Reporting Only or Balance Transfer Consolidation Methods

Here are pros and cons comparing the Reporting Only Consolidation method versus the Balance Transfer Consolidation method.

Reporting Only Consolidation Pros:

• You are not required to run additional processes to consolidate unless ledgers have a different currency than the consolidation currency.

• View the consolidated balances anytime. This cannot be done in the Balance Transfer Consolidation method because that method requires a balance transfer be done to achieve consolidation.

• Faster close process.

Balance Transfer Consolidation Pros: Don't require a standardized chart of accounts and calendar.

Note: When reviewing balances that use either consolidation method, verify that the translation to the consolidation currency is current. If there is a journal or subledger level reporting currency ledger, translated balances are automatically available from either Reporting Only or Balance Transfer Consolidations. Only a reporting level reporting currency ledger must have the translation process run when it has a different currency than the consolidation currency.

Balance Transfer Consolidation Cons:

• May require an additional consolidation ledger to maintain balances or the current parent ledger can serve as the consolidation ledger. You can use your parent ledger and just transfer the subsidiary balances directly into that ledger.

• Must run a balance translation process if the currency is different from the consolidation currency. Then run the transfer processes to view the consolidated balances.

• Maintain charts of accounts mappings, which can be a labor intensive.

• Outdated balance transfers have to be reversed and posted, and then a new balance transfer is run every time the source ledger's balance changes.

• Requires translation to be run again if ledger currency is different than the consolidation currency.