Sayed estimates that by using large language models \u2014 including Claude from Anthropic and Google\u2019s Gemini, combined with a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system \u2014 he can replicate roughly 75 per cent of a traditional analyst\u2019s job at his new start-up, Porchester Capital.<\/p>\n
In fact, with DCF models, LBO scenarios, CRM integration, document intake and idea vetting all handled by bots, the hedge fund manager estimates he can be four times as productive as he was in his pre-AI life. <\/p>\n
This is possibly a sign of things to come. Last week, Microsoft published a report that tried to estimate the occupational impact of AI by looking at individual activities and how easy it is for bots to do them. It\u2019s unnerving reading for a lot of people in finance and tech (and, yes, journalists). <\/p>\n
From the 40-plus page report, with Alphaville\u2019s emphasis below:<\/p>\n
.\u2009.\u2009. We find the major occupation categories with the highest AI applicability scores are Sales; Computer and Mathematical; Office and Administrative Support; Community and Social Service; Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media; Business and Financial Operations; and Educational Instruction and Library.<\/p>\n
The Microsoft methodology,\u00a0based on live user data from over 200,000 Bing Copilot interactions, is a bit complicated so you read it for yourself here<\/a>. But put simply, the research suggests that the tasks linked to the job categories on the top half of the image below are easiest to outsource to AI. Those on the bottom half are trickiest to delegate to bots.<\/p>\n Microsoft is essentially saying that jobs that require a lot of human interaction, emotional intelligence, and judgment are among the least automatable. In contrast, quite a lot of high-skill, high-prestige finance jobs now suddenly look vulnerable. <\/p>\n The corporate rush to cash in on financial AI tools is another worrying sign for staff with right-brained skills.\u00a0<\/p>\n S&P Global bought research platform Visible Alpha<\/a> last year for $500mn. Bloomberg\u2019s MODL function now includes more bells and whistles to stave off rivals and justify its $26k annual licence. Last month Anthropic announced a deal<\/a> to embed historical S&P data directly into Claude. Goldman Sachs\u00a0even says<\/a>\u00a0AI agents may serve on investment committees, scrutinising decisions.<\/p>\n As a result, investment firms may not need a full analyst team (or as many Bloomberg terminals) if their LLMs can pull and process the same data more cheaply. <\/p>\n There are some areas with deep moats. Shareholder activism, for example, still needs a human touch. Claude probably can\u2019t yet handle the emotional turbulence of a proxy fight.\u00a0Client-facing bankers and senior strategy people are probably also safer.<\/p>\n But even quants \u2014 who have dominated growing swaths of finance over the past two decades \u2014 are probably not as immune as once thought. As Microsoft\u2019s research indicates, there are lots of quite mathy and code-driven jobs that can now probably be done by bots. <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/https:\/\/d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net\/production\/8d9c4996-fb07-4c05-b7ca-01d9f0af7388.png\")
<\/p>\n