On-hand (InventSum) with no qty but financial cost

[PvO_be]

We have the following Ax 3.0 SP3 setup
Invent model grp = weighted avg.
allows both physical and financial negative
inventory
Invent dims = warehouse and location are active
warehouse is marked "physical inventory" and
"financial inventory"
We recalc every week and close the inventory monthly.

In the course of 2 years on Ax we now have about 45% of our InventSum
records that have POSTEDQTY = 0, POSTEDVALUE <> 0 and CLOSEDQTY = Yes. We
can view these records via IM - Items - On-hand button - On-hand tab, display
inventory dimension by warehouse and location. Thus all qty fields are
blank, but we have some pos/neg value in the "Financial cost amount" field.

Overall, the average cost and onhand at the warehouse level is correct
(because Ax summarizes data of all invent locations), but if you have no qty
onhand for the whole warehouse, you're stuck with some strange financial
pos/neg value against no physical qty.

Running the recalculation or inventory close is not fixing these records (it
actually creates them).

During the 2007 AXUG Summit in Florida, MS confirmed that there are specific
situations where this problem can occur, but none of the listed situations
apply to us.

Does/did anyone else have/had this situation?
We would like to learn more about how these records came to be in the first
place and how to fix them.

Patrick

PS. I'm also interested in talking to other Ax customers that use the wght
avg cost model group for this and other topics

[Eddie Josling]

Hi Patrick

You mentioned that in the dimension group, the financial option is selected
for the warehouse. These on-zero hand quantity with cost, do they appear on
a warehouse level, warehouse and location level or both?

We have a similar experience, but we don't have the financial option
selected on any storage dimenion, thus having one average cost for the whole
company regardless of location. The client operate with warehouse and
location dimension. After closing or recal, when printing a physical
inventory value by inventory dimension report (or the financial report by
dimension), we will get these values.

After some investigation, I have concluded that inventory settlements
(adjustments) are done on a transactional level, regardless of the storage
dimension. Thus, receipts will be settled against issues across different
warehouses and locations, resulting in the report showing zero on-hand with
values. You are quite correct in stating that these values are then actually
the adjustments caused by the closing.

Now the problem was that it is imperative for the client to have a report
giving the correct on-hand and values for each warehouse/location. We have
developed a report whereby the average cost is taken (as calculated) and then
multiply it by the on-hand for a particular warehouse/location. This report
balance then back to the actual inventory on-hand and value as per Ax
standard Inventory value report.

My opinion is that this is not a "bug", but rather a consequence of the
financial parameter in the storage dimension and how the closing process are
done. We have "solved" this issue by developing a report showing the
"correct" values for each location.

It would be most welcome to have a discussion on this topic as to have
different views/experiences from other customers/partners/consultants.

Regards
Eddie

[PvO_be]

Hi Eddie,

Thanks for the reply.
As a company we choose to carry the inventory at the warehouse level (versus
like you have at the item level). We have 40+ warehouses (stores and DCs) and
each has 2 or more Ax warehouses (for stock, warranty, etc.).

When you view the item on-hand from the item master then most of the items
that have these "zero on-hand with a financial amount" records are only
having this at the location level. This means that other locations for the
same item in the same warehouse have some on-hand and financial value. This
also means that our per warehouse avg cost is mostly still correct.

Looking at the on-hand with only the warehouse inventory dimension
displayed, we do have some records that have no on-hand and some financial
value, but all the ones I checked had recent issue transactions and in my
view the next recalc/close will fix them.

I understand that you have "solved" the problem with a custom report, but
isn't your customer concerned about these remaining records? If this
item-warehouse-location combination is no longer used, then the record will
remain in the InventSum table since it can not be settled (it will have the
ClosedQty flag set to yes if no open transactions exist against the record).

I'm all for have more discussions on this topic, espcially for customers
using the wght avg cost settlement principle. We need to find a platform to
hold these discussions.

Patrick van Oppen

[PvO_be]

FYI,

One of the ways to recreate the "problem" records is by performing the
following transactions:

Item XYZ has a "std" (inventory price on item master) of $10
Item had no prior transactions for whs A
Create, receive and invoice PO for item XYZ into whs = A, location = 01, qty
= 5 with value = $7
The average cost for item XYZ in whs A is now $7
Create invent counting journal for item XYZ in whs A
It will contain one line for location 01 with qty = 5
Set count qty for location 01 to 0
Add new line for location 02 and count 5 (as if someone misplaced the item)
Post the journal and then close the inventory
The correct average cost in whs A is now $8.50
This is the result of the sum of all locations
location 01 (qty = 0 with an amount = -$7.50)
location 02 (qty = 5 with an amount = $50.00)
Notice that location 01 is now one of the problem records
Create, ship and invoice SO for item YXZ from whs = A, location = 02, qty = 5
This will leave a $7.50 amount in location 02 (SO shipped at an avg cost of
$8.50)
Thus we have a second "problem" record
Closing the inventory will not change/correct this situation

We should have a wash between the "problem" records.

Patrick

[ivanjerez]

Hi Patrick;

We the same problems. Did you can solve it?

Regards.
Ivan

PvOb wrote:

On-hand (InventSum) with no qty but financial cost
11-Sep-08

Patrick

Previous Posts In This Thread:

On Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:47 PM
PvOb wrote:

On-hand (InventSum) with no qty but financial cost

Patrick

On Friday, September 12, 2008 2:51 AM
EddieJoslin wrote:

Hi PatrickYou mentioned that in the dimension group, the financial option is
Hi Patrick

Regards
Eddie

"PvO_be" wrote:

On Friday, September 12, 2008 12:27 PM
PvOb wrote:

FYI,One of the ways to recreate the "problem" records is by performing the
FYI,

Patrick

"PvO_be" wrote:

Submitted via EggHeadCafe - Software Developer Portal of Choice
Load Testing ASP.NET Applications with Visual Studio 2010
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials/aspnet/13e16f83-4cf2-4c9d-b75b-aa67fc309108/load-testing-aspnet-applications-with-visual-studio-2010.aspx

[tin...@me.com]

Hi Eddie,
It's quite a while since you posted this answer. Would it be possible if you could provide this report, e.g. xpo?

Martin

[Gaurav Sukhadia]

Hi Patrick,

We are also having the same problem, I know it's been a while since you initially raised this issue but any luck for resolving this negative cost situation in location ?

Thanks.