The high Deferred Revenue comes from the company collecting cash in advance for services yet to be delivered. So the offset on the Assets side is Cash, which is a non-operating asset… so the Change in WC should be up by a huge amount because of the Deferred Revenue increases, as Cash is not an operating asset and the Change in Cash is not a part of the Change in WC.

Thanks for this! Had one question regarding change in NWC. Seems odd that all that deferred revenue in the projected period isn’t offset by a change in the operating assets. Because otherwise, the deferred revenue has a huge effect in the positive direction regarding cash flow in the outer years. Shouldn’t deferred revenue be offset?

Thanks,
Alex

The company has 1-year and shorter contracts and was increasingly moving toward these shorter-term contracts, so less revenue was deferred.

Thanks

I think it would be tough to move directly from Big 4 TS to a top growth equity firm because you need experience working on deals from start to finish. It is slightly easier to do this in Europe, but your chances would still be higher with IB experience first.

I don’t think being CA-qualified would help much. It might give you a small boost, but growth equity is mostly about deal sourcing and execution, and accounting skills are less critical than they are in, say, audit roles.

Thanks for the article

I’m based in London

Was wondering if there’s merit in working in Big 4 TS, would that give me an edge to be able to make the move to a top growth equity firms (having deep understanding of revenue drivers etc) or would I have to move into Banking first in order to have a competitive chance

Also, is there any advantage of being CA qualified within this space – I sometimes see a cohort from PE funds who want to hire people who are CA qualified, but not sure if this is relevant to growth equity

Thanks in advance

The course is holistic, so it’s based on a series of case studies rather than a specific set of features or check boxes. We cover the differences between assuming and repaying debt, add-on acquisitions, call premiums and other features of debt, etc., but not technically a dividend recap in an LBO (yet).

It can be helpful for growth equity interviews, but it’s geared toward financial modeling, not qualitative analysis. And for growth equity, you will be spending a lot of time in case studies and on the job analyzing markets and making recommendations based on that rather than strict model output.

You can’t, these are our own estimates.

No, not really. PF is quite different because it’s basically credit analysis and requires you to evaluate the downside risk, while growth equity is all about “the story.” I don’t think a PF background would give you much of an advantage.