← Risk register SOC 13-2061 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Financial Examiners

67,830 US workers · median $94,160/yr · Business

EXPOSED

The modal financial examiner — a bank examiner at the FDIC, OCC, Fed, or a state banking or insurance department — spends most hours reading loan files, tracing balance sheet entries, testing transactions against BSA/AML and lending rules, and drafting examination write-ups, all of which AI already does at usable quality on structured financial data. What survives is the statutory authority to assign a CAMELS component rating, negotiate a consent order or MRA with a bank's board, and stake an agency's name on a safety-and-soundness conclusion that will be second-guessed if the institution fails. Expect the same examination workforce to cover more institutions with continuous data feeds rather than periodic file review, which shrinks the junior examiner pipeline where most of today's headcount sits.

10-year outlook: Headcount holds roughly flat because supervision is statutorily mandated, but the work shifts from file-by-file examination to reviewing machine-flagged exceptions and owning the ratings and enforcement calls.

US employment, 2019–2025+5.1%
64,55067,830 workers

Dipped in 2020, then grew past where it started.

Median pay $81,090 → $94,160 -7.1% in real terms (nominal +16.1%, 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

+18.5% 65,100 → 77,200 on the projections basis

Exposed, but growing

AI can already do a lot of these tasks, and the BLS still expects +18.5% more of these jobs by 2034. Demand for the output is growing faster than the work is being automated away — the mechanism BLS gives for software developers, and the combination people most often misread as an error.

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.

~5,700 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.

ExaminerBank ExaminerEscrow CloserInternal AuditorPayroll ExaminerPension ExaminerTreasury AnalystCompliance TesterExamining OfficerCompliance AnalystFinancial ExaminerTitle Escrow OfficerCompliance SpecialistCredit Union ExaminerCompliance CoordinatorFinancial InvestigatorNational Bank ExaminerBank Compliance OfficerCompliance InvestigatorPersonal Banking ManagerCommercial Escrow OfficerCredit Union Field ExaminerFinancial Compliance ExaminerFinancial Crimes Investigator

Score — 42/100 resistance

Holding it up: judgment & accountability (13/20). Weakest point: embodiment (5/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 8 + 5 + 9 + 7 + 13 = 42. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 8/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier Loan-file sampling, ALLL adequacy recalculation, tracing call-report line items back to the general ledger, and BSA transaction testing are all pattern work on structured data that supervisory analytics already run continuously — an 8 rather than a 4 because the on-site interview with the chief credit officer, the walkthrough of how a workout loan was actually classified, and the board meeting where you defend the rating still require a person in the room.

Embodiment 5/20

Some physical or field component You travel to bank premises for on-site exams, sit in the institution's conference room for weeks pulling paper credit files and asking officers for documents, and occasionally visit branches or a trust department vault — but nothing you touch requires physical skill, hence 5 rather than 12.

Liability shield 9/20

Certification preferred, not legally required No licence gates the job — you are hired as an examiner and trained internally, with CFE, CAMS, or CPA credentials treated as advantageous rather than required — so the 9 reflects your commission as a federal or state examining official, the statutory examination authority under 12 USC 1820 or a state insurance code, and the fact that your name is on the report of examination, while the agency, not you personally, bears the legal exposure.

Trust premium 7/20

Some relationship component Bank management does not choose you and often does not want you there, but the multi-cycle relationship matters — knowing an institution's history, its previous MRAs, and which CFO shades the truth is why agencies keep an examiner-in-charge on the same portfolio — which puts it at 7 rather than 3.

Judgment & accountability 13/20

Meaningful discretion Assigning a CAMELS composite, deciding whether weak underwriting is an MRA or a matter requiring immediate attention, and recommending a consent order or prompt-corrective-action downgrade are calls made on incomplete evidence that determine whether a bank keeps lending, and they get read back to you if the institution fails — 13 not higher because your rating passes through a review examiner, a regional supervisor, and interagency consistency committees before it becomes final.

Confidence: medium · 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: judgment, liability

How to future-proof this job

Training paths for your skill gaps: MIT OpenCourseWare — finance and accounting free · Coursera — customer service and client-facing skill courses free to audit · Coursera — negotiation, influence and persuasion courses 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.

Personal Financial Advisors EXPOSED · 52/100 · you already have ~74% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Management of Financial Resources, Service Orientation, Persuasion

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 58/100, still EXPOSED.

4 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening judgment accountability +4

    Post-failure accountability regimes hardening after SVB/Signature — the Fed's own Barr review criticized supervisory judgment and escalation speed. If Congress or an IG framework attaches named-examiner accountability to escalation decisions (who saw the exception and chose not to escalate), the role's ownership of consequential ambiguous calls becomes explicit and documented rather than diffuse.

  • already happening task resistance +4

    Genuine two-tier structure: if continuous data feeds absorb the file-testing tier, the residual job is model-risk examination of the bank's own AI/credit models, crypto and fintech partnership exams, novel-activity supervision, and board negotiation — work with no clean ground truth. A concrete marker: OCC/Fed examiner handbooks adding mandatory AI/model-governance examination modules and third-party fintech exam procedures staffed by examiners rather than specialists.

  • plausible liability shield +5

    An FFIEC or agency-level rule stating that a CAMELS composite/component rating, an MRA, or a formal enforcement recommendation is valid only when a commissioned examiner-in-charge personally attests to it and can be deposed on it — i.e., extending existing commissioning standards (FDIC/OCC examiner commissioning programs) into an explicit human-signature requirement for AI-derived findings, mirroring SR 11-7 model-risk expectations turned inward on supervisory tools. Also: administrative-hearing practice under the FDI Act where the enforcement record must rest on a human examiner's sworn testimony, not a model output, making the signing examiner functionally irreplaceable in contested actions.

  • plausible liability shield +3

    State-level route: NAIC accreditation standards or state insurance codes requiring that a financial condition examination report be signed by a licensed/accredited examiner (CFE/AFE credential) and, for outsourced exams, that the contracted examiner carry personal professional liability — a tightening of the existing NAIC Financial Condition Examiners Handbook sign-off convention into an accreditation requirement.

The limit. No plausible trust_premium lever: the buyer is a supervisory agency or a legislature, not a client choosing between a human and a machine, so there is no market that can pay extra for human examination. Embodiment has no route either — on-site exam presence is a scheduling convention, not physical work in an unpredictable environment. Note also that every lever above protects the commissioned senior examiner seat, not the junior file-review pipeline where most of the 67,830 headcount currently sits; a higher score for the occupation is compatible with a much smaller occupation.

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 132 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 13,400 $133,380 +42%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 3,160 $98,470 +5%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 2,240 $79,980 -15%
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ 1,770 $80,490 -15%
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 1,670 $105,240 +12%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 1,630 $106,000 +13%
Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO 1,550 $101,070 +7%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 1,380 $80,350 -15%

Best paid

Charleston-North Charleston, SC 80 $158,960 +69%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 890 $157,560 +67%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 13,400 $133,380 +42%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $94,160. 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 42. 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.