
What Are We Actually Testing?
AI is now firmly part of the conversation in investment hiring, but the most interesting debate is not happening at CV-screening stage. It is happening around the case study.
Across private equity, M&A and credit, firms still rely heavily on modelling tests, investment papers and take-home exercises to work out whether a candidate can do the job. These assessments carry real weight at Analyst through to Senior Associate level. They are often the point at which a strong process turns into an offer, or falls apart.
The issue is that AI can now do a meaningful share of the work. It can summarise an information memorandum, suggest a model structure, write formulas, pull out risks, build a first-pass investment thesis and turn rough thoughts into a polished presentation. A candidate can produce a much stronger-looking output than they could have produced alone.
Hiring managers are split on what that means. Some see any AI use in a technical test as straightforward cheating. Others say they would actively question a candidate who did not use it. Their view is that the job is changing, the tools are improving and good investors should know how to work with them.
Both camps have a point. The tension sits in the middle: firms want people who can use technology intelligently, but they also need to know that those people understand the work beneath it.
The question is no longer whether AI can improve a candidate’s output. It can. The question is what that output now proves.
Our report covers:
Request your copy of the full report below.
For a full discussion or a follow-up of enquiries for the information enclosed, please reach out to our team. Equally, to discuss how Pearse Partners could support your hiring objectives or conduct a comprehensive compensation appraisal, please email us directly on info@pearsepartners.com.