If US GAAP reporting is going to be a permanent, full-time job in your finance team, hire for it. If what's in front of you right now is the conversion itself (the GAAP matrix, the opening balance sheet, the accounting policies and the first audit), that's a project with an end date, and a GAAP conversion specialist will usually get you through it faster and with less risk than someone you're still recruiting. Many finance teams end up doing both, in that order: a specialist runs the conversion and documents every position, and a US GAAP controller or the existing team takes over the ongoing reporting.
This is the longer version of the "New hire" column in the comparison table I use on my GAAP conversion page. It's written for CFOs, VPs Finance and FDs who have just brought in US investors, been acquired by a US company or started on the road to a US IPO, and who now have to decide who does the US GAAP or IFRS work.
Separate the conversion project from the ongoing reporting
Most of the confusion in this decision comes from treating two different pieces of work as one.
The conversion is a project. It has a start, an end and a fixed set of deliverables:
- GAAP matrix: every account and accounting policy mapped from your local GAAP to US GAAP (or IFRS), with the differences that change your numbers ranked first.
- Accounting policies and technical memos: the positions you take on revenue, leases, share-based payments and anything else judgment-heavy, written down so the auditor can follow them.
- Opening balance sheet and comparatives: the adjustments that restate your history under the new framework.
- The first audit: answering the auditor's questions on all of the above, usually under a deadline set by the deal.
Ongoing US GAAP reporting is a job. Every month or quarter someone produces the reporting package for your US parent or investors, applies the policies to new transactions, picks up new standards as they come in, and prepares for next year's audit. It never ends, and it needs someone who knows your business from the inside.
The two need different things. The conversion needs depth in both frameworks and experience of what auditors will ask the first time. The ongoing work needs consistency, availability and a good grasp of your systems and people. Once you look at them separately, the hiring question usually gets easier.
What hiring a US GAAP controller really involves
Hiring is a perfectly reasonable instinct. You get someone on the team, who learns your business and stays. It helps to be realistic about three things before you start the search.
The profile you need is rare
For a conversion you need someone who knows your local GAAP (HGB, FRS 102, Danish GAAP or whatever your entities report under) and US GAAP well enough to map one to the other and defend the result to an auditor. In my experience few candidates have both. Most strong controllers in Europe have spent their careers under local GAAP or IFRS, and most US GAAP specialists learned it in the US or in a US-listed group, without the local GAAP side.
US listing experience is rarer still. If an IPO is on the horizon, someone who has been through SEC reporting and a PCAOB audit is a specific hire, and you'll need to write the job spec around it.
The search takes time, and the deadline doesn't move
The conversion deadline is set by the deal: the first audit under the new framework, a closing condition from your acquirer, or the financial statements for a US registration. The hiring timeline is set by the market: the search itself, the candidate's notice period, then onboarding.
When those two timelines collide, the new hire arrives with the conversion already late, learns your business and US GAAP positions at the same time, and spends their first months on a project instead of building the role you hired them for.
The work shares time with everything else
A controller you hire is your employee, and that's a real advantage. It also means the conversion competes with the monthly close, the audit of last year's local GAAP accounts, systems projects and every other request that comes to finance (one of the reasons I wrote don't ask your new hire to do two jobs). Typically the urgent work wins and the documentation for the conversion slips, which is exactly the part the auditor reads most closely.
When hiring is clearly the right call
Hire a US GAAP controller when:
- US GAAP reporting will be a permanent, full-time workload. You're consolidated into a US parent with monthly reporting, or you're listed in the US and the reporting calendar never stops. That's a job, and it belongs in house.
- You have time before the deadline. If the first US GAAP audit is far enough out that the hire can be found, onboarded and settled before the conversion starts, hiring first can work well.
- The person has done a conversion before, from your local GAAP, and you've checked that experience properly.
- You need someone in the building for controls, systems and the close, not only for the accounting positions.
If most of these apply, hire. A specialist can still review the hardest positions, but you probably don't need one to run the project.
What a specialist does differently
A GAAP conversion specialist is built for the project side. In my case:
- Frameworks: I'm a US CPA, I convert from local GAAPs across Europe, and I read and speak German, so German-language files and HGB accounts are no problem.
- US listing experience: I'm ex-PwC across audit, capital markets and accounting advisory, in Boston, Frankfurt and Dubai.
- Who does the work: me, from the first call to the final memo. It's just me, so there's no hand-off to a junior team.
- Pricing: a fixed fee per phase, agreed upfront. My pricing page explains what sets the fee.
- Time from your team: async, with recorded walkthroughs instead of extra meetings, so the conversion doesn't take over your team's week.
For a sense of how this compares with a larger firm, Snowplow cut its advisory fees by 50% compared with larger firms on its GAAP conversion (read the case study), and I've set out the cost side in GAAP conversion specialist vs Big 4.
Use a specialist for the conversion and hire for the ongoing role
You don't have to pick only one. The setup that often works best runs in sequence:
- The specialist runs the conversion. The GAAP matrix, policies, memos, opening balance sheet and the first audit, on a fixed timeline set by the deal.
- Your team stays involved throughout. They supply the data, sit in on the walkthroughs and review each position as it's agreed, so nothing arrives as a surprise.
- The positions are documented for you to keep. Every judgment is written down with the reasoning behind it, in files your team owns.
- Your new hire or existing team takes over. They run the ongoing reporting from those documents, and the next conversion or new entity is something your team can do themselves.
Knowledge transfer is built into how I work. The point is to upskill the team so they can run it next time, which is what "What your team keeps" means in the table below. If you're hiring a controller anyway, bringing them in during the conversion is the best onboarding they'll get. If you're not hiring and only need a sounding board after the conversion, ongoing GAAP advisory covers new transactions, new standards and reviews on a retainer.
Hiring and a specialist side by side
| New hire | Working with me | |
|---|---|---|
| US GAAP, IFRS and European local GAAP | Depends on the person; few have both European local GAAP and US GAAP | US CPA, converting from local GAAPs across Europe; I read and speak German |
| US listing experience | Rare, unless you hire for it | Ex-PwC across audit, capital markets and accounting advisory |
| Who does the work | Your employee | Me, from the first call to the final memo |
| How it's priced | Salary plus hiring time, ongoing | Fixed fee per phase, agreed upfront (see pricing) |
| Time from your team | Shared with their day-to-day work | Async, with recorded walkthroughs instead of extra meetings |
| What your team keeps | Stays in house while they stay | Documented positions, and a team that can run it next time |
| Best when | US GAAP reporting is a permanent, full-time workload | You need US GAAP or IFRS for a US fundraise, acquisition or IPO, as a defined project |
How to decide: five questions for your CEO or board
These are the questions I'd take into the conversation with your CEO or board, so everyone is on the same page before you open a search or sign an engagement letter.
- Workload: after the conversion, will US GAAP reporting be a full-time job, or a few days a month?
- Deadline: when is the first audit or filing under the new framework, and could a new hire realistically be in place and up to speed before the work has to start?
- Profile: does the person you'd hire need both your local GAAP and US GAAP, or US listing experience, and how many candidates like that exist in your market?
- Capacity: who covers the close, the local audit and the conversion at the same time if it all falls on one person?
- What stays behind: if the person who did the conversion leaves, what documentation does the next person inherit?
If the answers point to a permanent workload and a comfortable timeline, hire. If they point to a deadline set by a deal and a profile that's hard to find, bring in a specialist for the conversion and hire for the ongoing role alongside it. If you'd like a head start on what US GAAP reporting will ask of your team, the US accounting and reporting guide covers it for European finance teams.
Talk it through for your situation
Every company's mix of entities, deadlines and team capacity is a little different. If you're weighing a hire against a specialist right now, I'm happy to talk through your situation and where I'd start. You can book a strategy call here.