Security Deposits - Customer & Supplier

The recent update of that Guide incorporates only changes related to graphical layout of the form for defining non-inventory items. There have been similar updates to graphics over the years. But the basic content of that Guide, with its emphasis on using non-inventory items as shortcuts for sale and purchase of goods and services, has not changed since it was first written in 2016.

So, if you hope for a reversion, you should offer a use case with accounting justification (as I wrote earlier).

I can think of a number of items that would go to the balance sheet and not the P&L.

  1. Security Deposits (inward and outward)
  2. Rental Bonds (inward and outward
  3. Loan repayments (inward and outward)

I don’t doubt that what you say about the guide is correct, but that doesn’t change the argument I put forward.

I realise that the developer will structure the program in the way that he thinks fit, and all I am asking for is confirmation that this change, restricting account selection to P&L accounts, is intentional.

I think, there is an answer in your statement. The option was available till last week; may we know the justification restricting such to P&L only? As this is not enough to justify even that the option is available only for buy and sell.

As it is mentioned by @AJD, there could be multiple user who are using this feature for various reasons and it really supports functionality.

I think, Manager needs to re-assess the change or give such other option to incorporate such concerns.

It is not my role to justify program changes to you. You are the one requesting a change that departs from the intended use of non-inventory items.

Your guesses about other users will not carry much weight. You were asked to justify a use case. @AJD was asked the same thing and offered justifications. I do not know if the developer will consider those to be sufficient. But I suspect that, unless you offer something specific, your request will not be considered.

No they are not, they are requesting for a functionally that previously existed to be re-instated.

This is very clear evidence that Manager did previously permit / allow Non-Inventory items to be allocated to both the BS and P&L. So why does the developer now want to remove the BS selection / flexibility from Non Inventory Items. The conflict described in the second paragraph is particularly concerning.

There is no accounting principle or convention which justifies Users being handcuff this way. This ad hoc changing of pre-existing features once again illustrates how the developer doesn’t fully appreciate how Users have adopted Manager and the impact that these changers have.

In fact, if I was the developer I would have simply modified the tick box description :
This item can be purchased / payable
This item can be sold / receivable

Also, I would have discarded the title Non Inventory Item for Default Account Item.
Where the User allocates a default account for a particular transaction item regardless of it being for the P&L or the BS as illustrated by @AJD

Meanwhile Users can circumnavigate this artificial BS account selection limitation by maintaining an older version of Manager on a separate computer, create their Non Inventory Items within that older version, then via the Batch Create/Update process, transfer those items into the current version.

1 Like

Non-inventory items served as account alias because of the absence of such feature. In our case, non-accountants are using non-inventory items because the items are set using layman’s terms. You cant expect everyone to use the chart of accounts.

Also, details of some account are better expressed in non-inventory items (account alias) rather than subsidiaries. Examples of such accounts are accrued expenses payable, income tax payable, all other tax payables, unidentified deposits and other bank recon items, etc.

1 Like

I used have made a whole list of non-inventory items so than purchasing staff can properly and consistently classify any fixed assets they buy. Sure, you cannot charge them directly to their home account, but in a clearing account that is in the same group which was close enough. I think I already suggested the ability to select control accounts and then subsidiary accounts in non-inventory items just to bring it home but now that’s all out the window. It’s a shame.

Dear @lubos, could you please explain how this change is beneficial to anyone because I fail to see any value in removing such a powerful and useful feature.

1 Like

Unfortunately I fear, that the chance of getting a response to that request will be rarer then having a trip to the moon. Manager has a proven history that they don’t need to be explanatory about programme changes.

It is extremely concerning about the number of programme downgrades that have occurred over the recent months which have had serious impacts upon Manager Users - that is, Users are now prevented from using Manager in ways for which they were previously entitled - for years.

The disappointing aspect about these downgrades is that all of then have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with accountancy, yet Manager which is suppose to be an accounting software, seem to have taken scant regard to that fact. It appears that the programme’s coders seem to be aimlessly rewriting basic and standard account practises, but for what purpose - expect pissing off Users.