For multi-entity groups. Several licences, and no data crossing between them.
A group holding several licences has the opposite problem to a single entity broker. The difficulty is not joining data, it is joining it without letting it cross a boundary it must never cross, and still being able to see the group position when the group is what carries the risk.
- Typical shape
- Two to eight licensed entities
- Jurisdictions
- Often EU, UK, Middle East, offshore
- Measured on
- Group P&L, per entity capital, audit outcomes
- Usually starts with
- Compliance and Finance
What this costs you specifically.
Every question answered once per entity
The same analysis is rebuilt separately in each entity because nothing may be pooled. The work multiplies by the number of licences, and the group view arrives late enough to be historical.
Hedging at the wrong level, twice
Two entities can hold offsetting positions, each within its own limit, each hedging separately. The group is economically flat, pays spread twice and holds capital against positions that cancel. Both errors are available and groups make both.
An audit trail that has to satisfy several regulators
The same event in two entities gets two different correct answers, and the record has to show which rule applied, under which licence, at the time. Reconstructing that afterwards from separate systems is the expensive part.
The agents that earn their keep here first.
All eight run on Atlas from day one. These are the three that usually pay for the whole thing in a firm shaped like yours.
Compliance agent
Knows which entity, which licence and which regulator applies before it prepares anything, and records the reason against the record rather than in a separate log.
What it does, line by line →Finance agent
Runs the reconciliation per entity with the client money requirement floored per client, and reports the group position without ever pooling the entities.
What it does, line by line →Risk agent
Shows entity and group exposure side by side, so a position concentrated in one entity is not hidden by a flat group number and offsetting positions are not hedged twice.
What it does, line by line →Caught in books like yours.
- Partners agentA partner on the wrong rebate tierThe agreement changed. The spreadsheet driving the payout did not.
- Finance agentA provider settles shortNovaPay reported $2 463 897 against $2 482 317 expected.
- Risk agentExposure approaching an internal limitEURUSD at $6.1M against a $7.5M ceiling, still climbing.
What firms like yours ask first.
- Can data cross between our entities?
- No. Entity separation is held in the graph itself rather than applied as a filter on top, so there is no query that returns another entity’s records and no report that can be built across them by accident. Cross entity access is none, by construction.
- Where does our data physically sit?
- In your region. Residency is set per entity, so a group with an EU licence and a Middle East licence keeps each one’s data in the jurisdiction that licence requires.
- Can we see the group position at all, then?
- Yes, and that is the point of holding the boundary in the graph rather than in reporting. Group aggregates are computed without exposing records across entities, so risk sees the group net while compliance keeps the separation intact.
See it on your own book.
Two weeks of read access and you get one list of what we found in a multi-entity group shaped like yours, with the amounts and the records behind every line.