Hello Nico,
The classic answer is "YES", at least as long as there are no details about how the process actually works and how exactly the freight invoice and the individual goods movement are coordinated.
Yes - if there are no other movements, then you will end up with the same result.
No - if you book the freight first and then the invoice then you have a temporary revaluation (usually to a lower GDW as I assume) which may be reflected in the consumption values.
The same happens, by the way, when material movements are posted between the entry of the material invoice and the posting of the associated freight. But here the deviations are probably smaller than vice versa. Personally, I would therefore always try to post the goods invoice first.
In the overall result you will then already get there again - SAP takes care of that.
But the single steps can still show wrong values.
And if too many additional costs are posted at once, the GDW - if things go wrong and freight/goods invoices are subsequently debited for material that has in fact already been consumed, even though there is sufficient stock - can even be higher than actually permitted in exceptional cases.
This happened to me once in Spain.
I see three approaches for the freight costs:
You continue as before and accept the fluctuations in GDW and the resulting consequences.
You decouple the freight costs from the valuation of the RHB and allocate them to costs, which then flow into the HF and F parts via the MGK surcharge. As far as necessary, you can then make a lump-sum value adjustment to the RHB side at the end of each quarter/year.
In the future, you will work with planned delivery costs in the purchase order and can thus post freight and goods invoices independently of each other. The price for this: two GR/IR accounts.
All three alternatives are allowed.
Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided that all these solutions will always be more or less accurate. Also the planned delivery costs will always be approximate values. But they provide for a certain smoothing.
This approach can be quite useful, for example, for imports in China and Turkey, since here (especially in conjunction with goods-receipt-based invoice verification) the invoice elements can be clearly assigned.
Greetings
Klaus
The classic answer is "YES", at least as long as there are no details about how the process actually works and how exactly the freight invoice and the individual goods movement are coordinated.
Yes - if there are no other movements, then you will end up with the same result.
No - if you book the freight first and then the invoice then you have a temporary revaluation (usually to a lower GDW as I assume) which may be reflected in the consumption values.
The same happens, by the way, when material movements are posted between the entry of the material invoice and the posting of the associated freight. But here the deviations are probably smaller than vice versa. Personally, I would therefore always try to post the goods invoice first.
In the overall result you will then already get there again - SAP takes care of that.
But the single steps can still show wrong values.
And if too many additional costs are posted at once, the GDW - if things go wrong and freight/goods invoices are subsequently debited for material that has in fact already been consumed, even though there is sufficient stock - can even be higher than actually permitted in exceptional cases.
This happened to me once in Spain.
I see three approaches for the freight costs:
You continue as before and accept the fluctuations in GDW and the resulting consequences.
You decouple the freight costs from the valuation of the RHB and allocate them to costs, which then flow into the HF and F parts via the MGK surcharge. As far as necessary, you can then make a lump-sum value adjustment to the RHB side at the end of each quarter/year.
In the future, you will work with planned delivery costs in the purchase order and can thus post freight and goods invoices independently of each other. The price for this: two GR/IR accounts.
All three alternatives are allowed.
Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided that all these solutions will always be more or less accurate. Also the planned delivery costs will always be approximate values. But they provide for a certain smoothing.
This approach can be quite useful, for example, for imports in China and Turkey, since here (especially in conjunction with goods-receipt-based invoice verification) the invoice elements can be clearly assigned.
Greetings
Klaus
