Not Enjoying Sourcing
I joined a growth / growth buyout firm after my IB stint and I have found myself hating sourcing and feel that I am not learning enough on the execution front (70/30 split right now between sourcing and execution because our team hasn't been doing many deals). I thought that being a social person that I would find this more enjoyable, but I've found that the job lacks the intellectual rigor that I desire. Furthermore, I don't feel like I am being mentored and I do not feel that the people above me at the firm are sharp.
I understand that modelling and execution are not ultimately the differentiator for success in PE in the long-run, but I'm finding my day-to-day of doing biz dev for sourcing and little to no analysis even more draining and less fulfilling than IB. Furthermore, I look at the diligence that we do and it feels incredibly table stakes and somewhat unthoughtful.
I'm wondering if anyone else in growth has felt similarly - I just did not expect to dislike sourcing this much and on the flip-side did not expect the quality of diligence to be so poor.
Based on the most helpful WSO content, your experience resonates with many who transition into growth equity or growth buyout roles, especially when sourcing dominates the workload. Here are some key insights and considerations:
Sourcing's Reputation and Challenges: Sourcing often gets a bad rap because it can feel like a grind, especially if it's not paired with meaningful execution or intellectual challenges. While sourcing is critical for long-term success in PE (as it builds relationships and deal flow), it can feel transactional and less stimulating compared to the analytical rigor of IB.
Lack of Intellectual Rigor: This is a common sentiment among those in sourcing-heavy roles. High-quality sourcing should involve thematic research, building domain expertise, and developing commercial instincts. However, if your firm emphasizes "low IQ sourcing" (e.g., cold calling without strategy), it can feel unfulfilling.
Mentorship and Team Dynamics: The lack of sharpness or mentorship from senior team members can exacerbate dissatisfaction. Growth equity roles often require self-driven learning, but without strong leadership, it can feel like you're stagnating.
Execution and Diligence: Many growth equity professionals note that diligence in this space can feel "table stakes" compared to the deep dives in buyouts. This is partly because growth deals often involve lighter diligence and less complex structuring, especially in later-stage investments.
Potential Next Steps:
Remember, you're not alone in feeling this way. Many professionals in growth equity have shared similar frustrations, and it's okay to pivot if this role isn't meeting your career aspirations.
Sources: Why the hate towards growth PE / sourcing (e.g. KKR Tech)?, Do you consider your Private Equity job intellectually stimulating?, Why The Hate on Sourcing?, Q&A: Principal at Early-Stage VC Fund, Why The Hate on Sourcing?
How does your firm do sourcing? In my experience firms approach it all differently which does affect ASO’s experiences with the job.
I think also because of the sheer number of firms doing a similar strategy - it feels questionable to say that the quality of your sourcing will be a meaningful differentiator to find good deals. It seems clear to me that most assets worth purchasing are going through some kind of auction / banked process - rather than being proprietary.
bump
I'd try to reframe how you view sourcing. For some reason, sourcing is viewed very negatively on this forum, while execution/modeling is glorified. The real world doesn't value modeling. That's a commoditized function, one that will probably be taken over by AI at some point. Look at what all senior people in finance do. None of them do any execution. They spend all their time networking and selling: fundraising from LPs, building contacts with CEOs, boards, and other investors. Ultimately, the quality and breadth of your network, and how well you sell and persuade others, is what will define your career. You've been blessed with an opportunity to hone those skills early. Every meeting and call you take is an opportunity expand your network: perhaps that CEO will start another business down the road that's a rocketship you'll invest in, perhaps they'll refer you to another deal, maybe they'll become an executive at another portfolio company.
You're also getting experience in seeing a lot of potential deals and founders. The more reps you have seeing deals, the more you'll develop intuition about what good businesses look like, how great founders communicate. This is going to be much more impactful for you than drowning in mundane diligence work.
This!
While I can fully understand OP, and share his views in terms of "rigour" in the industry, the emphasis shifts to relationships and (for a lack of a less buzzy word) inference.
This job, like many at a later stage in your career, becomes a selling job. Selling your fund/team to LPs, selling it to top founders to allocate money on that hot funding round, selling capabilities and career tomtop talent to join the company.
As above mentioned, look at it as a possibility to use your interpersonal skills. Be genuine and curious. If possible, bring your numerical/conceptual skills into the game (DD, sourcing, negotiating) and use it to your "unfair" advantage.
Part of the charm is understanding, that 1) as you progress in your career, a different skillset is expected from you, and 2) in VC a different assessment is needed, that when assessing infrastructure with fixed terms or a company with a 50y history, data and well analysed market.
Finally, the role of a banker / consultant, differs from the role of an investor. It is a great opportunity to dig deeper into the qualities that make exceptional investors (in this or any asset class) and continue your personal development. If none of this sounds attractive or worth the effort, perhaps returning to banking or a similar analytical path may be more satisfactory to you. To each their own, and there are no right or wrong paths here, as long as you continue your search for your professional fulfillment and excellence.
Thanks, this is incredibly helpful - I think definitely I'm trying to reframe my thoughts on sourcing. I just sometimes feel as if I'm not actively incentivized to develop my thought process / investment acumen as much as I would like and worry that I may be falling behind my buyout peers in that regard.
I guess would you say it's a matter of taking more personal responsibility for that sort of learning since it won't be the most important / prioritized part of the Asso / junior experience?
Hit the nail on the head.
Even as someone trying to write multiple small checks, I spend more time thinking about my relationship with various entrepreneurial communities and what impact I want to/could have. And that my ability to understand and model a business, despite my expertise in some fields, could be replicated to be taught to people quicker than I've learned them.
As a sourcer, this is accurate and helpful. Thank you.
Can't agree more with above. Modelling truly is a pure commodity skill which you should learn but get away from asap. Execution, mainly navigating edge cases/deal politics/negotiations (i.e. all the stuff that is not PPTs/memos/models), requires a bit of battle experience though which you should get exposure to asap. But any private equity is by definition all about sourcing - there is no Bloomberg to buy shares from. Going through lists can feel boring but how else would you know what's out there. By the time a deal comes through a banker you should already know the firm. Then as above says actually networking and originating is what will keep you in this industry for the long term and make you valuable.
Sourcing is your alpha in private markets. Any fucking moron can do the work and it's about to be automated away
Mmmmeeehhh... I've seen some morons (and less morons) that struggle with some of the base-tasks. But yeah, you are in right about the strong alpha contribution from these skills.
I've also seen partners who lack the fundamentals. They are good at selling/sourcing etc. ... Are there for the relationship, the details are taken care of by the team. Sometimes are mocked by those more capable/savvy on the fundamentals(specially if they let that shine through, most are aware of their weaknesses)... but -ultimately-, guess who is brining the LP check or the deal home?
In my view, the combo is a strong card for success.
I agree with the above comments but feel like they’re missing what you’re getting at.
Sourcing can absolutely suck at times, especially when deals aren’t getting done or if the partners aren’t giving good guidance on what they want to see versus don’t want to see. I know how you feel.
It’s important to know that you’re on the front lines. Partners don’t take those “waste of time” calls because you’re taking those and only introducing your partners to the best people you have met.
It gets better over time - You’re gonna have to take a lot of calls that will go nowhere (that’s part of the job), so try to get value out of every call (learn about the industry or business models). Just always be respectful and don’t waste people’s time.
Think about the very best calls you’ve had, the intro calls where you feel energized after it instead of drained. Those make all the other calls worth it.
Save yourself hours of work on sourcing and learn to use Clay - then link it with an outreach tool like Lemlist. Can share insights if you're interested
Insights/how you use it would be much appreciated
Sent DM
Worked for an independent sponsor that did this exact strategy, can attest it’s great. Super efficient way to go about outreach. Clay is extremely overlooked in sourcing imo.
Crazy how behind some firms are with tech stack optimization. Clay, Salesloft, and Apollo were my go to's for sourcing a couple years ago.
Always blows my mind when I hear this sentiment. That someone would rather sit in front of excel and write a memo with the payoff being minimal comments / someone looking at some arbitrary analysis you did for two minutes vs bringing in business, actually contributing to growth by yourself.
Welcome to PE: Sourcing is 90% of the job. By far the most important component. You can't have great selection if you don't have great sourcing first.
Anyone can do execution--they can learn the modeling in a weekend. The skills you're learning and networks you're building during sourcing are much more valuable and harder to attain.
It seems like you're growing. It might be worthwhile to consider moving to a more execution-heavy role or a sharper team if PE isn't providing you with the rigour or mentorship you desire.
Molestias et perspiciatis voluptatem eius est repudiandae architecto. Temporibus ut sit nobis corrupti magni. Rerum inventore sunt aliquam quisquam cum commodi.
Quia ad rem eligendi provident. Nulla corrupti repudiandae nemo et nam assumenda. Doloremque tenetur tempora autem cupiditate quas.
Deserunt aperiam eos veniam iure harum quo. Totam vitae non perferendis velit sint. Provident voluptatibus nemo numquam. In optio cum eveniet id. Aut ex dicta et a expedita qui. Similique repellendus cum occaecati eius dolore.
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...
Laborum eius vel minima rerum iure inventore. Dolores nisi omnis et et pariatur.
Labore omnis sed rerum eos ea necessitatibus. Rerum facere odit consequatur qui exercitationem et quia. Optio culpa voluptas soluta delectus at voluptas.
Dolorem distinctio sequi sint distinctio. Repellat saepe vitae tenetur suscipit autem eos rerum. Dolorem molestiae quis eum molestiae ipsam qui esse. Fugiat aliquam iste quibusdam eius est temporibus. Facilis sed necessitatibus officiis velit ipsam nihil. Laborum incidunt ipsum ut beatae dolorem maxime.