I have a situation where Material are using 2V and the material inventory left with some price difference .
For example we have issued PO for 10 pieces as Project Stock @ 10 $ each , At the time of MIRO we have a price diff of 0.50$ each piece .
Before MIRO we have issued the stock to Project . In one of the material the price diff of 0.50$ was absorbed by the consumption to Network where as another material left with Price Diff which is causing a diff in GL and Inventory Values .
My question is why this happened where the two material has same setting . Second question , how to adjust the Inventory diff ?
Logicaly this price diff should be absorbed to Project Network .
I believe you want the materials to use Price Determination = 3, not 2. If you use 3 and Price Control = V, Material Ledger should work the way it was intended. The initial blog posting elaborates tips to flip the 2 Price Determination over to 3. There is another area to take care of in relation to the movement types. In Material Ledger configuration you indicate for each individual movement type whether you want Material Ledger to revaluate it or not. Most of them you would want revaluation to be active, but the 561 (Initial Enty at go-live) movement would be an example you would not want any revaluation. Otherwise it would end up possibly writing off all of your initial inventory entries.
I was looking for forums, blogs, wiki for MAterial Ledger and Transfer Pricing. This is the closest I could get on SCN for this. So I thought I would pose my question here. Do we not have any wiki/ forum for ML/TP? For someone with 4 implementations, I could contribute in this area.
material having V/2 , pricing is calculated at moving av price. So in ideal situation no PRD should generate. But the diff is occationally generate due to PO price & Invoice price and not taken care at the time of price calculation due to late invoicing.
if, inventory is consumed before invoicing, the diff does not take place in consumption and as there is no stock the diff goes to price diff as FI entry only.
Now , you can transfer the value from there to other GL account as per your accounting principle. but it will never go to material consumption level.
i think this may clear your doubt.
I have being preparing the proof of concept of material ledger for quite some time and i believe material ledger is not really fitting in. I have some questions and would appreciate if anyone could provide their inputs.
1) SAP suggests that for actual costing (PD = 3), it is required all materials (including raw materials) should have price control "S" . Is it true?
2) There is STO from plant to WH, with shipment and shipment cost document generated. This freight cost is posted to cost center via shipment cost document. The actual cost of material in WH should include this freight cost. So how do we move the freight cost from cost center to material since this is not captured in price difference.
3) Material ledger helps in obtaining actual cost using 2 accounting principles. This is achieved by creating a separate valuation profile and CO version (0 and 0Z1). However in FI, the 2 accounting principles are managed as 2 ledgers (one leading and one non leading). Hence actual cost in accounting principle 1 should include activity cost of version 0 and actual cost in accounting principle 2 should use activity cost in version 0Z1. However activity cost in version 0Z1, should use posting of non leading ledger but data of non leading ledger does not flow to CO. Hence ideally we cannot achieve actual cost in 2 accounting principles?
First of, thanks for the valuable information.
We are getting ready to activate actual costing.
Material ledger has been active for quite some time now (multiple fiscal years), with all materials activated at standard (S) and price determination "transaction based" (2). Costing runs are only run on a yearly basis.
I am currently establishing my conversion plan.
I believe I have all the necessary steps identified (exception made for one little clarification) and am still working the timing.
A couple of questions:
1. Should I update my materials with a price determination value 3 before or after my configuration is imported in production? I understand that the configuration will really fall in place at the time I run actual costing at month end (CKMLCP) but I am wondering if there is any dependency with the price determination update (2 to 3) from a timing/sequence standpoint.
2. Is it necessary to run, mark and release a cost estimate right after the price determination has been changed (from 2 to 3) and before any goods movements take place or does updating the price determination to 3 is sufficient to support actual costing at month end (i.e. is the cost estimate in existence with a price determination 2 sufficient)?
3. Any particular aspects/steps I should pay attention to as far as going live with actual costing? In general, what would be the ideal sequence of events?
Thanks a lot for your help,
We have ML Scenarion : Materials with price determination '3', price control 'S' .
The isssue is : We are unable to trace out how O/H will be caluculated or derived with Periodic Unit price (V) in the cost componenet structure for Material.
Could some one throw light whether this is through CO43 (Actual O/H calculation ) or through something else ?
You may have already figured out the answers to your question. From what I have seen in several times activating Material Ledger, the costing sheet overhead application from CO43 goes into the orders, which then gets applied to the settlement structures using either Source or Allocation structure, I can't ever remember which one is used for which. But that structure drives where the variances goe when the orders are settled. You have actual costs going into the orders (including costing sheet overheads), standard cost components coming out and then the variances get broken up into the cost components. The Material Ledger PUP (periodic unti price) basically adds those standard cost components to the components from the variances in order to provide the PUP values by component. I hope that helps some.
Does The current Inventory value would be changed/Adjusted in ML if I cahnge the periodic Unit price in ML by changing the Moving average price in Material master ( Accounting1 View)manually through MM02.
" The issue is that my Business want to change the specific Material's Periodic unit price from 77639.5 to 7435.75 in ML as it was wrongly revaluated "
Our expected reult is that inventory should be valuated at the Periodic unit price 7435.75 when we close the period 9 in ML
For your information, this material has beginning inventoy is zero and Ending Inventory is 1859.5 KGS.We are good with Quantity.The material is with Price control S ,ML active with price determination 3.
Please advice .
I am interested in changing the controlling level using transaction CKMLMV_CA. In the SAP Library documentation under Actual Costing/Material Ledger (CO-PC-ACT) under Controlling Levels, there is the following statement:
*If you have not explicitly set the Controlling level, the system automatically sets the level to Plant/Material. Remember that the data volume on your computer will increase if you choose a higher level of detail for the Controlling level.
Where does the increase in data volume occur? Specifically, in what SAP tables?