Unify and streamline complex portfolios with a whole-of-fund view

As the global investment landscape grows more complex, asset owners, fund managers, and insurers are investing in a broader range of public and private assets, across more geographies and with more layers of intermediation.

In this environment, traditional reporting and management frameworks, which are focused on individual portfolios, mandates or asset classes, fall short of expectations and requirements.

A whole-of-fund (WoF) view, also known as a total portfolio view, gives institutions a complete and timely picture of exposures, positions, liquidity and performance across the entire investment organization. This enables more informed decisions, faster responses to market events, and stronger alignment with long-term goals.

Why a whole-of-fund view matters:

1. Markets move faster than investment operations
In today’s investment landscape, market volatility, geopolitical risk and emerging regulations demand near real-time responses. A siloed view of assets delays decisions and increases the risk of unintended exposures or liquidity shortfalls. For example, if equity and fixed income teams are managing risk in isolation, they may each make defensible decisions that collectively increase risk at the total-fund level. A WoF view helps firms make more holistic risk and allocation decisions across asset classes.

2. Private markets are no longer peripheral
Private assets have become central to institutional portfolios. In Canada and Australia, many pensions allocate 30 percent or more to infrastructure, private equity, real estate and private credit. These assets often sit on different systems, follow different valuation cycles and are managed by different teams or external partners.

The potential for investment staff to underestimate asset liquidity or overstate diversification benefits poses significant risks. A WoF view helps reconcile different reporting timelines, integrate cash flow projections, and better manage commitments and rebalancing.

3. New mandates increase complexity
More institutions are moving from passive to active strategies across both public and private markets. Firms also offer sustainability integration, carbon budgets, factor tilts and dynamic asset allocation to differentiate their value propositions to end investors and beneficiaries. These changes demand better data, governance and visibility. A WoF view enables teams to manage these overlays coherently. It helps ensure that performance attribution reflects actual decisions that sustainability targets are met at the fund level, and that hedging or overlay strategies are aligned with exposures.

4. Stakeholders demand transparency
Regulators, boards and beneficiaries expect clearer reporting on risk, performance and sustainability outcomes. This means fund-level views that show how parts of the portfolio contribute to goals. A WoF view aggregates exposures in ways that match stakeholder needs, whether that’s by geography, climate impact, currency or counterparty.

What a WoF view entails

While the concept is simple, a true WoF view requires more than just consolidated reporting. At a minimum, it must:

• Combine public and private markets positions in one holistic view
• Normalize exposures across asset classes and instruments
• Show risk, return and liquidity in an integrated framework
• Support multiple views: asset, currency, sector, geography and sustainability
• Refresh frequently enough to support decisions

Some institutions start with a data warehouse approach, while others seek integrated investment management platforms. Regardless of method, the aim is to provide investment staff and senior leadership with shared, reliable views of the entire fund.

Common challenges to adopting a WoF view

1. Siloed systems and inconsistent data
Many investment organizations rely on multiple systems for accounting, trading, risk and analytics. These systems often use different data models, naming conventions and valuation methods. This fragmentation makes it hard to reconcile positions or exposures across systems. For example, the same asset may appear under different identifiers in front-office and back-office systems, injecting operational complexity.

2. Private market opacity
Private assets introduce lags and assumptions that can distort the WoF picture. Valuations are often published quarterly and involve estimates. Cash flows are irregular and require tracking of capital calls, distributions and fees. Benchmarking is also less straightforward than public assets.

To address this, some asset owners build dedicated models for private asset exposure and cash flow forecasting. Others develop proxy valuation models or implement daily “shadow net asset value” approaches. These steps can improve fund-level clarity but require skilled resources and additional governance.

3. Organizational barriers
Achieving a WoF view isn’t just about technology. It also involves aligning teams that are used to working independently. For example, the private equity team may operate with a different language, process and set of assumptions than the domestic equities team.

Creating shared definitions of exposures, liquidity and risk across teams takes time. It also requires senior sponsorship and incentives that reward collaboration. Without cultural change, true transformation is difficult, if not impossible.

4. Integration of sustainability and non-financial metrics
As more institutions integrate sustainability and impact metrics, the WoF view must expand to include non-financial data. This includes carbon intensity, diversity scores, or alignment with frameworks like Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) or Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

However, sustainability data varies by asset class and source depending on vendor, internal models or investee company reports. Aggregating this data at the fund level presents new challenges around consistency, coverage and auditability.

Some institutions apply materiality filters or scoring frameworks to harmonize sustainability data across the fund. Others rely on estimates or mapping tools. But confidence in the results depends on transparency and strong governance frameworks.

The state of the market

Pension funds in Canada and superannuation funds in Australia have led efforts to build a WoF view. Their scale, sophistication and regulatory requirements have pushed them to seek greater integration.

Across Asia, pensions and sovereign wealth funds are driving similar efforts, especially where member choice and competitive pressures increase the need for timely and personalized reporting. For these funds, a WoF view supports both governance and member communication.

In the US, insurance companies are also showing interest as they grow their private asset books and seek better asset liability management tools. The ability to link portfolio exposures to liabilities or regulatory capital requirements requires a total balance sheet perspective, which aligns with the WoF view.

Key considerations

Institutions pursuing a WoF view should consider the following steps:

1) Assess current capabilities: Map current systems, data flows and reporting frameworks. Identify where silos or gaps exist. Focus on areas where decisions are slowed or distorted due to lack of fund-level visibility.

2) Set clear objectives: Define what a WoF view means for your organization. Is the goal daily liquidity tracking? Better oversight of sustainability targets? Improved risk aggregation? These goals will guide system and process design.

3) Build common data definitions: Establish shared definitions of asset types, risk factors and metrics. Ensure all teams use the same data where possible. Create golden sources and maintain consistent identifiers.

4) Invest in integration tools: Choose platforms or tools that can bridge systems, normalize data and support multi-asset aggregation. This may require ETL pipelines, data fabrics or an investment book of record.

5) Create a cross-functional team: Bring together stakeholders from investments, operations, risk and IT. Assign ownership for WoF reporting and fund-level analytics. Encourage joint problem-solving.

6) Start with high-impact use cases: Focus on areas like daily cash forecasting, total fund risk reporting or sustainability score aggregation. Delivering early wins can build momentum and support.

For institutions managing assets across public and private markets, a WoF view is essential to managing risk, making smarter allocation decisions, meeting stakeholder expectations and responding to ever-changing markets. Building a WoF view requires investment in systems, processes and culture. It also demands clear definitions, integrated data and collaboration across teams. Those who succeed will be better positioned to navigate complexity, deploy capital more effectively and deliver on their long-term commitments.