Journal view of a Sale of Inventory Item

When viewing a sale transaction of an inventory item, you can click on Journal View to see what journal entries have been made.

When you sell an inventory item, as well as the credit to the sales income account and a debit to the cash account (cash sale) or account receivables (credit sale / invoice) Manager will also post a debit entry to the cost of sales account (Inventory cost) and a credit entry to the Inventory stock account (Inventory on hand)

But the last entries do not appear on the Journal View - is this normal? should it be included?



The entries appear in the GL Transactions report and are linked to the sale transaction

It certainly seems to me these automatic transactions should show. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the journal entry view? Because this is unexpected behavior, I am putting this topic into bugs.

In previous version of Manager, when you were using inventory items, Manager would recalculate cost of goods sold upon every transaction.

The newer versions do not do it anymore (unless Dynamic Rolling Recalculations are enabled under Obsolete Features)

The new approach is Inventory Revaluations tab. See https://www.manager.io/inventory-revaluations

Does this mean that after every sale/purchase of inventory items it is necessary to ‘recalculate’ inventory costs if it is not enabled in obsolete features?

1 Like

@VACUUMDOG most businesses would do it at the end of reporting period (e.g. monthly, quaterly, annually)

Also, some businesses might not do it at all if they do not hold significant amount of inventory. But they can still track quantities.

An inventory adjustment tab with the ability to adjust quantity and value would’ve been better. This new worksheet method is doing what was done automatically before. Now its has to be done manually.

So it would seem that as I hold a considerable amount of inventory I am better of sticking with the obsolete feature as it would give me a more accurate figure without the need for having to remember to recalculate all the time.
Personally I find this to be regressive as the idea of using manager is, to me, to cut down on bookwork.
I’ll give it a shot and see how it goes, but if it doesn’t suit is it possible to roll back?

3 Likes

The issue with automatic recalculations is that those recalculations are done to possibly already closed periods too. For example, you might realize quantity on sales invoice should have been different. Now if that sales invoice is already in closed period, fixing quantity will trigger recalculation of cost of goods sold on all subsequent transactions and if there are production orders, then it will trigger recalculation on all related inventory items too. You might not even realize it until you find out your historical figures have changed and it’s impossible to tell how it happened.

The new method guarantees your figures won’t change as they are static rather than dynamically calculated.

This is the case when it’s a convenient feature until it bites you back. And it will bite you back eventually.

Also, there are some upcoming features that simply require “more static” general ledger. For example, it will be possible to “purge” historical data and re-establishing new starting balances.

Yes, you can go back to the old method. But in that case I’d like to know why it doesn’t suit and what I can do better.

I can see the benefits in that, for sure, not that I do that.
The only real issue I have is with the ‘obsolete features’. The worry that if I stick with those and then all of a sudden they disappear and I will have to try and fix up a lot of transactions etc. without the ability to roll back.
Having requested multiple ATO ‘audits’ just to confirm that I am complying with tax requirements (probably overkill, but might as well take advantage of their free service) I would be at a loss to explain the changes to historic, submitted figures. The last thing I want is to be told to ditch Manager and go to something else because what I am submitting is non-conpliant or open to scrutiny.
As I said, I’ll give it a shot and see how it goes.
Cheers for a great program and the constant developement.

1 Like

I just thought, wouldn’t it be more realistic if inventory purchases were allocated to Inventory on hand instead of Inventory - cost?
And Inventory-cost will be recalculated during Inventory Revaluation.

There are businesses which buy/sell inventory items but do not really hold significant balance on hand. So these businesses would never do inventory revaluations and their inventory on hand would be perpetually zero.

Your suggestion would force everyone to do inventory revaluations (and very often) because Inventory on hand account would be constantly inflating.

1 Like

Quite reasonable for a company that doesn’t have stock-in-hand.

From the accounting side that we know, purchases only affect Accounts payable/cash (Cr) and Inventory Accounts (Dr) (Perpetual System) or Purchase Accounts (Periodic System).

For various purposes, we are usually asked for data in the form of transaction journals, in addition to balance sheets and profit and loss reports