Thoughts on cold calling / sourcing for tech Growth Equity

You are much better off staying in banking. Everyone knows by now these types of jobs are for tools. Cold calling, are you fucking kidding me.

Can't speak to actually working at these firms but it varies by the firm. Analysts are cold-calling at insight whereas associates are doing cold-calling (in addition to regular PE associate things) at TA. Unsure about TCV / Summit.

I would be curious as well how well regarded 2-3 year associate experiences at these firms are

Wrong, you are just being used as a tool.

Sourcing is the path of least resistance into undergrad without a doubt, if you are highly determined to get into PE. The learning curve plateau extremely quick, and the learning curve is what prevents burnout. If you're extremely determined to get into PE you might be able to lateral, but you'll start to resent your job and duties real quick. It will be fun and exciting at first to speak to CEO's of companies for the ones that play ball for a bit, and the diligence that comes with the early phase, but you'll finance skills and such just waste away, which will make it tougher for your interviews for your next position. its a catch 22, good short term resume builder, but leveraging the position for the next gig should be your #1 goal while you have it

I honestly don't understand why anyone would want these jobs. Sure, cold calling is useful and a skill that needs to be developed, but not something that should be the sole reason for existing for extended periods of time. True proprietary sourcing of the highest quality comes from the connections built with management teams you've worked with over the years. Where you also learn valuable execution skills and investment acumen. I guess the preFtige of these firms is enough to lure in young IB analysts, but from a personal perspective I could care less. I know people that spent time at both Insight and Summit and struggled to find jobs post MBA. Most are in pure bus dev roles now and will likely never make principal or MD.

In my first growth equity role, I despised the idea of sourcing deals. I wanted to develop a skillset needed to analyze and evaluate companies, learn transaction structuring, and gain an operational skillset by working closely with management teams.

After developing that skillset, which I consider primarily "check the box" attributes - I sought to develop a proactive deal mindset, leveraging past diligence and internal resources on industries we had previously explored - to source deals. This development, shifting from a reactive to a proactive mindset, was a critical transformation in my career. It demonstrated that I was able and willing to be a team player, identify firm blind spots, and aggresively seek to fill them. In a frothy market with rising multiples, having a differentiated approach is heavily valued and rewarded. In addition, sourcing can differentiate you from others in your firm.

I understand the OP is asking in regards to the cold call shops. I personally believe that a well refined analytical skillset, developed in investment banking, when combined with a sales skillset (and ability to face rejection) developed at a cold call shop - can lead to a truly well-rounded professional. At the end of the day, we all are selling a few things - ourselves, our firms, and capital. We sell ourselves to management teams and to LPs. Learning early in your career to face rejection, overcome it, and keep knocking on doors - is critical to playing the long game.

is tcv really a sourcing model at the associate level? I view it as more of a late stage vc rather than growth equity shop. A lot of their investments are into name brand startups for their growth rounds. No way an analyst/associate is sourcing those.

I've seen my banker friends fall for this and other PE pitfalls. Pitfalls are as follows:

1. PE firms pay better than banking is a myth, unless you rise to the very very top and get minted a partner of a very large PE fund or top 5 VC fund and even then it is not clear you will outpace an equally successful banker

2. Sourcing is not a great job, you are being used to call off a list or database and essentially harass CEOs. You send countless form emails and CEOs basically loot at your tenure on Linkedin and laugh at you. Yes, once in a while a desperate company calls you back and that is exactly what the partners of the firm are looking for. Then you get pushed aside and get your lame bonus.

3. The work is not better, it is the same, which is worse. Banks train you for 2-3 years, then they at least promote you to Associate. PE firms are seeking essentially 3rd, 4th and 5th year Analysts and calling them Pre-MBA Associates. You have no junior team doing the work, so you are the one toiling in the data rooms, making powerpoint slides, building models from scratch, writing boring memos on whats good / not good about a particular company, carrying the books all with zero Analyst support. You are the proverbial low man on the totem pole.

4. You do not do deals much. Think about it, you're on the buyside looking at lots of deals if you are lucky, and you will see most die in the early evaluation stage, then you will see most dies far after you'e done a ton or work as the firm will turn it down for one reason or another or you will simply lose it to another PE firm who outbid you. The odds of you closing a deal in a given year is very very low.

5. You will not likely rise to prominence. Note that most of these firms are the same size for decades going forward. They barely ever mint a new partner, and it is never a former banker. For the thousands of Analysts that leave banking every year, there are almost zero that become partners at these firms. In fact, other than Vista which is a total anomaly, what other PE / VC shops have been started by former bankers lately. And ones that started as Analysts and left to be Associates at existing PE firms. And remember, Vista founder was a Partner at Goldman not a lateral to Pre-MBA Associate.

Happy hunting folks.