Monthly bookkeeping in Xero or QuickBooks, closed, reviewed and proven every period by the team that does the work.
BOOKKEEPING PACKAGES
Guides to running Xero properly, written from monthly practice rather than from the product documentation.
THE XERO HANDBOOK
Already on QuickBooks? Stay on it. An Elite-tier ProAdvisor team closes the month in QuickBooks Online, Desktop and Intuit Enterprise Suite.
QUICKBOOKS AT LOGIFRAME
The books look different in every sector. So does the way we close them.
ALL INDUSTRIES
What running other people's books teaches you: costs, platforms, and the industries where the books work differently.
ALL INSIGHTS
Thirteen years of accounting work, two Xero Asia awards, and engagement management in San Jose.
ABOUT LOGIFRAMEWho we serve
Nothing announces the transition. The same file, the same bookkeeper, the same monthly routine, and then one month the numbers are late because three people are waiting on each other, an intercompany balance has been growing since spring, and a lender wants statements by the fifteenth.
The transition
Medium is not a headcount band. It is a set of structural facts, and any one of them changes what the accounting has to do.
More than one person can commit the company to money. Once someone other than the owner can order, subscribe or sign, the question stops being whether the books are accurate and becomes whether anyone would notice if they were not.
There is more than one entity, or more than one location. Intercompany balances appear, shared costs need allocating, and a combined view has to be produced from books that must stay separate.
Someone outside the business reads the numbers. A lender, a board, an investor, an acquirer. The close now has a date that is not yours to move, and a month that runs long is a conversation rather than an inconvenience.
Most companies cross all three within about eighteen months of each other, which is why the transition feels sudden even though it is not. The bookkeeping that got you here is not wrong. It is built for a business where one person saw every transaction, and that is no longer the business you are running.
Control
The textbook answer assumes a team you do not have. The workable answer is narrower: three things should not all sit with the same person.
One
Creating a supplier and its bank details. The step everyone forgets is a control, and the one that matters most.
Two
Agreeing that the company owes it, against a limit that is written down rather than understood.
Three
Moving the money. Always someone with authority inside your business, and never your bookkeeper.
Three people is comfortable. Two is workable if the pairing is chosen deliberately, usually by splitting payee setup away from payment release. One person doing all three is the arrangement behind most small company losses, and it is almost never the result of anyone deciding it should work that way. It is what happens when a business grows and nobody revisits who has which permission.
Mechanically this is user roles in the accounting file, an approval tool where the volume justifies one, and a documented limit at which something needs a second signature. None of it is expensive. It is mostly a matter of someone deciding, writing it down, and then checking once a year that the file still matches the decision.

Structure
The shortcut is to run several entities inside one accounting file, separated by a tracking category. It works for a while, and it fails in a way that is expensive to unwind.
Separate legal entities need separate books. They file separately, they can be sold or audited separately, and a balance sheet that cannot be produced for one of them on its own is not a balance sheet. Tracking categories slice a profit and loss well. They do not give you an entity, because they do not give you separate equity, separate retained earnings, or an intercompany balance that has to agree with something.
Done properly, it comes down to four things:
A chart of accounts that is the same in every entity. Same codes, same names, same structure. Consolidation is arithmetic when the accounts line up and a manual exercise when they do not.
Intercompany that clears. Every transaction recorded on both sides in the same period, and the balances agreed monthly rather than at year end. An intercompany account that only grows is an unreconciled difference wearing a respectable name.
Shared costs allocated on a stated basis. Written down, applied consistently, and revisited when the basis stops reflecting reality. Whoever asks about it later will ask how, not how much.
Consolidation above the ledger, not inside it. A reporting layer that combines the entities and eliminates the intercompany, leaving each set of books intact underneath.
Cadence
When someone outside the business is waiting, the close stops being an activity and becomes a schedule. The difference between a company that hits the fifteenth and one that does not is almost never effort. It is whether the work was arranged backwards from the date.
What that arrangement looks like: a written close calendar with each task owned by a named person and due on a named day. A cut-off that people actually observe, so that late invoices land in the right period rather than in the argument. Reconciliations done weekly so the close is a review rather than a rescue. Lock dates applied the moment the period is signed off, so nothing moves under a number somebody already read. And commentary on the variances that matter, written by someone who understands what the business did that month.
The reporting pack that comes out the other end is not a pile of statements. It is a small set of things a lender or a board can read without translation, delivered on the same date every month, with last month’s questions already answered in it.

Honest sizing
Businesses at this stage often arrive asking whether they have outgrown their accounting platform. Usually they have not. What they have outgrown is a file that was designed for a simpler company and never redesigned.
Worth separating the two, because the second one is much cheaper to fix. Before concluding the platform is the problem, look at whether the chart of accounts still matches how the business is organised, whether tracking is applied at the source document or added afterwards, whether approvals live in the system or in an email thread, and whether the integrations posting into the ledger reconcile. Most files described to us as broken are files that were never redesigned after the business changed shape.
Some signals are structural rather than cosmetic:
Consolidation is rebuilt in a spreadsheet every month, and the spreadsheet is now the real reporting system.
The entity count is still rising, and each addition costs the same effort as the last one.
You need permissions the platform cannot express, such as approval limits by department or by amount.
Operational detail that should live elsewhere has been forced into the ledger, and the close depends on unpicking it.
Transaction volume means integrations are permanently behind rather than occasionally late.
When several of those are true at once, the answer is a system built for it rather than a heavily extended general ledger. We do that work as well, so we have an interest in the answer, which is exactly why we would rather show you the redesign option first and let you decide. A migration you did not need is the most expensive thing on this page.
Questions
Next
Tell us how many entities you run, who can commit money, and who is waiting on your numbers each month. We will tell you what your file can still do and what it cannot.
Book a free 30-minute call See the 32-point check