"Once a user closed a period in Blackbaud they immediately lose access to the transactions. - want to clarify here, when you hard close or optimize a fiscal year you do not lose the transactional detail, it is only when you summarize the fiscal year is that net change is retained for accounts, projects etc.

So currently, the implementation of calling against the GL summary endpoints and the GL transaction end points in combination should lower the number of calls vs just hitting the GLtransaction endpoint.

We will be investigating a change to update the GLSummary table when a month is soft closed, we do not have sufficient insight into scope and risk as to whether that change is feasible.

Sorry sentence in earlier post should read:

"Many financial reports cannot be written quickly without access to this summarized information."

I have some additional information on this since the Ledger Summary endpoint was added. Having to close or optimize the period in order to get Ledger Summary is not as appealing for some of the early adopters because the transactions "lose" visibility. This was the wording from the early adopter:

"Once a user closed a period in Blackbaud they immediately lose access to the transactions.  He said they typically have 5 years of unclosed periods so they can prove out transactions to auditors....Anyway, I thought I would pass on this little oddity to you.”

Taking this into account, it would be nice to have Ledger Summary updated regularly for open periods. This allows transaction be queried and also for beginning balances to be aggregated without needing to summarize from account inception by using Transaction Distribution endpoint.

Many financial reports cannot be written quickly with access to this summarized information. Having Ledger Summary for optimized and closed periods is a good step in the right direction, but taking into account that user are reluctant to close and optimize periods makes this endpoint less useful.