Sometimes keeping portfolio and accounting separate is a practical decision. Timing, staffing, and existing providers can make an integrated rollout unrealistic. Keeping portfolio and accounting separate can be practical when you are constrained by an outsourced accounting provider, audit timing, limited staff, or an existing GL process you cannot disrupt. In those cases, separation reduces near-term implementation risk. The problem is that separation rarely reduces work. You still need one set of numbers that holds up under review. If portfolio and accounting live in different places, the work shifts into reconciliation, exception handling, and manual controls.
Separate systems create reconciliation overhead
Keeping the systems separate creates ongoing operational overhead. You end up managing two versions of the same story and spending time bringing them into alignment. That means duplicate rules for pricing, FX, and classifications, more handoffs between teams or providers, and more exceptions that require judgment calls. Over time, that work becomes routine, not occasional, because every close depends on it.
The overhead also grows as the portfolio and structure get more complex. When numbers are assembled after the fact, accuracy depends on the quality and timing of reconciliations. Reporting becomes less flexible because each new entity, fee, expense treatment, or asset type introduces more mapping logic and more special cases. Close timelines stretch because the work shifts from posting and reviewing to investigating and explaining differences. Cost increases because staff time and provider time become the integration method, and delays and inconsistencies reduce confidence in the reporting.
Unified general ledger supports one operating model
If you want consistent numbers over time, a unified general ledger is what supports the operating model. It is the only approach that keeps portfolio activity, cash, accruals, fees, and expenses anchored to the same set of records, with the same rules, across the same entities.
Without that foundation, you are asking people and processes to do the work a system should do. Reconciliations become the control framework. Exceptions become normal. Reporting depends on timing, individual judgment, and informal documentation.
With a unified general ledger in place, close and reporting run off recorded transactions and defined treatment, not after-the-fact alignment. The work shifts from matching and explaining numbers to reviewing results and acting on them. That is what holds up as the portfolio grows, reporting demands increase, and scrutiny from stakeholders becomes more routine.
