Two approaches.
One clear difference.
Group accounting has specific structural requirements. Understanding how different approaches handle those requirements helps you see what you're actually choosing between.
← Back to HomeThe method matters more than most clients expect.
Multi-entity accounting isn't just more of the same work. The moment a second entity enters the picture, an entirely different set of requirements appears — intercompany eliminations, policy alignment across entities, consolidated statements that reflect the group as a single economic unit.
General accounting practices handle individual entities well. But corporate groups operating through multiple legal entities have structural needs that single-entity tools weren't designed for. The gap between the two shows up in the quality of consolidated output, how long reconciliations take, and how much manual work piles up each period.
What follows is a straightforward comparison — not to criticize any particular approach, but to help you understand what each method produces, what it costs in time and accuracy, and where the differences actually show up in practice.
Traditional approach vs. group-first approach.
| Area | Traditional Approach | Delvane Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Structure basis | Single-entity first, group reporting assembled afterwards from separate files | Group structure designed first; individual entity work integrates into it from the start |
| Intercompany transactions | Often tracked manually in spreadsheets; reconciled at period-end when balances don't agree | Tracked continuously throughout the period; elimination entries prepared as part of routine monthly work |
| Consolidation effort | Significant manual work each period to gather, reformat, and consolidate entity-level data | Consolidation is a structured output of existing work, not a separate exercise each period |
| Policy alignment | Each entity may use slightly different accounting treatment; adjustments made at consolidation time | Accounting policies aligned across entities upfront; no adjustment layer needed at consolidation |
| Subsidiary reporting | Each subsidiary accountant produces output in their own format; corporate team reformats | Standardized packages produced in the parent's required format from the start; no reformatting layer |
| Transfer pricing documentation | Often addressed separately by tax advisors, sometimes after the transactions have already occurred | Documentation maintained alongside transaction tracking; available when needed rather than reconstructed |
| Delivery timing | Dependent on individual entity timelines; group reporting often delayed waiting for all entities | Group reporting calendar set at engagement start; all entity timelines built around it |
The thinking behind our approach.
Start with the group, not the entity
Most accounting engagements start with a single entity and add group-level work later. We begin by understanding the full group structure — how entities relate, what consolidation will require, how intercompany flows should be classified. Entity-level work is then designed to feed that structure, not compete with it.
Monthly reconciliation, not annual discovery
Intercompany balances that haven't been reconciled regularly tend to surface large discrepancies at year-end — at the worst possible time. Tracking them monthly means errors are caught when they're small, transfer pricing records are current, and the consolidation close takes hours rather than days.
Format once, use everywhere
Subsidiary reporting packages are designed to match the parent company's requirements from the first engagement. That means the corporate team receives files they can use directly — no additional reformatting, no column remapping, no chasing entities for revised versions after closing.
Documentation as part of the work, not after it
Transfer pricing documentation, elimination schedules, and consolidation workpapers are maintained as a natural part of ongoing service delivery. When auditors or lenders ask questions, the supporting material is already there — not assembled under deadline pressure.
What each approach tends to produce.
What the investment actually covers.
Where traditional approaches spend resources
Manual consolidation work each period, often under time pressure
Internal staff time chasing subsidiaries for late or incorrectly formatted submissions
Reformatting and normalizing data across entities before any analysis can happen
Year-end reconstruction of intercompany documentation for audit and tax purposes
Remediation time when discrepancies are found late in the close process
What a structured engagement covers instead
Monthly consolidation as an output of structured work, not a separate project
Subsidiary packages delivered on schedule in the required format — no coordination overhead
Intercompany balances reconciled throughout the period, not discovered at close
Transfer pricing documentation maintained as part of the ongoing engagement
A predictable monthly cost against an auditable, documented process
What working with each approach feels like day to day.
Period close involves gathering data from multiple sources, often at the last minute. The consolidation is done manually using spreadsheets that have been built up over years and are understood by one or two people.
Intercompany discrepancies show up during close, creating pressure to find and fix them quickly. Transfer pricing records may need to be reconstructed from emails and transaction logs.
Subsidiary teams submit in their own format and timeline. The corporate accounting team spends meaningful time normalizing data before any actual analysis can happen.
Each period runs on a predetermined schedule. Subsidiaries submit by their agreed dates, in the agreed format. Intercompany balances are reconciled before close, not during it.
The consolidated output arrives on the date your board or management team expects it — because the schedule was set at the beginning of the engagement, not negotiated each month.
Your corporate accounting team receives files that go directly into their review process. Supporting schedules are already attached. Queries from auditors or lenders have documentation readily available.
How the gap tends to widen over time.
With a group-first structure, the first year is where the framework gets established. By the end of the year, intercompany flows are documented, subsidiaries are on schedule, and the consolidation process is largely routine.
In a traditional setup, the first year often ends with the same manual effort it started with — the process has been completed, but little has been systematized.
A well-structured engagement becomes faster in subsequent years, not slower. The framework is known, entity accountants understand the process, and exceptions are handled within the existing structure.
Traditional approaches often accumulate complexity — more entities, more manual workarounds, increasingly fragile spreadsheets. The close process takes longer as the group grows.
Adding a new entity to an established structured engagement is a defined process. The new entity's accounting is set up to fit the existing group framework — not bolted on afterwards.
In traditional setups, each new entity adds proportionally more manual work. The group's reporting infrastructure hasn't kept pace with the group's growth.
A few points worth clarifying.
"Our current accountant handles consolidation just fine."
Many groups manage consolidation adequately — and the question isn't whether it gets done, but at what cost. If consolidation requires significant manual effort each period, involves a lot of internal staff time, or produces output that requires further reformatting before it's usable, a structured group-level engagement is likely to reduce that cost considerably.
"Specialized group accounting is only for large multinationals."
Two-entity groups face the same structural requirements as ten-entity groups — intercompany eliminations, policy alignment, consolidated output. The scale is different; the technical requirements are not. Groups with two to five entities often find the return most pronounced because the manual effort they've been carrying is replaced by structured work that scales.
"Switching accountants mid-year is too disruptive."
Onboarding for a new engagement naturally involves reviewing the existing structure and prior period work. That review usually takes a few weeks and can begin at any point in the year. Many clients start the conversation mid-year specifically because that's when the limitations of their current setup become most visible — during close.
"The monthly cost is higher than what we currently pay."
The monthly accounting fee is one part of the picture. Internal staff time spent on consolidation, data normalization, and chasing submissions is another. So is the time spent at year-end reconstructing documentation. When those are factored in, the total cost of the current setup is often higher than the structured monthly engagement would be.
What a structured group accounting engagement actually gives you.
Predictable output
Consolidated statements and subsidiary packages on a fixed schedule. The same dates, the same format, every period — regardless of how busy the close month gets.
Documentation that's already there
Intercompany records, transfer pricing documentation, and consolidation workpapers are maintained throughout the year — not assembled under pressure when auditors arrive.
A structure that scales
When a new entity is added, it joins an established framework. The reporting structure doesn't have to be rebuilt — the new entity is onboarded into what already works.
Ready to talk through what a group-first structure would look like for your entities?
We'll walk through your current setup and show you concretely where a structured approach would change the process.
Get in Touch