⚠️
One blended capital account instead of many
A standard chart of accounts has no natural place for tracking twenty investors' individual contributions, distributions and ownership percentages separately. Blending them into one fund-level number works until investors have different entry dates or commitment sizes — then it becomes unworkable.
📊
NAV treated as a year-end exercise
NAV is not a number you compute once a year. Every capital call, distribution, management fee and carried interest calculation depends on a current, defensible NAV. Treating it as an annual audit task rather than a running figure creates errors that compound with every transaction in between.
💧
Waterfall sequencing done wrong
Return of capital, preferred return, carried interest, final split — in that order, not any other. Getting the sequence wrong misallocates real money between investors and the manager, and it is expensive to unwind once distributions have already gone out.
📉
Management fees calculated on the wrong base
Fee agreements specify committed capital, invested capital, or NAV as the base — and often switch from one to another after the investment period ends. A general accountant applying one formula throughout the fund's life gets years of fee calculations wrong.
🔄
Investor reporting that does not match the books
A capital account statement sent to an investor should tie exactly to the fund's own ledger. When investor reporting is prepared separately from the books — often in a spreadsheet nobody reconciles — the two drift apart, and an LP noticing the mismatch is a credibility problem, not just a bookkeeping one.
🏗️
Multi-currency and multi-entity structures unaccounted for
A GP entity in one jurisdiction, a fund vehicle in another, and LPs spread across several currencies is normal for a modern fund. Books built for a single-currency, single-entity business do not translate cleanly, and FX treatment gets inconsistent fast without a deliberate structure.