Corporate Finance Expert

$50–100/hrrate as listed

micro1 recruits corporate finance practitioners to write and grade problems that test how well AI models handle valuation, capital structure, and financial statement reasoning. Work is contract-based, fully remote, and paid hourly in an observed range of $50–100/hr depending on credentials and task type.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You will build and review the evaluation material that AI labs use to measure financial reasoning. In practice this means authoring realistic prompts — a three-statement model that doesn't tie, a DCF with a mismatched discount rate and cash flow definition, an LBO with a debt schedule that breaks a covenant, a purchase-price allocation question — then documenting the correct answer with the reasoning a reviewer can verify. A second stream of work is grading: you read model outputs side by side, decide which is stronger, and write a short rationale that points to the specific error rather than a general impression. Some assignments ask you to red-team a model by finding the questions where it produces confident, well-formatted nonsense.

What the platform screens for

micro1 runs an AI-led interview before any human reviews your file. Expect it to probe the specifics of your experience: which sectors you covered, which models you built from scratch versus inherited, how you handled a particular adjustment. Vague seniority claims tend to collapse under follow-up questions, while precise answers — even about small deals — do well. The screen also tests evaluation judgment: whether you can separate a wrong answer from a right answer reached by weak logic, and whether you can articulate a grading standard another expert could apply consistently.

Typical backgrounds that clear the bar:

Investment banking, private equity, or corporate development experience with live models
FP&A, treasury, or controllership roles with technical accounting exposure
CFA charterholders, CPAs, or MBA finance concentrations with practitioner work behind them
Valuation, transaction advisory, or equity research analysts

Logistics

Fully remote and largely asynchronous. Most contributors work 10–20 hours a week around a day job, though some projects offer more volume for short bursts. Assignments arrive in batches with deadlines measured in days rather than hours, and pay is hourly within the observed $50–100 band — actual offers vary by credential depth, project, and whether you are authoring or reviewing. Volume is project-driven and not guaranteed week to week.

What they look for

Financial modeling
Variance analysis
Numerical precision
Financial Management

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Have you built financial models (three-statement, DCF, LBO, or equivalent) from scratch in a professional role, or inherited and materially modified them for deals or corporate projects?
Live financial modeling experience · required
Have you worked in a role where you were responsible for valuing a company or asset (investment banking, PE, FP&A, equity research, valuation advisory, or corporate development), or analyzed financial models in a high-stakes setting?
Valuation or transaction exposure · required
Do you hold a CFA charter, CPA, or MBA (with a finance concentration), or have you worked full-time in a finance role (investment banking, private equity, controllership, FP&A, or treasury) for at least two years?
Finance credential or practitioner depth · preferred

0 of 3 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether you have hands-on experience constructing integrated models, not just reading them; your grasp of statement mechanics and how changes cascade.
A strong answer: Name a specific deal, company, or scenario; explain which P&L line flowed to which balance sheet account (e.g., net income to retained earnings, capex to fixed assets, working capital changes to operating cash flow); show awareness of a real constraint or judgment call you made.
Where people lose it: Describing what a three-statement model is in general terms, or reciting textbook mechanics without tying it to a concrete model you built; claiming expertise but then retreating to 'I inherited it and updated assumptions' when asked which cells you actually built.