Sage 100

I have a client that has one vendor where the aging across the bottom of the Invoices Tab in Vendor Maintenance show amounts in the 30, 60, 90 and Retainage columns when they should be zero. The AP aged invoice report is accurate. Rebuilding AP sorts did not correct. The client has job cost but this vendor has nothing to do with retension. Does anyone know if these fields are kept in a file (not Vendor file) or if not, how they are calculated?

Running the aged invoice should push a recalc. I think those fields may be in AP_Vendor.

Thanks for the reply. Running the aged invoice report may do a recalc but it doesn't change the figures showing in this vendor's Vendor maintenance screens. The AR_Customer file has a set of Aging fields, but the AP-Vendor does not. It does contain a Balance field and some Average and Last fields but no aging category fields.

Interesting. Running the Aging doesn't change it. Could it really be calculating on the fly?

If it is, I am not sure where it is picking up the numbers. I have scanned records for the problem vendor in the open invoice file and invoice history and can't find anything related to retention that isn't zero.

Strange!

I know that I ran into this before - but probably on the customer side. The issue I think might have to do with the individual invoices having a retainage field with a balance. What if you try a Crystal report and seek out any field that is labeled retainage. There are some definite issues with retainage computations that can be difficult to correct.

John, I see this all the time with one of my JC clients. I don't know why it happens or if there us a fix but the only way I have been able to fix it is to go into DFDM and edit the AP_JobDetailDistribution.M4T. Find the invoice and zero out the RetainageAmt field. Hope this helps.

@KennyDaniel, thanks to you and the others for replying. You got me pointed in the right direction. I went through the AP_JobDistributionDetail for the effected Vendor and found no entries at all in the Retention Field. Next I did a search on each of the bogus figures in the aging total. I got a hit on only one of them. There were two entries, one of which had a negative in the Balance field. When I changed the Balance to Zero, a couple bad aging figures adjusted by that amount. I ended up having to find 6 more job distribution entries to adjust but when I went looking for negative balances, it went well. All were old entries. >>Next time, I will scan for negative balances.<< May 90 Minds live long and be prosperous, at least till the products we support poop out.

Additional Note: The negative Balance records in the AP_JobDistributionDetail file caused that amount to appear in both the Retainage column and the appropriate Aging column. Each time a Balance field was adjusted to zero, the Retainage and one of the Aging columns would get closer to correct.