Improvements to the Stock Valuation Report when run retrospectively

Bit of Background

Firstly, the help file on the Retrospective stock valuation report states:

Note: Unconfirmed stock item levels and value (where the stock item has been recorded as received but not the purchase invoice) are not included on a retrospective stock valuation report.

This is factually correct, however, there can be drawbacks once a purchase invoice as been recorded if there is a cost difference.

When run retrospectively, the Stock Valuation report works backwards from the current confirmed stock position. It uses the Transaction History to calculate what the quantity and value would have been – adding to the figures where the quantity had where any stock had been consumed or subtracting figures where any stock had been received past the valuation date.

Good Example

When the unconfirmed stock has been sold and the price last confirmed which differs from the price that was initially used on the ‘Out – SOP’ transaction, the system works fine because the ‘Total Value’ on the ‘Out – SOP’ transaction is retrospectively updated.

Bad Example

However other mechanisms for consuming stock do not retrospectively update the ‘Total Value’ on their specific movement types (for example ‘BOM Issue’ or ‘Out Write Off’) this can lead to anomalies on the report.

These anomalies can range from an inflated of deflated valuation to zero quantity with a positive or negative value – depending on if the stock was confirmed at a lower or higher price.

Workaround

It would be possible to create a customised valuation report that removes the stock items that have a zero quantity, but this would not help with other items with inaccurate values.

If purchase order lines are updated on goods received this problem does not occur.

Possible Solution

May need to reconfigure/reinvent the report as it would not be suitable for all other transaction types to behave the same as SOP, for example BOM finished goods cost could be based upon unconfirmed component costs so if these costs were retrospectively changed it could make BOMs difficult to reconcile.