Receipts and Payment qty / unit price column

18

That’s not entirely true. Unable to have 1:1 match and allowing many to many matching are two different things. If you completely rely on bank imports in Xero (and any other software for that matter) that completely guarantees 1:1 correspondence between bank and books. This isn’t any different from what Manager is doing.

The difference becomes apparent is when the bank summarizes batches. Xero and other software allows many to many matches while Manager refuses to accommodate those. The user is left with a dilemma:

  • Opt for a completely manual process and completely forgo the efficiencies of bank imports.

VS

  • Rely solely on imports thereby accept all bank statements as true and forgo the detailed nature and timeliness of manual receipts and payments.

Xero here is a bad example, why not take Odoo, Dynamics, NetSuite; they all rely on matching and have perfected it – where’s their commercial? :grin:

That aside, let’s say Manager comes up with a way around the many to many matches. For instance, bank lines can be split or merged to match the books – and not the other way around because receipts and payments are legal documents and can’t be altered this way.

Let’s say we have that. Now there’s no need for matching but why do we have to discard the bank details altogether? Why not embed the entire bank line inside the receipt or payment?

We already have the bank date, and bank amount disguised as “Fixed Total” so why not add the bank description and have the full picture contained within Manager. This way we don’t need the cleared field.

Advantages:

  • 1:1 matching and no need for any complexity.

  • Self contained as you previously described here. This is better suited for the structure of Manager.

  • Fully documented bank statements within Manager, the user can easily view and verify the bank statements from within Manager. This is more integral and transparent than what we currently have.

  • Most importantly, Manager can then track down discrepancies to individual transaction level. This is the holy grail of all reconciliations.

It check all users’ boxes and it also check your boxes, @lubos. Why not consider it? That’s provided we can transform bank lines to enable 1:1 matching (i.e. splitting and merging).