Helm

Portfolio Strategy

Delio Portfolio works when you have clean, transaction-level data. Most customers don't. This is the fork that determines where we invest next.

18
Import template sheets
~80%
Have statements,
not transactions
2
Paths forward
The Situation

The Ingress Gap

Portfolio expects transaction-level data across 18 typed import sheets. Customers arrive with quarterly PDFs, Excel exports, and emailed summaries. That gap is where adoption stalls.

What customers have
PDF
Q4 Capital Account Statement
Citco Fund Services, 12 pages
XLS
NAV Report - Dec 2025.xlsx
Fund admin quarterly export
GP Update — Fund III Q4
Email with metrics + commentary
CSV
Shadow_book_positions.csv
Internal tracking spreadsheet
Ingress Gap
What Portfolio needs
Investors Assets Direct - Assets Valuations Valuations - Replace Subscriptions Direct - Investments Capital Call Groups Capital Calls Distributions Asset Transfers Fund Transactions Cash Pools Cash Pool Txns Capital Repay Groups Capital Repayments Shared Commitment Adj.
18 typed sheets, each with specific column formats, cross-references, and validation rules
The ingress gap is the adoption bottleneck. Most customers have fund admin statements, not clean transaction streams. The gap between what they have and what Portfolio needs is where onboarding stalls and customers churn.
The Fork

Two Paths Forward

Both paths build on what Portfolio already does well. The question is where the next cycle of investment goes.

DEEPEN

Enrich the Transaction Layer

Make Portfolio institutional-grade. Richer entity model, commitment lifecycle, ILPA-aligned transaction handling. Serve customers who have clean data and need depth.

Serves Fund administrators, sophisticated GPs with clean data pipelines
  • 1 GP/LP role model + commitment lifecycle restoration
  • 2 ILPA-aligned transaction taxonomy with Inside/Outside Fund
  • 3 Valuation governance — ASC 820 levels, approval workflow
  • 4 Full machine API coverage for all transaction types
Risk: Investing in the harder-to-adopt mode. Requires customers who already have clean transaction data — a smaller addressable market.
Customer has clean data feed → Import via template or API → System calculates all metrics
WIDEN

Add As-Reported Mode

Meet customers where they are. Accept summary-level data from fund admin statements. Time-series reported values. Morph is the ingress engine.

Serves Long-tail GPs, wealth managers, LPs who have statements not transactions
  • 1 Period-snapshot data model for fund/investor reporting
  • 2 Morph integration — LLM-assisted document parsing
  • 3 GP-asserted metric acceptance with source attribution
  • 4 As-Reported LP reports and multi-period dashboards
Risk: Building a second data path through the same product. Reconciliation complexity if customers use both modes on the same fund.
Upload fund admin statement → Morph parses to snapshots → Metrics derived + asserted
Metric Coverage

What Can Each Mode Produce?

As-Reported mode covers most of what LPs actually care about. The gap is narrower than it appears.

Covered by Both Modes

TVPI / MOIC

(Distributions + NAV) / Paid-In

Computed Derived

DPI

Distributions / Paid-In

Computed Derived

RVPI

NAV / Paid-In

Computed Derived

NAV

Point-in-time valuation

Calculated As-reported

Commitments

Called / uncalled / unfunded

Computed Reported

IRR (as-reported)

Accepted from fund admin statements

Computed Asserted
Fund admin statements typically include a pre-calculated IRR. As-Reported mode accepts and displays the GP-asserted value with source attribution.
Ledger Mode Only

Computed IRR

Solved from dated cash flow series

Computed N/A

PME

Public Market Equivalent benchmark

Computed N/A

TWR

Time-Weighted Return

Computed N/A

J-Curve

Cash flow timing visualization

Computed N/A
Open Question — Scope TBD

Holdings-Level Reporting

What does the fund actually own? What is the investor's look-through allocation at the underlying asset level? Fund admin statements sometimes include a holdings schedule, but depth and format vary widely.

Native (asset sub-positions) If reported in source docs
Scoping question: Do we attempt holdings-level ingress in a first phase of As-Reported mode, or constrain to fund-level summary metrics and add holdings transparency later? Holdings data is high-value for LPs but adds significant parsing complexity and data model surface area.
The metric coverage gap is narrow in practice. Most LPs care about TVPI, DPI, IRR, and NAV — all of which As-Reported mode can surface. Only independently computed IRR and advanced analytics require Ledger mode.
Recommendation

Widen First, Deepen Later

Prioritize As-Reported mode and Morph integration — meet customers where they are. Ledger depth follows as demand warrants.

Phase 1 — First

Widen: As-Reported Mode + Morph

  • Period-snapshot data model
  • Morph document parser integration
  • GP-asserted metric acceptance with provenance
  • As-Reported LP reports and dashboards
Primary investment
Phase 2 — Then

Deepen: Ledger Enrichment

  • ILPA transaction taxonomy alignment
  • Distribution waterfall reporting
  • Advanced analytics (computed IRR, PME)
As demand warrants

What would change our mind?