It depends completely on what you want to do in the future. For careers like VC or growth equity, the VC one is better. If you want to work in the public markets, i.e., not working on deals but following companies and recommending stocks, the insurance offer is better. You will probably earn less on the insurance side due to a different fee structure and bonus pool, but we have never covered that topic before, so I’m not sure of the exact differences.

I currently work in Investment Banking and received two job offers: one as a Business Analyst (Ventures) analyzing VC opportunities, and the other as an Investment Analyst at a large Insurance Firm. Which career is better in terms of versatility, growth, and progression?

Thanks!

https://mergersandinquisitions.com/how-to-get-into-venture-capital/

VC recruiting is less structured. There are headhunters at some of the larger firms, but it’s mostly a lot of networking.

It’s possible, but probably not the easiest transition. It would be easier to move from PE to growth equity than to move from VC to growth equity because they’re always going to start by asking about your deal/modeling skills, which tend not to be great coming from most VC firms. It may be easier if you’re at a firm that does some later-stage deals.

Was wondering if it’s possible to move from a reputable VC firm straight out of uni and then move to Growth Equity later on

I know there’s a difference in skillset, but was wondering if the lines were blurry enough to be able to make the transition

I understand some of the larger VC firms (sequioa etc) have GE divisions too

Thanks in advance

VCs care less about accounting/finance knowledge and more about market/product knowledge.

Thanks Brian. Any info on how the skill sets differ, and what VCs don’t care about?

Possible, but not the easiest thing because the skill sets are different, and VCs do not care about a lot of what you do in growth equity.