ACA Finalist - Offer Dilemma

Hi all,

To set the scene, I have been working in one of EY's UK regional offices (just outside London) within Audit for the past 3 years, so am about to sit final ACA exams in July. Before this I had worked for a year in an FP&A role at Sky, followed by a sales role recruiting in the Investment Banking industry.

My training contract is up in September and I started my search relatively early for new roles. I had originally sought out CF M&A roles both at EY and elsewhere, with some joy in terms of coffees etc. but nothing concrete.

However, I ended up with two offers, one of which I turned down as I didn't think it was right for me. The other offer, which is still an open offer, is at a Mid Market CF firm in London. This was through a cold approach (no live role), but is essentially for a Business Development role, focusing on PE Coverage and M&A Deal Origination.

I think this could be a great opportunity, particularly given a role has been created for me with a chance to make a real impact to deal-flow and revenue generation ultimately. I have really enjoyed sales roles in the past and have been fairly good at them.

My questions (mainly aimed at CF professionals with deal experience) are as follows:

Would working on Origination and PE Coverage mean that I could be limiting myself in the future in terms of never having perfomred the real "grunt work" directly on M&A deals?

(My role would entail initial analysis and there would be scope to remain a part of deals once they have been bought into the firm but this obviously won't be as involved as the associates working solely in core deal teams.)

How would an Origination/PE Coverage role compare to an "out and out" M&A role and has anyone done both, with a preference on either?

Based on this should I continue seeking out a more conventional M&A role or count myself lucky to have found a more unique role with clearer path to promotion (based on a small, new growing team)?

Any advice would be much appreciated!

Cheers,
Josh