← Risk register SOC 43-4011 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Brokerage Clerks

35,940 US workers · median $65,750/yr · Office

COOKED

Brokerage clerks reconcile trade confirmations, verify transfer paperwork, compute dividends and interest, correct posting errors, and answer routine account questions — all structured data work on screens that straight-through processing and now LLM-assisted exception handling absorb directly. FINRA operations-professional registration (Series 99) gives a thin regulatory foothold, but it licenses a function, not a signature that carries personal liability. The surviving sliver is complex exception research: failed settlements, corporate-action edge cases, and cost-basis disputes where someone must trace a break across systems and own the fix.

10-year outlook: Headcount keeps shrinking as clearing and settlement go straight-through and AI absorbs exception triage; the remaining jobs consolidate into small corporate-actions and reconciliation teams at clearing firms and custodians.

US employment, 2019–2025-25.1%
47,99035,940 workers

Part 2020 shock, part continued decline in the years since.

Median pay $52,750 → $65,750 -0.3% in real terms (nominal +24.6%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

-9.5% 40,800 → 36,900 on the projections basis

Exposed, and shrinking

Both signals point the same way: the tasks are largely automatable and the BLS projects -9.5% by 2034. This is the case where the score and the forecast agree, and it is the one worth taking seriously.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~4,100 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

Stock ClerkCoupon ClerkMargin ClerkSales TraderDividend ClerkSupport BrokerTransfer AgentTransfer ClerkBrokerage AgentBrokerage ClerkBusiness BrokerQuotation ClerkSales AssistantSupport AnalystBroker AssistantBroker AssociateClient AssociateOperations ClerkSecurities ClerkBrokerage AnalystCommodities ClerkQuotation CheckerService AssociateTrading Assistant

Score — 16/100 resistance

Holding it up: task resistance (4/20). Weakest point: embodiment (1/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 4 + 1 + 4 + 3 + 4 = 16. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 4/20

Core tasks are already automatable Trade-break reconciliation, DTC transfer verification, dividend and accrued-interest computation, and account statement posting are all deterministic matching against feeds that DTCC's straight-through settlement and T+1 automation already run unattended — the 4 rather than 10 reflects that even the exception queue is now largely rules-driven triage, with only multi-system corporate-action breaks needing a human to chase.

Embodiment 1/20

Fully desk- and screen-based The work is a terminal, a phone, and a printer for occasional physical certificate or Medallion-stamped transfer paperwork; the 1 is for that residual paper handling, not for anything that requires being in a particular room.

Liability shield 4/20

No licence, no signature requirement Series 99 (or Series 7 in lieu) registers you as an Operations Professional so FINRA can sanction the firm's supervisory chain — the customer-facing rep and the designated principal sign and carry the personal exposure, so a clerk's registration functions as a training requirement rather than a barrier to replacing the function.

Trust premium 3/20

Anonymous artifact production Clients call the registered rep, not the clerk who cleared their ACAT; your counterparties are the clearing firm's ops desk and the custodian, relationships that survive whoever is at the keyboard, which puts this at 3 rather than the 8 an account-servicing role with named clients would earn.

Judgment & accountability 4/20

Executes defined procedures on defined inputs Deciding whether a cost-basis discrepancy is a wash-sale adjustment or a bad tax lot import is real analysis, but it resolves against IRS rules, the prospectus, and the firm's ops manual with a supervisor signing the correcting journal entry — discretion inside a written procedure, not ownership of an ambiguous call.

Scored twice. An independent second run returned 14/100 — COOKED, agreeing with the verdict above.

This occupation has already been through one. Headcount fell 39% between 2017 and 2025 — 58,930 to 35,940 — while the median wage held roughly flat in real terms (+ 1.2% after inflation). A job being commoditised usually loses pay along with headcount. One that shrinks by half while pay holds is leaving a specialist core behind, and the score above was assigned from the occupation title without sight of that history — so it may be describing the job this used to be rather than the people still doing it. Why this is a known limit.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: licensure

How to future-proof this job

Training paths for your skill gaps: Coursera — decision making under uncertainty free to audit · CS50x, Harvard — how software is actually built free · Coursera — quality control and inspection courses, auditable free free to audit · MIT OpenCourseWare — problem-solving and analytical method courses free · Coursera — critical thinking and logic, audit free free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

Where this experience transfers — occupations you could move toward

Computed from U.S. Dept. of Labor O*NET skill and knowledge profiles: high overlap with what you already do, a materially higher resistance score, no large jump in required training, and no licence you would have to start a new pipeline to get. Targets that pay meaningfully less, that are themselves COOKED, or whose own headcount is falling are excluded — a move into a shrinking trade is not an escape.

Loan Officers EXPOSED · 37/100 · you already have ~80% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Judgment and Decision Making, Technology Design

Accountants and Auditors EXPOSED · 42/100 · you already have ~79% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Quality Control Analysis, Technology Design, Complex Problem Solving, Judgment and Decision Making

Tax Examiners and Collectors, and Revenue Agents EXPOSED · 34/100 · you already have ~75% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Quality Control Analysis, Critical Thinking, Technology Design

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 27/100, still COOKED.

3 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening task resistance +4

    Task-mix shift is genuine here: the occupation has a routine tier (confirm matching, dividend computation, standing-instruction transfers) and a judgment tier (failed settlements, corporate-action elections on unusual terms, cost-basis and wash-sale disputes, DTC/ACATS breaks traced across custodian, clearing firm and transfer agent). If the routine tier is fully absorbed, the residual role is exception research where no single system holds the truth and reconciliation requires phoning counterparties. T+1 settlement (SEC rule effective May 2024) and the proposed move toward T+0 compress the window for resolving a break to hours, which raises the value of a human who can chase it out of band.

  • plausible liability shield +4

    FINRA currently registers the operations professional (Series 99) as a function, not a signature. A rule change requiring a named registered principal to attest to specific operational outputs — e.g. an amendment to FINRA Rule 3110 supervisory-control or Rule 4370 requiring individual sign-off on machine-generated corporate-action elections, cost-basis reporting to IRS under 1099-B, or ACATS transfer approvals — would convert this into a personal-liability foothold. Watch also SEC Rule 15c3-3 possession-and-control reconciliations, where an attested human reviewer of automated segregation calculations is a live supervisory-technology question in FINRA's annual Regulatory Oversight Report.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    If firms formalise the exception desk as the owner of break resolution decisions — buy-in/close-out calls under Reg SHO Rule 204, choosing between fail-to-deliver remedies, deciding whether a cost-basis correction triggers a customer-reimbursable error — rather than routing those to a manager, the surviving clerk role owns consequential calls under ambiguity. This is an internal org-design change, not a legal one, and is visible in how firms staff post-T+1 exception teams.

The limit. Trust premium has no realistic route: the buyer is an institution, the work is invisible to the end customer, and no retail or institutional client will ever pay extra to have a human reconcile their trade confirmation. Embodiment is fixed at floor. Even with the liability and judgment levers fully realised, the surviving population is a fraction of 35,940 — these levers protect the exception-research tier, not the headcount.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 74 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 7,100 $78,930 +20%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 2,000 $61,010 -7%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 1,790 $63,390 -4%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 1,730 $77,710 +18%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 1,360 $89,370 +36%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 930 $62,110 -6%
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ 840 $61,990 -6%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 760 $64,000 -3%

Best paid

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 320 $90,220 +37%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 1,360 $89,370 +36%
Akron, OH 110 $81,230 +24%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $65,750. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 16. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.