~Grant Hodgson

Regulatory scrutiny in global capital markets is no longer confined to technical compliance. For technology companies operating across borders, assurance had become a test of judgment under pressure: how decisions were documented, explained, and defended when timelines compressed and stakes escalated.

Leadership is defined not by title or formal designation, but by the ability to apply assurance and audit methodologies consistently, clearly, and accountably across complex regulatory environments. 

The professionals shaping this work are not simply validating outcomes; they are determining whether trust can be sustained when expectations shift faster than the frameworks that govern them.

It is within that reality that Tamir Hay has become a highly regarded subject-matter expert in the assurance and emerging company solutions space, known for navigating regulatory complexity across U.S. and international markets. 

As Hay puts it: “Regulators are increasingly interested in the thinking behind decisions, not only the final outcome. As timelines compress, the differentiator becomes whether judgment was exercised thoughtfully and supported in real time, rather than pushed through for speed.”  

He further adds: “The hardest calls rarely involve clear-cut rules. They arise when frameworks allow for interpretation, and that’s where experience really counts. Taking the wrong shortcut or delaying a tough decision can amplify risk instead of reducing it.”

Drawing on decades of experience at the center of audit methodology and cross-border coordination, his work reflects a disciplined approach to judgment rather than rigid checklists.

With regulatory timelines tightening and artificial intelligence reshaping how evidence is generated and assessed, the capacity for defensible judgment has become a defining factor for assurance professionals supporting high-growth technology companies in 2026.

The Rising Tide of Regulatory Complexity

In various respects, oversight bodies in numerous jurisdictions insist on deeper documentation, clearer articulation of the risks, and shorter post-audit completion windows. 

Hay says: “In high-stakes public-market situations, pushing forward and fixing issues later isn’t a viable option. Decisions carry consequences beyond management, and maintaining credibility often means pausing, explaining the issue, and addressing it properly, even when that creates short-term discomfort.”

In the United States, changing expectations regarding evidential standards and accountability frameworks place further burdens on teams that support fast-growing technology companies, including those preparing for listings or in a public-company readiness environment. 

International frameworks in regions such as the United Kingdom and Canada reinforce this trajectory, emphasizing transparency, documentation discipline, and heightened professional skepticism.

Hay’s career has placed him close to these developments over a sustained period. Having been with PwC since 2000, he has held roles including managing the Hi-Tech assurance practice cluster at PwC Israel and leading the firm’s Audit Methodology team. An experience that positioned him to strengthen documentation rigor and operational structure across large engagement teams. 

Earlier in his career, Hay also worked in PwC New York's technology audit group as a Senior Manager from 2010 to 2013, gaining firsthand experience with PCAOB standards, SEC compliance environments, IPOs, capital-raising projects, SOX programs, and M&A processes.

This accumulation of practice exposure has helped shape methodology approaches that align documentation discipline with the realities of compressed regulatory timetables. 

He elaborates: “As regulatory timelines tighten, teams mayfeel pressure to accelerate and resolve issues afterward. That approach no longer meets expectations. Regulators expect work to be complete, well-reasoned, and supportable at the moment of signing, other than technical remaining documentation completions.” 

Colleagues who have worked alongside Hay across regulatory and emerging-company environments describe a leadership style defined by clarity, foresight, and trust. 

Marc Rosenbaum, PwC US Partner specializing in SEC services, shares: “Having worked closely with Tamir across complex SEC and cross-border matters for more than a decade, what consistently distinguishes him is the clarity of his judgment under pressure.” 

He further says: “He has a disciplined way of presenting the full landscape, facts, regulatory considerations, and client objectives, before decisions are made. That transparency not only strengthens collaboration, but also ensures outcomes that are defensible, trusted, and aligned with regulatory expectations.”

This is an example of how, generally, the compression of regulatory timelines and the demand for contemporaneous documentation have already become major issues across the assurance field.

Hay has contributed to large-scale methodology initiatives that strengthen documentation rigor while preserving engagement momentum, including the design of workflow structures aimed at achieving “zero housekeeping,” completing audit documentation by the signing date rather than relying on post-audit clean-up periods. 

He explains: “Documentation is no longer something you finish after the fact. Regulators expect work to be complete at the point of signing, which forces teams to change how they plan, review, and escalate issues throughout the engagement.” These initiatives later scaled across the practice, preparing teams for regulator-driven compression of documentation windows toward near-real-time completion. 

This is an example of how the person being discussed has had a wider impact and influence with his work in his field and industry, shaping how assurance teams approach documentation discipline, regulatory readiness, and execution under pressure.

For him, this evolution reflects a deeper professional shift: “The profession has reached a point where reasoning and documentation can’t be separated. If the rationale behind a decision isn’t clearly recorded, regulators will treat it as though the judgment was never made.”  

Hay’s work is significant because assurance teams across jurisdictions are adjusting to regulator-driven compression of documentation timelines and heightened expectations around judgment and evidence.

AI as a Transformational Force and a Governance Challenge

At the same time that regulatory expectations intensify, artificial intelligence is reshaping how assurance teams evaluate evidence and analyze risk. 

AI-enabled tools can accelerate pattern recognition and expand analytical coverage across enormous datasets, yet they also introduce new considerations, from explainability and validation to the auditability of decision-support systems themselves.

Hay says: “Analytical tools can surface insights at a scale no human team could replicate. But that also raises expectations: professionals must be able to explain not just what the analysis shows, but why the resulting conclusion is sound. Responsibility for the decision never shifts to technology.”

Hay approaches AI as a methodological challenge as much as a technological one. His experience includes U.S. GAAP, IFRS, US GAAS, ISA, and PCAOB standards, as well as years of serving technology companies from start-up through maturity.

That background has further cemented his view that AI-enabled processes should be designed with governance in mind from the outset, rather than addressed retrospectively as regulatory scrutiny mounts. 

Hay says: “Clear-cut issues rarely create tension. Complexity arises in situations that fall between established lines, where professional judgment shapes regulators' ultimately view of a decision. That insight is developed through repeated exposure, not theory alone.”  

Hay treats disciplined documentation and validation as operating requirements, not compliance extras. He has influenced how assurance teams integrate AI while preserving trust and accountability. 

As Hay puts it: “If AI tools are introduced without clear validation and documentation standards, they create more questions than answers. The methodology has to be designed so that conclusions can still be traced, challenged, and defended.” 

A Cross-Continental Perspective Shaping Practice

Hay’s leadership has developed across two of the world’s most dynamic technology ecosystems. 

Based in Israel, he led the Hi-Tech cluster, working closely with high-growth companies through the growth stages, including governance and readiness for capital markets. His role extended to designing audit methodologies and undertaking regulatory interface work, placing him at the heart of how international standards are interpreted and applied in practice. 

Since October 2025, that perspective has broadened through his role as a Partner on secondment with PwC US, where Hay manages the firm’s Israeli Tech practice in the United States with a focus on the New York Metro area and supports the professional interface between PwC US and PwC Israel. 

He says: “Many founders aren’t asking for theoretical answers. They want clarity about what they truly need to do, given their current position and their future direction. That often means translating regulatory expectations into practical steps they can execute. When you can connect those dots early, it changes the entire trajectory of the process.”

John Romeo, Director at PwC in the Emerging Companies Solutions (ECS) practice, says: “Tamir brings a rare balance of technical depth and human judgment to emerging-company work. Founders and CFOs may arrive focused on compliance requirements, but they quickly recognize that he approaches engagements as a trusted advisor rather than a rigid enforcer.”

He also says: “His ability to translate U.S. and Israeli regulatory expectations into practical, confidence-building guidance is a significant reason why companies are willing to engage early and build long-term relationships.”

The market-facing vantage point is further reflected in the PwC Israel 2025 Exit Report, which cites certain important aspects of Hay’s work and expertise, as well as his colleagues. The report analises a full year of Israeli tech companies IPOs and M&As, including those supported by PwC and other forms and partners. The document is a widely referenced industry analysis examining M&A and IPO activity across the technology sector. 

The report documented $58.8 billion in exit value during 2025, highlighting a sharp acceleration in transaction activity and reinforcing the importance of governance discipline, IPO readiness, and assurance rigor as companies approach liquidity events. 

In this respect, Hay's role went beyond the execution of engagements to industry-level interpretation, translating aggregated transaction data into the practical implications needed for regulatory preparedness and capital-market trust.

His work being included in the data, as well as his colleagues is recognition that reflects his influence on governance, trust, and professional standards within high-growth technology environments.

Besides client engagements, Hay has helped inform the industry debate by facilitating and participating in professional forums with sponsor organizations on governance, Fit-for-Growth projects, capital-market readiness, and technology-driven growth.

By contributing assurance insight to market analysis, he operates at the intersection of professional practice and ecosystem-level understanding. 

Hay says: “Whether I’m sitting with the CEO of a listed company or the founder of a young startup, the standard doesn’t change. Each has taken real risks, and each deserves the same level of attention, respect, and professionalism.”

His ability to contextualize market data through the lens of regulatory readiness and methodological discipline has reinforced his standing as a trusted authority for companies preparing for M&A and IPO processes under U.S. scrutiny. 

This highlights a specific significance of contributions to the field and industry, for example, how his approach has shifted assurance work toward earlier alignment, clearer accountability, and more disciplined judgment at critical decision points.

Leadership, Talent, and Institutional Impact

Hay’s leadership approach has also been recognized internally and across the broader fintech ecosystem. Earlier in his career, Hay received internal PwC recognition for performance excellence, as well as a U.S. firm award recognizing innovative approaches to sustainable work practices.

Inside the firm, his leadership has been equally consequential: “Once you’re responsible for developing others, results alone aren’t enough. You have to help people build judgment and confidence, especially when they’re facing complex decisions without clear answers.” 

In addition to mentoring senior managers and partnership candidates through structured, long-term development relationships, Hay has played an active role in formal leadership development for new partners. He further initiated and assisted in designing a systematic onboarding framework for new partners, focusing on independence, risk management, prioritization, and practical application of professional judgment in complex engagements.  

He says: “At a certain point, leadership stops being about tasks and becomes about people. Developing judgment in others is just as important as applying it yourself. If teams feel both supported and accountable, they make better decisions under pressure. That won't happen by accident; you will have to mould it by design.” 

Hay’s approach is calm, precise, and oriented to simplifying complex issues while holding teams accountable. He is great at cultivating an environment where teams are supported and take ownership of their work.

Integrity, Talent, and Methodology Under Sustained Pressure 

Across assurance and emerging-company environments, current pressures are already reshaping how organizations approach methodology, oversight, and professional culture. Methodology, ethics, and talent development remain central operating considerations, particularly as analytical cycles accelerate and regulatory expectations tighten. 

In high-stakes engagements, responsibility is often concentrated at moments where judgment cannot be deferred. Over years of IPOs, M&A transactions, and regulatory interactions, that principle has shaped how difficult decisions are approached, consistently placing long-term trust over short-term convenience.

This perspective treats disciplined structure as the foundation of innovation rather than a constraint. Hay explains: “Trust is built through consistency. When teams apply the same standards under pressure as they do when conditions are easy, stakeholders notice. Over time, that consistency matters more than any single outcome.”

That balance between rigor and adaptability, technology and judgment, and local execution and cross-border coordination continues to define Hay’s influence on assurance practice, methodology-driven execution, and the emerging company solutions landscape.

Hay reflects: “When processes are under pressure, it becomes very clear whether teams rely on shortcuts or on principles. Over time, it’s the consistency of those choices that determines whether stakeholders continue to trust the outcome.”

Through work with multinational technology companies, sustained contributions to methodology-driven practice design, participation in market-defining industry analysis, and a long-standing focus on developing future leaders, Hay’s work continues to inform how assurance teams, companies, and regulators navigate accountability, documentation, and trust in complex capital-market environments.

The result is an approach grounded in structure and judgment, with implications that extend beyond individual engagements into how trust is maintained across global capital markets.