Sage 100

Wondering if anyone has seen anything like this? My customer posts their Daily Sales Reports and Updates and on some posting journals, they are seeing a completely different number on the Daily Transaction Register than they are seeing in the A/R invoice history for inventory and cost of goods. (They are on MAS 200 version 4.40.) In one case, they only posted a few invoices and the DTR showed 221.90 and the AR history showed 221.23 (a variance of $0.67). I do see that there are kits on 3 of the invoices.

How many decimal places do they have for their inventory price/cost entires? I saw this once on a customer with 4 decimal places. The program wasn't rounding from 4 decimal places to 2 correctly and was causing the DTR to be out of balance.

They are only using 2 decimal places. I also checked in DFDM and only see 2 decimal places there too.

What costing method do they use? Just wondering if by the time they actually updated the register, average cost or tier info may have changed due to other postings, e.g. IM, BM or WO transactions?

They are using average cost. So wouldn't the AR_invoicehistorydetail have the same cost as shown in the DTR?

You'd think so. You said there were kits - were they exploded kits?

Yes the kits were exploded.

Is it related to the costs of the kits vs. the component costs? I know there was an issue in 4.1 with something like this.

Well, when i look at the cost of the kit item and sum up the costs of the components, they are equal. That's what makes this bizarre; I thought maybe the sum would be different than what was in the kit line.

The average cost of the kit is the same as the sum of the average costs of the components? Hmm.

I believe the total kit cost is the sum of the components; the kit cost is derived from it.

Does it update the average cost of the kit item if it is exploded? I thought it didn't since you aren't selling the kit itself. Is this an IM kit or a BM kit?

Remember seeing something like this when using kit items in a kit item. One place it exploded subassembly and other place it used unit cost of the subassembly from IM. Unfortunately, I have limited access to my notes, not to mention my memory.

These are not kit items within a kit, however.

My bad, it did not have to be kit within kit, simply subassembly item (BOM) within a kit. Subassembly (BOM) gets it cost from blow through in one place but gets it from unit cost of subassembly in another.

These are IM kits, not BOM. The client doesn't have BOM. I also ran a costed kit report and the total kit cost comes up the same today as it did back on 3/6/12 (when the issue occurred).

I found it! There were 3 negative balance adjustments in the GL inventory account that added up to the difference. Apparently what got posted to the G/L and inventory that day was $0.67 higher than if you multiplied out the unit cost and qty.

I had an old saying, ""There's always a reason."" I'm not sure I believe that wholeheartedly anymore but once again, it's true! Congrats, Dawn!