AX v3: Item Dimension group, Include financial

[ACO]

I hope somebody can explain why this is.

I have a Dimension group set up requiring Warehouse. Location is optional.

The Warehouse has both Physical Inventory and Financial Inventory marked.

The Location has only Physical Inventory marked.

In an attempt to clean up the inventory -- some inventory is in a blank
location -- using Transfer Journals, there would be a Financial Cost Amount
left behind although all the quantities are zero.

I reversed the Transfer Journal, went back to the Dimension Group, changed
the Location marking Financial Inventory and repeated the original Transfer
Journal.

The entire Financial Cost Amount came across.

I know why there was a discrepancy between the Physical Cost Amount and the
Financial Cost Amount. Inventory was sold at Standard Cost before it was
purchased (at, as you would guess, a cost different from Standard). It
appears that all along inventory consumption of the Financial Cost Amount was
equal to the Physical Cost Amount -- if I took $1 out of Physical I also took
$1 out of Financial.

But during that time the Warehouse had both Physical and Financial Inventory
marked. (Yes, Location had Physical but not Financial.)

It was only when both Warehouse and Location had both Physical and Financial
Inventory marked did the quantity operate in equal weight on both values.

So what are the rules when evaluating Physical and Financial Inventory with
two storage dimensions? And are there reasons why one would mark Physical
without also marking Financial?

Insight would be very much appreciated. Documentation is failing me.

[red]

Hello,

what you describe is standard funcitonality and it is due to the average
pricing.

Example:

Warehouse A, Location A + 1 Piece 10,--
Warehouse A, Location B + 1 Piece 5,--

Average price is 7,5 now

Then we post a transfer order from Warehouse A, Location B to Warehouse B,
Location xx --> the amount will be - 7,5

We have now the following values in inventory
Warehouse A, Location A 1 Piece 10,--
Warehouse A, Location B no piece -2,5

On warehouse A we have 7,5 --> this is correct

Warehouse B, Location xx 1 piece 7,5

Much to my regret this is standard functionality and with such a setup we
cannot avoid it.

The problem is, that when you activate financial inventory on the location
you will not have an average price anymore. If you want an average price
based on warehouse level then you cannot avoid this. The reason is that the
average price is calculated on warehouse level (financial inventory ticked).

So either you work with an average price and accept this, or alternatively
use batch numbers and identity pricing, but this means that you will have to
maintain batch numbers in the system.

--
Cheers red

[ACO]

Thanks, Red.

Now my challenge is to convince Finance that it would be beneficial to also
mark Financial Inventory at the Location storage dimension level. It would
allow them to recapture that leftover value floating around with no inventory.

I personally see no harm at maintaining costs at levels other than just
Warehouse. It simply means that inventory at Location A averages out to a
value different than inventory at Location B. Changing the dimension display
around to show values at only the Warehouse level takes care of combining the
two locations and arriving at a blanced average.

I don't think the ledgers care about storage dimensions -- only financial
dimensions. The net effect of the exercise would still be of benefit: Monies
that were orphaned in a GJ now get moved with the inventory. Seems like a
win/win situation.