"Risk management jobs in investment banks are being intellectually diluted by AI"
I work in risk management for an American bank and AI is making my job intolerable.
The bank I work for likes to highlight its massive investment in AI during investor calls. It talks about "transformational initiatives" that are supposedly driving efficiency, stronger controls, and better decision-making.
💥Follow us on WhatsApp for news alerts.💥
The reality inside the organisation is very different.
Risk management at this bank is not a back-office support function. It is deeply integrated with the front office and plays a central role in exposure management, underwriting, and deal decisions. Yet the aggressive pace of technology rollouts, combined with declining hiring quality driven by cost-cutting, offshoring, and remote management structures, has significantly weakened the effectiveness of the function.
Instead of improving productivity, many analysts now spend the majority of their time navigating overly complex systems, fixing data integrity issues created by half-developed tools and unreliable AI-driven workflows, and struggling to complete increasingly burdensome credit investment memos. The actual purpose of the role - thoughtful credit analysis and risk judgement - is steadily being displaced by operational firefighting.
A deterioration in collaboration between risk and the front office has made the situation worse. Bankers who were once actively involved in supporting and discussing credit analysis are now increasingly disconnected from the process because many of the new systems are inaccessible, fragmented, or unusable across teams. The quality of dialogue that historically strengthened underwriting decisions is disappearing.
There is an internal culture where few people are willing to openly challenge the effectiveness of these new investments. Management appears unwilling to acknowledge that the technology transformation is not delivering the efficiencies that were promised. No risk MD wants their team to be viewed as the reason a multi-billion-dollar transaction is delayed or jeopardised.
As a result, diluted analysis, incomplete reviews, and inaccurate information are increasingly being accepted as normal. Junior professionals are carrying a disproportionate burden. Burnout has become widespread due to extended hours, expanding responsibilities, inadequate support structures, and the absence of meaningful escalation channels. Asking for additional time, support, or realistic timelines is often interpreted as resistance to the broader transformation agenda and can negatively impact performance evaluations.
The operational consequences are becoming impossible to ignore. Control failures across lending and banking products are occurring regularly, attrition is high, and many issues remain un-escalated because employees fear the professional consequences of speaking up.
What is particularly unsettling is how closely some of these cultural patterns resemble the gradual internal deterioration that preceded the collapse of Credit Suisse - not necessarily in scale or capital position, but in mindset. An environment where escalating concerns becomes discouraged, operational weaknesses become normalised, experienced talent steadily exits, and management narratives diverge sharply from internal reality is dangerous for any institution, regardless of size.
This bank is significantly larger than Credit Suisse, more diversified, and more systemically protected. But that does not make the current trajectory any less concerning. Operational fragility, weakened underwriting discipline, and cultural complacency can still create serious long-term consequences for employees, clients, and ultimately the institution itself.
What is most frustrating is that many employees still want to support clients, deliver transactions, and contribute constructively to the business. But there is growing concern that the current operating environment is eroding intellectual standards, weakening meaningful collaboration, and stripping risk management of its actual purpose.
In several areas, delivering a genuinely high-quality deal decision within 48–72 hours is becoming almost impossible, even though few are willing to openly admit it.
Tyler Davidson is a pseudonym
Follow me on X. Follow me on LinkedIn.
Have a confidential story, tip, or comment you’d like to share? Contact: +44 7537 182250 (SMS, Whatsapp or voicemail). Telegram: @SarahButcher. Signal: sarahbutcher.22 Click here to fill in our anonymous form, or email editortips@efinancialcareers.com.
Bear with us if you leave a comment at the bottom of this article: comments are moderated intermittently by human beings. Sometimes these humans might be asleep, or away from their desks, so it may take a while for your comment to appear. You must take sole responsibility for comments you post on this site. We will take reasonable steps to weed out anything that we consider to be offensive or inappropriate.
