as sungard and accenture that automate it in banks. You don't need the 4 guys in India who create the report, the guy in London to review it, the manager in New York to sign it and send it to the executive. Nor do you need the risk, risk and investment assurance analyst or the risk audit manager. Shot, shot, shot. Currently, these processes are all automated by firms such as sungard and accenture that automate it in banks. You don't need the 4 guys in India who create the report, the guy in London to review it, the manager in New York to sign it and send it to the executive. Nor do you need the risk, risk and investment assurance analyst or the risk audit manager. Shot, shot, shot. Currently, these processes are all automated by firms such as sungard and accenture that automate it in banks.
  3. Step 3: The way to avoid getting fired is to go to your boss and try to push these ideas forward.
  4. The other is following regulatory changes. Things like FRTB, BCBS 239 and so on are things to know from A to Z. If you do, you are sure of a job for years to come. Banks overpay useless consultants on these issues from 2 to 3,000 a day from e & y and others. Why are you sure of a job? These regulatory changes are something that all companies must comply with. It is a must. This is thinking ahead.
  5. Step 5: Get basic knowledge of a coding language.

Moral of the story - embrace the change - look at how regulatory changes will affect your team / company / and so on / remove CFA

  1. Marketing
    1. These roles often grow to the height of a bubble and are eliminated first during a recession. Their sole purpose is to make sure the company makes more and more money, but often when a recession hits Senator Management wonders, why do we have such a large marketing department? They are often the first to disappear because as part of cost control they add no value (because there is no money for their ideas) and they are highly replaceable (lots of mothers who studied these BSc and MSc at university).
  2. Product control and reporting functions
    1. Many banks have reporting teams. Banks are internally regulated
Keep reading
  1. Marketing
    1. These roles often grow to the height of a bubble and are eliminated first during a recession. Their sole purpose is to make sure the company makes more and more money, but often when a recession hits Senator Management wonders, why do we have such a large marketing department? They are often the first to disappear because as part of cost control they add no value (because there is no money for their ideas) and they are highly replaceable (lots of mothers who studied these BSc and MSc at university).
  2. Product control and reporting functions
    1. Many banks have reporting teams. Banks are internally and externally regulated, and have complex controls and risk assurance tests that they must adhere to. As a result, you have teams that do nothing more than "report data" in "spreadsheets." Cut paste work. Advanced technology software and old giants like FIS, Murex are eventually replacing these folks ... reporting teams will probably be down 50% in the next 5 years at all the big banks. Similar to Product Controller roles. All the middle and back office people sitting in Eastern Europe and India working with spreadsheets ... they cut and paste data and call it a new report.
  3. IT technical support
    1. This is a typical supply and demand problem. There are thousands of IT support offices with people working for a penny and a penny in Eastern Europe and India. Not happy with the performance of one? You kick them out and hire another boy or girl. Salaries are low, but people are desperate to get a job for an “internationally recognized company” on their CV.
  4. IT developers
    1. All of Eastern Europe and Asia poop babies who start programming and writing from the moment they can walk. They all earn degrees in computer science by the time they go to college in hopes of making a career out of them. Here is a massive supply / demand problem. There is a large supply of programmers who are useless, because most of them are poorly trained. They can code, but lack the social / business expertise to implement the requirements provided by the head office in London or New York. I've seen developers from Eastern Europe and India and the surrounding countries replaced like candy, one after another because the group they fish is huge.
  5. risk control, assurance and conduct
    1. These people do nothing more than check if the people in the bank follow certain procedures as part of the banks' line of defense (LoD) model. High school dropouts can do this job. The supply of people for these roles is huge.

Less replaceable

  1. Market and Credit Risk Managers and their quants.
    1. This requires an in-depth and applicable practical knowledge of the markets. Not many have this. Many think they have it ...
  2. Relations manager
    1. This job requires specific social talents that many do not have. Ability to deal with high net worth individuals or hot heads within an organization.
  3. Regulatory link
    1. This requires a combination of kissing the correct butt, being politically correct, and still getting the best deal for your organization. I know people who have played these roles for 10 to 20 years.

Although I quite like Vlad's answer, I just want to give another take.

I think I am quite qualified to do this as I have worked as an investment banker before and am now working for an artificial intelligence startup advising mid-sized companies on how to use and benefit from artificial intelligence and also developing their own artificial intelligence solutions and machine learning. .

Investment banking generally consists of three divisions:

  1. Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A): Advice on purchase and sale and business combinations
  2. Equity Capital Markets (ECM): Advice on different methods of financing through shares.
  3. Debt Capital Markets (DCM): Advice on different
Keep reading

Although I quite like Vlad's answer, I just want to give another take.

I think I am quite qualified to do this as I have worked as an investment banker before and am now working for an artificial intelligence startup advising mid-sized companies on how to use and benefit from artificial intelligence and also developing their own artificial intelligence solutions and machine learning. .

Investment banking generally consists of three divisions:

  1. Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A): Advice on purchase and sale and business combinations
  2. Equity Capital Markets (ECM): Advice on different methods of financing through shares.
  3. Debt Capital Markets (DCM): Advice on different debt financing methods

Although the work in those divisions may be different to some extent, it is still very comparable.

At a junior level (intern, analyst, associate), the job consists primarily of researching financial data, building financial models, and constantly preparing and improving presentations for proposed deals. Although every deal is different, many bankers' time-consuming tasks are highly repetitive. So there are definitely some opportunities for AI to help, especially with research, structuring, and data processing. Whether this will lead to the replacement of some bankers or the reduction of working hours to a more pleasant level is a story that only time can tell.

At the senior level (vice president, director, partner), investment banking is a people business. Their job is to manage and mentor young people, but primarily to meet clients, advise them, and eventually "sell" deals; you are a seller. AI will have a hard time replacing jobs at this level.

Thank you very much for reading my answer. If you enjoyed it, consider following it.

Exactly when is hard to predict, but when it happens it will be much faster than you imagine.

TL; DR; By 2040. And this time the employment revolution is different. This time, the humans won't find a new job because they just can't work. We are not prepared at all for our inevitable future.

From the "The AI ​​Revolution" articles below:

There is some debate as to how soon AI will reach human-level general intelligence (the median for the year in a survey of hundreds of scientists of when they thought it would be most likely that we would not have reached AGI was 2040), that's only 25 years later now,

Keep reading

Exactly when is hard to predict, but when it happens it will be much faster than you imagine.

TL; DR; By 2040. And this time the employment revolution is different. This time, the humans won't find a new job because they just can't work. We are not prepared at all for our inevitable future.

From the "The AI ​​Revolution" articles below:

There is some debate as to how soon AI will reach human-level general intelligence (the median for the year in a survey of hundreds of scientists of when they thought it would be most likely that we would not have reached AGI was 2040), that's only 25 years then now, which doesn't sound that big until you consider that many of the thinkers in this field think that the progression from AGI to ASI is likely to occur very quickly. Like, this could happen:

It takes decades for the first AI system to reach low-level general intelligence, but it finally happens. A computer is capable of understanding the world around it as well as a four-year-old. Suddenly, an hour after reaching that milestone, the system launches the great theory of physics that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, something that no human being has been able to do definitively. 90 minutes after that, the AI ​​has become an ASI, 170,000 times smarter than a human.

Superintelligence of that magnitude is not something we can remotely grasp, nor can a bumblebee understand Keynesian economics. In our world, smart means an IQ of 130 and stupid means an IQ of 85; We don't have a word for an IQ of 12,952.


Some things you might want to check:

PART 1 - The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence
The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence - Wait, but why?

PART 2 - The AI ​​Revolution: Our Immortality or Extinction
The AI ​​Revolution: Our Immortality or Extinction | Wait but why

Humans don't need to apply

A recent study by researchers at the University of Oxford and Deloitte consultants may have given finance professionals pause. It found that, depending on the nature of their work and the expected advancement of machine intelligence, it is 95% likely that registered counters will be replaced by some form of automation over the next 20 years.

That's a staggering number, but it should come as no surprise that finance department work is ripe for automation. Since 2004, the average number of full-time employees working in the function in large companies has decreased by 40% to around 71 people for

Keep reading

A recent study by researchers at the University of Oxford and Deloitte consultants may have given finance professionals pause. It found that, depending on the nature of their work and the expected advancement of machine intelligence, it is 95% likely that registered counters will be replaced by some form of automation over the next 20 years.

That's a staggering number, but it should come as no surprise that finance department work is ripe for automation. Since 2004, the average number of full-time employees working in the role at large companies has decreased by 40% to about 71 people for every US $ 1bn in revenue, compared to 119 people, according to Hackett Group, a firm. consultant. This is due, at least in part, to the increased use of automation within the finance department, the researchers say.

In fact, as a survey of business leaders in the US and Western Europe by The Economist Intelligence Unit reveals, finance executives are especially eager to automate. It found that 62% of finance executives plan to launch or oversee an initiative to increase automation in their department in the next two years. No other function included in the study is more consistent in its intentions.

Automation is making the world of finance more efficient. It is a good reason to earn more money as a banker, as certain parts of the chain, due to automation, will cost less. You can think of risk reporting, P&L reconciliation, the work that a product controller does, or a type of credit risk reporting in India. That will disappear.

In return, a wealthy customer will see more purely on-demand asset allocations for him. Given a set of variables (horizon - risk - asset classes - etc.) they can "play" and play with the "joystick" as my old boss always used to say - clients can create endless assets by

Keep reading

Automation is making the world of finance more efficient. It is a good reason to earn more money as a banker, as certain parts of the chain, due to automation, will cost less. You can think of risk reporting, P&L reconciliation, the work that a product controller does, or a type of credit risk reporting in India. That will disappear.

In return, a wealthy customer will see more purely on-demand asset allocations for him. Given a set of variables (horizon - risk - asset classes - etc.) they can "play" and by playing with the "joystick", as my old boss always said, clients can create endless asset allocations. Only in one application. I already did this 4/5 years ago through the MATLAB GUI. Being able to create endless asset allocations for clients when they use the joystick in their own way with the variables they can play with. It does not take away the work. Improve work.

Moraleja de la historia: siempre vale la pena seguir una carrera en finanzas. No le grites al cambio porque es malo, abrázalo. Así es como empresas como SunGard, Murex, Wallstreet, Accenture y otras están ganando enormes cantidades de efectivo.

The finance jobs being eradicated and murdered are the back office jobs who should have never been there in the first place. There are still 10,000s of financial analysts all over the world looking at excel spreadsheets (as their sole job), run macros all day long and send their analysis to a senior..

Surgeons, carpenters, and plumbers. These jobs are highly improvisational. It's not something a robot would be very good at unless it was tremendously dexterous, and not something easy to teach an AI. I want to say Jazz musicians too, only computers are starting to compose music that isn't awful, and you don't need anything but a speaker to make music come out.

Hookers (WestWorld notwithstanding), because I suspect that most human beings would rather fuck another human being. However, we now have remote control dildos. Heard it's for the best after being there.

Maids and butlers, because

Keep reading

Cirujanos, carpinteros y fontaneros. Estos trabajos son altamente improvisados. No es algo en lo que un robot sea muy bueno a menos que sea tremendamente diestro, y no es algo fácil de enseñar a una IA. Quiero decir que los músicos de jazz también, solo las computadoras están comenzando a componer música que no es horrible, y no necesitas nada más que un altavoz para hacer que la música salga.

Prostitutas (a pesar de WestWorld), porque sospecho que la mayoría de los seres humanos preferirían follar con otro ser humano. Sin embargo, ahora tenemos consoladores a control remoto. Escuché que es lo mejor después de estar allí.

Maids and butlers, because the whole point is to have a human servant. I think personal service is going to make a big comeback once computers and robots really begin to take over jobs. Not that housecleaning isn’t something a robot could do effectively for the common masses. It’s the snob-appeal of having a human servant, when you could have a robot.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.