Skip to content
Language:

Why EPMind

Why EPMind exists

Twenty years of due diligence work and of supporting finance functions, and the same finding every time: what is at stake is confidence in the figures.

The finding

Reporting is still a painful process

This cycle is not specific to any one organization: it turns up in very different groups, with competent teams and often recent tools.

The cycle, in four stages

  1. Stage 1

    Prepare

    Gather the trial balances, the extracts, and the files from every entity.

  2. Stage 2

    Build

    Adjust, convert, consolidate — often in a spreadsheet, often by hand.

  3. Stage 3

    Review

    Get it read, explain the variances, trace where each figure came from.

  4. Stage 4

    Correct

    Rework, reconcile, republish. Then start again the following period.

Every period, it all starts over

What goes wrong, every time around

Multi-currency closes run by hand
Conversions, eliminations, and adjustments happen outside the system, in files nobody can replay identically.
An audit trail rebuilt after the fact
When someone asks where a figure comes from, answering means working back up a chain of files, sometimes months later.
Spreadsheet adjustments with no traceability
They work, but they are documented nowhere, and they often rest on one person.
Recurring shareholder requirements
The requests come back every period, with formats and deadlines that leave no room.

None of these symptoms is dramatic on its own. Put end to end, they produce the same result: figures people hesitate to defend, and finance teams spending more time building the reporting than getting anything out of it.

What reporting ought to be

Nothing more complicated than this

  • A single source of truth

    One place where the data is authoritative, for finance and for operations alike.

  • Zero copy-paste

    No value carried by hand from one file to another, so no divergence to arbitrate.

  • Structured processes

    Collection, approval, review, and period lock follow the same path every period.

  • A deployment measured in weeks

    Setup time should be counted in weeks, with no integration project to carry.

What we believe

Confidence in the figures and consistency of process are value drivers in their own right.

What the approach rests on

Three positions, held from the start

01

A product born of real client needs

The platform did not start from a product hunch or a market study. It started from reports that had to go out, in real groups, against real deadlines. Every feature exists because a situation made it necessary, and the first platforms built on these concepts are still running.

02

A methodology drawn from due diligence

In due diligence, a figure that cannot be traced back to its journal entry is worth nothing. That requirement — a complete audit trail, no plugs, no approximate reconciliation — was carried over unchanged to day-to-day steering. It is unusual for a monthly reporting tool, and it is what makes the difference when a shareholder or an acquirer starts asking questions.

03

An integrated organization, able to deliver with no middleman

The software, the configuration, and the support are carried by the same teams. So there is no integration project to scope, no handover of skills to organize along the way, and a single party answerable for the result.

Does this sound familiar?

Place your own organization in a few minutes, or let us look straight at what this gives on your scope.

Discuss your challengesAssess my reporting