Why Compliance & Risk Roles Are More Vulnerable Than Traders in Finance’s AI Era

The recent eFinancialCareers Bonus Expectations survey provides a clear picture: among ~2,000 financial services respondents, those working in investment banking feel most secure in their jobs, whereas those in compliance and risk report much higher insecurity. [1] This gulf reflects functional differences, incentives, and exposure to structural pressure.

Key sources of insecurity for compliance and risk professionals include:

• Introduction of AI driving automation: risk and compliance personnel report being told to “do more faster” and concerns that roles may be made redundant by machine learning or algorithm-based tools. [1]
• Offshoring or nearshoring of compliance/risk tasks—e.g. to Eastern Europe—undermining job stability in higher cost jurisdictions. [1]
• Frequent organizational change: redundancies, management restructuring, and perception of uneven opportunity drive attrition risk within compliance functions. [1]

By contrast, bankers and traders benefit from direct connections to revenue, deal origination, and regulatory tailwinds: bonus expectations are rising (often substantially), especially in Asia and the Middle East. [4] These roles are less exposed to offshoring and automation in the near term, and still command high margins.

Compliance and risk functions, however, are under double pressure: elevated regulatory risk (as identified in multiple domestic bank risk oversight reports) and rising expectations from boards and regulators around effectiveness and the speed of response. According to the OCC’s Spring 2025 Semiannual Risk Perspective, compliance risk remains elevated due to BSA/AML, consumer compliance, elevated fraud, and evolving business models. [2]

Globally, executives recognize that financial crime risk is likely to increase in 2025, driven by cybersecurity threats, evolving regulations, sanctions pressure, and AI adoption—but only a minority feel very prepared. [3] This adds further strain on compliance/risk inherent to strategic and reputational risk for firms.

Strategic implications:

• Firms should not neglect compliance/risk functions: underinvestment risks control failure and regulatory sanctions, but overburdening opens staff attrition and low morale.
• Technology (AI/GenAI) can be a force multiplier for compliance but must be deployed carefully to avoid perceptions of threat among staff and to maintain accountability and interpretability.
• Geolocation and cost arbitrage are double-edged: while moving lower tier compliance tasks offshore/nearshore can cut cost, core strategic compliance work needs to remain in high oversight jurisdictions.

Open questions:

• How will regulatory changes (e.g. AML packages, AI regulation, sanctions law) affect demand for compliance/risk labor differentially across geographies?
• What proportion of compliance/risk tasks can be plausibly automated without compromising quality or oversight, and what will that mean for middle vs senior level roles?
• Will bank boards push for rebalancing investment between front line revenue roles and control functions in response to risk-events or regulatory fines?