Abnormal grow in moving price

[Former Member]

Hi Expert,

I find there is abnormal biggest amount show in moving price of material. There is big different once compare with previous price. Could you advice any reason to cause this biggest amount. We can't find any user has change this field. Any advice or checking procedure for us to find the reason? Thanks!

Abnormal moving price: 8,874,330.00 (big different compare with previous moving price)

Previous normal price is 10,942.96

The other material got abnormal moving price too. 148,700.00 (big different compare with previous price)

Previous normal price is 4,420.00

Rdgs,

Emily

[JL23]

I would actually say that the issue is caused by a weird process.

Almost all movements are either returns or cancellations, and what movement 981 is cannot even be said as it seems it is not a standard movement type.

You can calculate any number in this report by yourself and you will see that it is mathematically correct for itself.

However, you have to understand that goods issues are valuated with a moving average price.

And your 161 movement is valuated with with the PO price.

You started the journey with 2 quantities and an average price of 10.95

then you created more stock with a cancellation of a goods issue (movement 262) at the same moving average with a value of 120.40  for a quantity of 11.

subsequently you did a return with 161 movement of 11, but this was done with a price of 120.36

which means 0.04 value from the 262 movement have been left in stock, causing that the moving average becomes a little bigger for the remaining 2, from 10.95 to 10.97.

goods issues are valuated with quantity by moving average.

while the return is valuated by value from PO.

This way you are leaving more and more value from rounding issues on your remaining 2 quantities, and the higher the difference between moving average and PO price is the higher is the difference that you leave in stock for the 2 quantities, hence the moving average is exploding and causing even higher differences with the next 161.

Sort your process. This cannot be a normal process

[former_member287204]

Dear experts,

Thanks for all of your advice. Actually the MT 262 is normally a reversal for part of MT 261, e.g. MT 261 for Qty 100 and then MT 262 for Qty 28 (e.g. Qty 28 is required to return to a SL using MT 262 and then return to Vendor using MT 161). Using MB1A to execute for MTs 261-262 and execute with ref. to Production Order. MT 161 is executed with ref. to Purchase Order in MIGO.

Had checked the relevant Production Order for the Mat docs. of MT 261 but found the Price (Amt/Iss Qty) was normal, e.g. about $10.943 for the Mat "410-28090-020002". Also checked the relevant Purchase Order item for the Mat docs. of MT 161 but found the price (Amt/Iss Qty) was normal and was not changed.

The higher Mvt Price might be due to the higher amt when creating Mat doc(s). for MT 262, e.g. Mat
410-28090-020002, Mat doc. 6000402927, it is "15,505.49", so price = 15,505.49 / 13 = 1192.73. This higher amt should be inside the Production Order, could you advise how to check it ?

Also don't know why the Mvt Price (assume it is the column - "Price/Unit (Bal.)") for the Mat docs. of MT 161 was calculated wrongly in this report. Could you advise ?

Tks,

KH Fong

[former_member183424]

Are you also having the same problem ? Or you have changed your account ?

You are not the owner of this discussion.

[JL23]

The moving average is not calculated wrong.

you only have to understand that the 262 movement valuation is just quantity * moving average.

and the 161 is a proportion of the PO price, which has probably more than 1 condition or a different price unit.

you can re-calculate any number of your report and should come to the same result as the report and as I did, it is mathematically correct.

your PO price is 10.94181818181818 per 1

the first moving average in the report is 10.95

for the same quantity of 11 you get 2 different results

based in the moving average you get 120,40

based on the PO price you get 120.36

This will usually not create a big problem if you work with higher quantities or when the stock becomes zero.

but in your case it is creating a big problem since your goods issue with 261 movement is long ago, not even listed in the report, and you are doing a lot reversals with 262 and subsequent returns which always left 2 as remaining stock. And this small stock gets always the rounding differences and hence becomes more and more expensive.

[former_member287204]

I am in the same problem and was asking questions from "2014年8月4日 上午8:35 " as above. Tks.

[former_member183424]

You will get your solution by analysis the report.

Just take the report into excel and compare the price (check my previous comment for you)

[former_member287204]

Dear Jurgen,

Thanks for your advice, but I don't know why the remaining stock such as "2" would "get always the rounding differences and hence becomes more and more expensive.". Could you explain in details ?

Even if the MT 161 is based on PO Price, e.g. Mat 410-28090-020002, Mat doc. 5000060444, Qty was 13 & Amt was 142.29 which was same as PO Price & Amt (only 1 condition & price unit was same), but the Mvt Price was calulated as 8,874.33 which was wrong. The correct Mvt Price should be 142.29/13 = 10.95. How could it be calculated as 8874.33 ?

In the report "S_P00_07000139", could you confirm whether the "Balance quantity" is the Stk Qty in MMBE, the "Price/Unit (Bal.)" is the Mvt Price ?

Tks,

KH Fong

[JL23]

before Mat doc. 5000060444 you had a stock of 15 PC with a total value of 17890.95

moving average price is 17890.95/15 = 1192.73

you then removed 13 PC with a value of 142.29 (based on your PO price), hence you have 2 PC left with a value of (17890.95 - 142.29 😃 17748.66

and 17748.66 / 2  is a new moving average of 8874.33

it is mathematically correct calculated, even the values are absurd. But they became absurd because of your weird process with all those partial cancellations and returns.

[former_member287204]

Tks Jurgen,

In the report "S_P00_07000139", could you confirm whether the "Balance quantity" is the Stk Qty/Balance in MMBE at the time of creating the Mat doc. for GR/GI, & whether the "Price/Unit (Bal.)" is the Mvt Price at the time of creating the Mat doc. for GR/GI ?

Although you said our process is quite weird, do you have any suggestion to avoid this problem (Mvt Price becomes higher suddently) so that we don't need to manually adjust the Mvt Price using MR21 ?

Tks,

KH Fong

[JL23]

The balance quantity is the quantity after completion of the movement, so the last record in the list should be equal to the current  MMBE (if the list goes until today and if all your MMBE stock is valuated), the price/unit (bal) is the new moving average after completion of a movement. the previous moving average is in the line above.

I would use a price per unit 1000 instead of per 1, this way the rounding differences will be smaller. Still this does not solve all your problems.

You would need to monitor the development of this moving average regularly and adjust the it with MR21 if it moves apart.

But if you could explain your process then we may be able to give advice how it could be done differently.

I understand your steps from your earlier reply, but this did not enable me to understand this process at all. For me is a cancellation (262 movement) and a return (161 movement) more an exception than a regular process.

[former_member287204]

Dear Jurgen,

Thanks for your advice. Attached transactions include more info. on our processes which is explained as below -

1) Originally, execure GR from PO for the Raw Material (e.g. 410-28090-020002) by MT 101 (positive value), e.g. Mat doc. 5000055866 which price should follow PO.

2) This Raw Material will be issued to Production Line by MT 261 (negative value), e.g. Mat doc. 410-28090-020002 which price should follow Mvt Price.

3) After Production, there might be some Materials which were in Line Scrap, so it was returned to SL 1900 by MT 262 (positive value), e.g. Mat doc. 6000377844 which price should follow Mvt Price. Then, executed the Line Scrap by using our customised MT 981 (negative value), e.g. Mat doc. 6000377845 whick price should follow Mvt Price.

4) Another scenario is that there might be some Materials which were required to return to Vendor after Production, so it was returned to SL 1400 by MT 262 (positive value), e.g. Mat doc.6000379720 which price should follow Mvt Price. Then, executed the GR Return by MT 161 (negative value), e.g. 5000056894 which price should follow PO.

5) For some Materials which were not issued to Production Line but required to return to Vendor, we executed MT 122 (negative value), e.g. 5000057128 which price should follow PO.

Actually, we are already using Price Unit as 1000 for the Raw Materials and POs but don’t know why the Mvt Price (Price/Unit (Bal.)) in the report "S_P00_07000139” cannot be multiplied by 1000.

For your advice to solve our above problem.

Many Thanks,

KH Fong

[JL23]

if you already use price unit per 1000 then you cannot really get any more accuracy in moving  price calculation than you already have.

You wrote: After Production, there might be some Materials which were in Line Scrap

but you use movement 262, which is cancellation of a goods issue instead of receiving scrap by-product

I guess you cannot use this scrap as it has not the same quality as your raw material.

And because of that you give it back to the vendor for rework. Is this assumption right?

If this assumption is more or less right, then it even more speaks for a process change.

If you don't want your process, then the only option is adjust the moving average price after each return to the vendor, or consider changing to a standard price valuation instead of moving average.

[former_member287204]

Dear Jurgen,

As you previously mentioned "I would use a price per unit 1000 instead of per 1, this way the rounding differences will be smaller.", why you then said "if you already use price unit per 1000 then you cannot really get any more accuracy in moving  price calculation than you already have." ?

Refer my above points 3 & 4, Line Scrap execution (MT 981) & Return to Vendor execution (MT 161) are in two different cases. In our process, we have to return the Materials to the SL first using MT 262 and then execute the above Scrap (MT 981) or Return action (MT 161). For the case of returning to Vendor (MT 161), one more PO item is created and "Returns Item" is checked and Credit Memo will also be created, so it should not be related to rework after returning to Vendor.

Any other suggestion(s) besides using the MR21 to manually adjust the Mvt Price ? Using the Standard Price should not be appropriate as these are the Raw Materials.

Tks,

KH Fong

[JL23]

Sorry but I have no more advises as already posted.

I would not use a 262 if a material was already in production and comes back as scrap which is later given back to the vendor.

For me is a cancellation a correction of a posting error, if a material was used and comes back as scrap, then I would post this as receipt of a  byproduct with a different material number.

And by-products are valuated with a standard price

This way you get smaller differences to a difference account, but the value cannot blow up like it is evident in your current setup

[former_member287204]

Dear Jurgen,

There might be some misunderstanding on your said "........if a material was already in production and comes back as scrap which is later given back to the vendor.".

Refer my previously posted msg and points 3 & 4, Line Scrap execution (MT 981) & Return to Vendor execution (MT 161) are in two different cases as below -

1) Line Scrap - MT 262 & then MT 981.

2) Return to Vendor - MT 262 & then MT 161.

Therefore, after Line Scrap for some Materials, these will NOT be returned to Vendor.

If no more suggestion and we have to use Mvt Price for the Raw Materials, we can do nothing but execute MR21 to adjust Price. Is it right ?

Tks,

KH Fong

[JL23]

As said before, I would not use a  cancellation of a goods issue (262)  if the material that I get back is just scrap and not as good as the material that I usually have under this material number.

Why would you credit  the value of this scrap to the production order and finally post the value as a scrap goods issue?

It was already out of the books with the 261 movement, so you are just getting it back into your books (262) to remove it again (981). And if the scrap is caused by your production process, then the finished material should usually take the costs for this, which is not the case if you do a 262.

if you still want to see this scrap movement, then receive it as by-product with 531 movement to an extra material number with a value of zero.

No I do not see any other alternative way than using MR21 (or MR22) if you keep your process as is.

[former_member287204]

Dear Jurgen,

Thanks for your advice. Though I don't exactly know your advised process of MT 531, I think our company should not adopt this process. Besides, I would like to check two more questions from you / other experts as below -

Like MT 161 for "Return to vendor", does the MT 122 also take the PO price when generating Mat doc. for GR / IR (LIV) ?

Another question is to refer my following screens regarding the a/c docs. 62xxxxxxxx for LIV, e.g. 6200002431 which amt was 8.22 and the amt was due to exchange rate difference. However, I found that the difference amt should be larger than this amt, i.e. 8.22 + 76.5, and I found the $76.5 was posted to exchange rate diff. a/c (37301001) and only $8.22 was posted to stk a/c (13801001). As far as I know, if the material stocks are enough when generating the LIV & its a/c doc., all exchange rate diff. amt or other diff. amt will be posted to the stk a/c. However, in the report "S_P00_07000139", I found the "Balance Qty" was 5,800 when generating the a/c doc. 6200002431 which LIV Qty was only 3000 in the PO History. Could you advise whether this posting logic is correct ?

Many Thanks,

KH Fong

 

[former_member287204]

Dear Jurgen / Experts,

Could you advise my above two questions, especially the 2nd question which is more difficult ?

Tks,

KH Fong

[former_member287204]

Dear Jurgen / Experts,

I think you should be able to answer my above 1st question regarding the MT 122.

For the 2nd question, when generating the LIV & its a/c doc., besides  the "Balance Qty", is there other factors which will also be taken into account to decide the no. of available Stock Qty & the amt of Stock Account, e.g. Reserved Qty / Reservations (which can be viewd in MMBE) ? Could you advise ?

Tks,

KH Fong

[former_member287204]

Dear Experts,

Besides the above two questions, one more question is related to earlier discussions -

To solve the price difference between the MT262 (which takes Mvt Price) and MT161 / MT122 (which should take PO Price), we are considering to adpot user exit to control, i.e. error / warning will be prompted if posting with MT161 / MT122 & PO Price is different from Mvt Price.

Could you advise whether there will be any impact if adding the user exit as above ?

Many Thanks,

KH Fong

[JL23]

Nobody can tell you what a program does which is not yet written.

We can just hope that the functional design is good enough to enable your ABAPer to write a proper solution in this exit.

Of course you need to test it conscientiously  before you give the okay to get it into production.

[Former Member]

Analyze with t code S_P00_07000139, Stock card and inventory report for that material

You will able to trace the movement that caused the considerable MAP change

[former_member287204]

Dear kj & experts,

Thanks for your advice. After executing the t-code S_P00_07000139, found that the amt & mvt price for the recent Mat docs. were unexpectedly higher. The relevant movement types were "262 - RE for order (positive value)", "981 - GI for Line Scrap (negative value)" & "161 - GR returns (negative value)". MT 261 & 981 were executed with ref. to Prodution Order while MT 161 was executed with ref. to Purchase Order. Below is the relevant screens' info. for your ref.

Q1) Could you advise how to check whether these transactions were normal or not ?

Q2) Also, don't know why the Mvt Price (Price/Unit (Bal.) for some Mat docs. were calculated wrongly in this report, especially for MT 161, e.g.

1) Mat 410-28090-020002, Mat doc. 5000060444, should be 142.29/13 = 10.945 but it is 8,874.33 ?

2) Mat 410-27361-021002, Mat doc. 5000060111, should be 8.88/2 = 4.44 but it is 148.70 ?

Could you advise whether the above Q2 is a problem or bug in the transaction / material mater / report / else where ?

Tks,

KH Fong

[kunal_ingale]

Hello Fong ,

when you say its 161 , then there must be a Return PO for it , check whats the price in The PO , it must be given higher.

thanks

Kunal

[Former Member]

Please check all the 161 Movements happened which causes the considerable Price change,

Please check the Price in return PO, that is why the problem came

[former_member183424]

Below movement type 262 is the causes for the high MAP.

Just look into the amount and quantity with compare to others above.

You will find it your self the abnormal amount for the quantity.

Just take the report into an excel sheet, then look into the uploaded price. In a new cell, map the price for every movement type, formula is (Amount / Receipt or Issue).

You will find from the line for movement type 262 ( Red border in screen shot),

You have posted  the 262 movement type for quantity 28 but the amount is 2512.14.

With compare previous 262 movement type's quantity and value. This seems very high.

[joao_sousa2]

Usually when you see a movement with the wrong price, the problem occured before that. Usually a big change in MAP is the result of a document reversal, since the reversal ignores the current MAP which can lead to huge changes. In IS-Retail this is extrememely problematic.

After goods receipts I look for reversals when I'm trying to explain a strange MAP.

[former_member183424]

I don't think his 262 movement is a reversal movement type of 261 or other.

He posted 262 movement type directly from MB1B or MIGO. May be he has entered an external amount during the movement type.

You can see, his system is showing 28 qty for 262 movement type. But there are no movement type happened for 261 or other movement type in previous.

[joao_sousa2]

I wasn't trying to imply that the particular movement was a reversal, I was just stating a usual cause of problems.

It's also important to order the documents according to CPU Date/Time, not posting date. Usually the standard reports use posting date.

[kunal_ingale]

Hello Emily ,

you need to analyse the postings done in the given period,

there must be a difference in the values of GR and IR ,

the case might be the one which is noted by Jurgen or chekc if someone posted the invoice with high value after consumption of goods received.

there might be error in entering the value decimal. like 14000.00 become 1400000...

check and get back with the screenshot of MB51 for this material.

thanks

Kunal

[JL23]

the usual reason for this is a receipt at a wrong (much too low) PO price.

Subsequently you already consumed some of this material.

Then the invoice is posted with the real value, and SAP distributes the difference between GR value and invoice value to the remaining stock. And this causes a dramatic increase of the moving average.

[former_member183424]

Can you check and post screen shot for MB51 or MR51, for entire month.

You will get a list of all material movements. Compare the all movements quantity and amount.

Here you will find abnormal amount for quantity.

Might be you have posted any document with 0 amount or very low amount (by entering external amount during transaction).

You can have a look into the blog

Here I've given some example.