Katrina Nacci, CPA, is a cross-border accounting specialist who supports European finance teams through their first US PE and VC investment, IPOs and acquisitions. She helps teams build investor-grade reporting under US GAAP, without relying on the big-firm infrastructure.
Tesla won by questioning the assumptions the industry stopped asking: why electric vehicles had to be expensive, slow, or niche.
European scaleups should question the legacy cross-border playbook.
When a European scaleup brings in it's first meaningful US investment, it faces the same kind of inflection point Tesla did. This is the moment when sophisticated accounting and reporting becomes a requirement for the first time, but the company isn't big enough to need or afford the big firm machinery.
The old playbook, local accounting, regional advisors, incremental thinking, stops working. US stakeholders expect US accounting, reporting and audits. They expect speed and they expect clarity.
The default response from the industry is to make it expensive, slow, and heavy.
Cross-border reporting has its own tired assumptions.
  • That getting "investor-ready" has to mean a 10-person team.
  • That a GAAP accounting conversion has to be a long, expensive slog.
  • That the only safe way to satisfy US stakeholders is to default to a large advisory firm.
  • That your finance team should expect to lose months of focus just to translate the business into a new reporting language.
This manifesto is about rejecting those assumptions and building a better model instead.
The shift in expectations
For European tech or biotech scaleups, the arrival of that first significant US private equity or venture capital investment marks a turning point. It's the moment when expectations shift dramatically, 'nice-to-haves' become non-negotiable requirements. At this stage, while your company isn't yet scaled to justify the machinery of a large advisory firm, the need for deep, specialized expertise becomes immediate and undeniable.
These requirements happen when the money hits the bank account. It's right when that first set of "reasonable" questions lands in your inbox and you realize they're not really questions.
  • Can you provide reporting under IFRS or US GAAP?
  • Can you support that revenue conclusion in a memo?
  • Can you explain the equity story in a way an American board member expects to see it?
  • Can you get through a US-style audit without your team falling apart?
Most finance teams at this stage are lean by design, perhaps under ten people. Everyone has a day job and everyone is already maxed. Now the company is being asked to operate with a higher reporting bar, without being given the time or headcount to grow into it gradually.
The default response is predictable: bring in a big firm. Or ask your Big Four auditor for a recommendation, and get referred to... another big firm. The path of least resistance leads to the same place.

Where a large firm is the right choice
When you have a hard external deadline and you need brute-force capacity, a large firm can be a lifesaver. When you genuinely need a team of ten to take over parallel workstreams, run PMO, and keep the train moving, you want a machine that relies on leverage (even when they charge you dearly for it…).
But that's not most scaleups. Most scaleups don't need a machine. They need the right expertise, applied in the right places, without hijacking the finance function.
The cross-border beast
Cross-border accounting isn't general advisory work with a checklist. It's technical work that sits in the cracks: between UK GAAP or local statutory rules and US GAAP, between what your internal books look like and what US stakeholders expect to see, between deal structure and reporting consequences.
It's also the kind of work that gets surprisingly disjointed in the multi-office model. The knowledge is spread across jurisdictions. The staffing rotates. The person on the call this week may not be the person on the call next week. The answer can change depending on which office owns which piece.
Even when everyone is smart and well-intentioned, the output can feel stitched together.
For a lean team, that disjointedness is expensive not only in fees, but in time, energy, and momentum.
And when a conversion gets messy, it doesn't just create accounting pain, it delays deals. It stresses teams with last-minute surprises that suck oxygen out of the business.
A GAAP conversion is not a "finance project." It's not a "compliance exercise" or just checking-the-box. It's a growth project.
When reporting is clean and credible, finance becomes an enabler for fundraising, M&A, expansion, board conversations, strategy.
When reporting is messy, finance becomes a constraint: always catching up, always reacting, always explaining. So the real question isn't "How do we convert our financials?" The real question is: How does a European scaleup build a reporting function that can operate at US speed and US scrutiny…without turning into an enterprise overnight?
First principles for cross-border reporting
This is where first principles matter. Not the Silicon Valley version where everything becomes a slogan. The practical version. The kind where you strip the problem down to its basic components and rebuild from there.

The assumptions to stop accepting
There's an assumption baked into the market that cross-border reporting support has to be expensive, heavy, and full of meetings. That's the accounting-advisory equivalent of "electric vehicles have to be expensive, impractical, and niche." It's not true. It's just how the industry got built.
These assumptions persist because the industry is built on a leverage model: junior staff lacking in practical experience do the bulk of the work, while partners provide review, and the economics reward billing hours over solving problems efficiently. The model works brilliantly for partners pulling in seven figures. It works less well for scaleups that need specialized expertise, not a pyramid of bodies coordinating across offices.
So, what do US stakeholders actually need?
Confidence in the numbers
Not perfect numbers, but defensible numbers
Consistency
Stable reporting that doesn't change methodology every period
Documentation
Not for decoration, but because audit and governance require it
Speed
Because the business is moving and the questions won't slow down
And what do scaleups actually need?
They need help that doesn't distract them from their day job. They need someone who can translate complexity into actionable guidance. They need a path where internal teams can participate as much or as little as their bandwidth and budget allow. They need support that leaves them stronger after the work is done, not dependent.
A better model starts there. Not with a big team. Not with a broad scope. Not with a time-and-materials invoice that creeps upward each quarter. With a clear definition of what "ready" looks like, and a delivery approach designed for how scaleups actually operate.
The 4 non-negotiables of a better delivery approach
01
Specialization beats staffing
In this niche, the biggest risk is not effort, it's applying the wrong guidance, too late, and discovering it only when an auditor or investor asks the question you didn't anticipate. The goal is not to throw hours at the problem. The goal is to bring deep cross-border technical knowledge to the places where it actually moves the needle.
02
Fewer meetings, more momentum
Scaleups don't need weekly status calls to feel supported. They need progress they can see. This is why async work matters, working seamlessly in the background while the business runs.
  • Use recorded walkthroughs instead of dragging ten people into a meeting
  • Use tools that reduce coordination overhead
  • Keep communication tight and decisions clear
  • Ensure your team are out of the weeds unless the weeds actually matter
03
Real project transparency, without making the client the project manager
If a finance lead has to spend their week chasing updates and managing an advisor, the model has failed. A project homepage, clear tasks, visible bottlenecks, and open questions in one place isn't extra process. It's how you give time back.
04
Knowledge transfer isn't a nice-to-have. It's the whole damn point
Scaleups don't need a permanent babysitter. They need to become capable at this level. That doesn't mean dumping standards on people or delivering a training deck. It means working shoulder-to-shoulder in a way that actually sticks: explaining the why behind the position, showing how the conclusion ties to the numbers, leaving behind templates, memos, and examples the team can reuse.
Because the best outcome isn't that the conversion is done.
The best outcome is that the next close is easier. And the one after that. And eventually, US GAAP stops feeling like a foreign language.
None of this is anti–big firm. It's pro-fit.
There are real situations where a large firm is exactly the right choice. If capacity is the constraint: a hard deadline, parallel workstreams, heavy stakeholder management, then bring in the bench. If you truly need ten people to push a huge volume of work through in a short window, the machine earns its keep.
For many scaleups, the constraint is not capacity. The constraint is specialized cross-border knowledge applied quickly and cleanly, without burning out the finance team.
And that's where the default-to-a-machine approach becomes wasteful.
What the wrong model actually costs
The wrong model doesn't just cost money. It costs attention.
It turns finance into a coordination layer instead of a leadership function. It pulls operators away from the business. It creates drag right when the company should be accelerating.
You should be able to get cross-border support without: outsourcing the whole function, buying a bloated structure, or living inside meetings for months.
You should be able to scope work in pieces. Bring help where the risk is. Use internal teams where it's safe and efficient. Escalate only when you need real depth.
This is also why pricing matters, not as a sales point, but as a philosophy
Time-based billing rewards time.
Scaleups don't need to pay for time. They need to pay for outcomes.
Snowplow Analytics: a model in practice
Snowplow Analytics is a clean example because it has the exact ingredients scaleups recognize: a major financing event, new US expectations, structural complexity, and the need to keep costs under control.
The Challenge
They transitioned from UK GAAP to US GAAP following a Series B fundraise of $40M led by US Private Equity, with additional complexity from a Delaware flip and consolidation issues.
The Approach
The approach was phased and designed to involve the internal finance team with knowledge transfer so the team could manage US GAAP reporting independently after the project.
Key outcomes
50%
Cost reduction
Reduced advisory fees by 50% compared to larger firms
100%
Audit-ready
Complete memos on high-risk areas like revenue recognition, share options, and restructuring
4
Months to Independence
Internal team capable of managing US GAAP reporting independently going forward
And the work product wasn't fluff. It included audit-ready memos on high-risk areas like revenue recognition, share options, and restructuring, plus support through financial statements, disclosures, and auditor review.
Not "cheap accounting." We created a better build: specialized depth, less waste, a stronger internal team at the end, and a smoother path through investor scrutiny and audit.
Choose your path
Jump directly to the section most relevant to you:
The CFO Call to Arms
For a lean finance team, a cross-border reporting step-up usually shows up as an annoying compliance exercise that suddenly becomes urgent. It starts with a new requirement from US stakeholders: IFRS or US GAAP reporting, investor-style packs, and answers that hold up under audit scrutiny. Nothing about the day job gets smaller, you still have a close to run, cash to manage, forecasts to deliver, and a business that needs real-time finance support.
The problem is that the "default" advisory approach often adds work instead of removing it. More meetings. More status updates. More people involved. More handoffs. And you end up as the person stitching it all together, chasing inputs, aligning opinions, and trying to keep the project moving while still running the function.
The support you bring in should reduce load on your team, not increase it. It should focus quickly on the few areas that create the most risk under US expectations, the places where a wrong answer, a late answer, or inconsistent application will come back during audit or diligence. And it should leave you with something usable at the end: not just a one-time set of converted numbers, but a set of positions you can stand behind, supporting memos that auditors will accept, and a repeatable way of producing the reporting going forward.

What this looks like in practice
  • Cross-border specialists in topics that actually drive risk
  • Work that happens mostly async, with fewer meetings and tighter check-ins
  • Clear ownership: what the advisor produces, what your team produces, and what gets reviewed
  • Memos and templates built alongside the work so the next close isn't a restart
The Investor Imperative
Investors, your capital fuels innovation, and ensuring its protection demands more than just adherence to reporting standards. You need a thoughtful approach to how those standards are met. The reporting model you encourage directly impacts the operational efficiency and long-term health of your portfolio companies. Don't let antiquated processes drain their potential or undermine their internal capabilities. Higher reporting expectations are rational. They protect the investment. But the delivery model matters.
If the only way a portfolio company can meet the bar is by buying a large machine, attention becomes the cost. And attention is the scarce resource inside a scaleup.
The question isn't whether to raise the bar. The question is whether the path to meeting that bar strengthens the company or just adds overhead. A better model gets you the same outcome investors want, credibility, while increasing internal capability instead of creating permanent dependency.

What this looks like in practice
  • Clear definition of "ready" and the shortest path there
  • Audit-grade documentation where it matters
  • A finance team that gets stronger, not dependent
The Partner Opportunity
Partners, your role is pivotal in shaping how companies navigate these complex cross-border challenges. The traditional model of disconnected services can undermine client success and dilute your value. It's time to rethink how expertise is delivered, moving from siloed advice to seamless collaboration that genuinely empowers scaleups rather than adding complexity. The cross-border space works best when specialists operate in lanes and when the client isn't forced to become the coordinator between disconnected providers.
The modern model is modular scoping, clean handoffs, and a bias toward enablement. No turf wars. No bloated bundles when the client needs precision.
Legal, tax, valuation, ERP, deal teams: the work is better when it's lane-based, scoped cleanly, and coordinated like adults. The best partners aren't the ones who try to own everything. They're the ones who know exactly where they add value, and they build a delivery experience that doesn't punish the client for needing multiple specialists.

What this looks like in practice
  • Scope in pieces, deliver fast, document cleanly
  • Coordinate across tax/legal/ERP/valuation without overlap
  • Leave behind artifacts the company can reuse
This is the standard worth building around
And it's an invitation.
European Finance leaders
If you're trying to raise funds in the US without letting reporting become a drag on growth, there's a better way to do it.
US Investors
If you want investor-grade reporting without turning your European PortCo into a project management office, there's a better way to do it.
Cross-Border Transaction Partners
If you believe in tight scoping, knowledge transfer, and enabling internal teams — there's room to build something together that feels modern, not bloated.
If that's the mindset you want in your world, this is the manifesto to rally around.
If you want to talk:
katrina@kn-cpa.net