Career Change From TAS
Looking for some outside perspective here.
I’m a year and a half into my career, currently in a valuation-focused TAS role at a decent-sized firm in the Southeast. I also have some prior exposure to corporate development at a large company during a summer internship.
I’ve been trying to lateral into a Corp Dev / M&A role (analyst / associate level). So far I’ve had 4–5 interviews with different companies. I usually make it through 1–2 rounds and then the process fizzles out. I made it to the final round for one role and it went well, but they ended up choosing someone with ~4 YOE.
Trying to sanity check a few things:
• Is the Corp Dev market just brutal right now at the junior level?
• Does coming from a valuation-heavy TAS background put me at a disadvantage vs candidates with more diligence or integration experience?
• Am I better off changing how I pitch myself, or is this mostly just a numbers game?
Are there other roles I should be targeting that align better with a valuation / transaction skillset? I’m not especially interested in FP&A and don’t think it’s a great fit for what I do day to day.
Really trying to figure out if I’m missing something obvious or if this is just how it goes right now. Appreciate any insight.
I was in a slightly different TAS role (FDD), but had the same issue. I felt like my work was too specialized. I had a really good skillset in understanding accounting and how it affects P&Ls as well as working with Excel, but people never really valued my experience for industry roles. For FP&A, they'd always question if I could run a close/forecasting process and I wasn't competitive for corp dev roles since I only understood the diligence part of the deal and not the whole lifecycle.
If I were you, I'd try to get into IB if you really want to stay on the deal side, or just bite the bullet and do FP&A sooner so you can build a more holistic skillset beyond valuations. From my understanding, valuation work is often in relation to goodwill impairment, etc., which might not be exactly what deal teams want, even though you have the right foundation to build off (i.e. knowing how to model in general). You could also try to work in consulting in more operationally-focused roles if you don't want to do true FP&A roles, but still be on the business side and give yourself a broader skillset than companies will value.
That makes sense, and is kind of what I’m learning.
One thing I’ve struggled with in my current role is that once an analysis is done, it kind of just… ends. You deliver the work, it gets used for a specific purpose, and then you move on. There’s not much visibility into how decisions actually get made or how things play out over time, which is something I’ve realized I care more about.
I’m not actually opposed to FP&A. I just don’t have a great sense for what the day-to-day really looks like beyond forecasting, budgeting, and close cycles, so it’s hard for me to tell if I’d enjoy it or if it would just feel like a different version of the same issue. The comp tradeoff also makes it harder to view it as a clear step forward without understanding the upside.
On the consulting point, that’s where I’m also unsure. I don’t really know how someone in a valuation/TAS seat pivots into more operational or strategy-oriented consulting, and I’m not convinced my current skill set maps cleanly.
Trying to figure out whether this is just an early-career growing pain, or if there’s a smarter way to adjust course before I get more locked in. I really enjoyed that internship and got great feedback but they didn’t offer junior roles. Long term I think strategy or corp dev is where I see myself. Just not sure if there are steps I need to take to get there.
If you want to do strategy, you really should move into consulting or IB. I'm less familiar with valuations groups compared to FDD or a lot of consulting groups, but that's something I felt with TS (and certain consulting teams) as well. You don't really own decisions - you deliver a scope of work and then you move on. This is even worse in diligences where you're just coming up with a high level number that may or may not materialize 2-3 years in. Even strategy consulting suffers from this, but the projects are more operational, so I think recruiters can more tangibly see the skill transfer vs valuations/deal work.
As far as moving over, you always need to emphasize the skills you've learned and that you're trainable. Think of it like athletics - you have the footwork, strength, endurance, etc. to quickly pick up the nuances of a new sport. Yes, there'll be some ramp, but it's not something out of the question to learn at the end of the day because you're talented and have shown you're capable in a related field.
I moved from TS --> restructuring, for example, by emphasizing my Excel skills and that I really understood finance and accounting. I got thrown on an RX engagement at my old firm randomly, and it was a bit of an ass kicking. Till then, I had not done a 3-statement model formally and was less familiar with debt nuances, etc. But again, since I understand finance, accounting, and Excel well, I was able to do really well over time (and thankfully, I had a Partner who was willing to work with me through the growing pains). Even at my new firm, there's stuff I've never done, but I'm able to do it quickly and efficiently because I have the right attributes. I'd emphasize this too when recruiting for things that aren't 100% aligned with your background.
That makes a lot of sense. I think you hit valuations pretty spot on. The lack of decision ownership and just delivering an output is exactly what’s been frustrating for me. Also, not really what I was expecting when I joined. I’ve definitely experienced that, including being thrown onto projects (I was on a bankruptcy-related engagement), which was definitely pretty interesting.
Your advice is really helpful, especially around emphasizing core skills and trainability instead of over-fixating on perfect experience fit. Appreciate you sharing your path and advice. It gives me a lot to think about.
Were you at Big 4 TS? I'm not Big 4 but doing both FDD and M&A (IB). I'm earlier in my career, and trying to figure out how I stack up in the market and what my options are for exits.
No, I did it at a smaller firm that paid better than Big 4 (think A&M, FTI, Riveron, etc.), at least at the time. If you're getting true IB experience, you're way better off than someone in FDD. I really wish I had not spent so much time in FDD, but it did give me a good foundation for my new role, so I guess it worked out in the end.
Alias provident sint velit et dolor ut incidunt ut. Ut similique quod voluptates et odit.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...