Reclassification of MI at posting level 30

[Former Member]

Hi Experts

I need some help to clarify the behaviour of a stantard reclasification at posting level 30, we have the following group hierarchy (G1-G3

are groups and C1-C6 are companies)

G1
 u2514u2500u2500C1  <---Parent Unit
 u2514u2500u2500C2
 u2514u2500u2500G2
     u2514u2500u2500C3 <---Parent Unit
     u2514u2500u2500C4
     u2514u2500u2500G3
         u2514u2500u2500C5 <---Parent Unit
	 u2514u2500u2500C6

C1 has investments in C2 and C3

C3 has investments in C4 and C5

C5 has investments in C6

We use consolidation of investments and make additional reclasifications reading the posting level 30 information generated from the COI

task for the following purpose:

Most of the Minority Interest that comes from the Equity Accounts needs to be generated with group shares, but only 2 equity accounts need

to generate MI with direct shares, but the accounting technique can only be assigned only per method and per company, not for each account.

For that we created a standard reclasification that cancels the postings that affect those two equity accounts against the MI account and

Example:

C1 has 90% share in C3

C2 has 80% share in C5

C5 has 100% share in C6

At G1 level the group share for C6 is 72%

C6's equity is composed of

Common stock (CS)  		5000.00  <----direct share (this according to local GAAP)
Reserve	(RS)			2000.00  <----group share
Retained Earnings (RE)	 	3000.00  <----group share

The postings for MI for each group are:

Document Type: I1
Group	Company		Account		Amount
G2	C6		CS		-1000.00
G2	C6		RS		 -400.00
G2	C6		RE		 -600.00
G2	C6		MI		 2000.00
G1	C6		CS		 -400.00
G1	C6		RS		 -160.00
G1	C6		RE		 -240.00
G1	C6		MI		  800.00

The reclassification we want is for canceling the postings for the CS account to the MI account considering that the postings that generate

the MI with group share are those that are located at upper level groups (in this example there is no MI at G3 group):

Group	Company		Account		Amount
G2	C6		CS		 1000.00 <---Step 1 in method
G2	C6		MI		-1000.00 <---Step 1 in method
G1	C6		CS		  400.00 <---Step 2 in method
G1	C6		MI		 -400.00 <---Step 2 in method

The configuration for each step in the Reclassification method is the following

Step 1:
			Trigger			Source			Target
Item			CS			CS			MI
Company			C6			---			---
Cons Group		G2			G2			G2
Document Type		I1			---			---

Step 2:
			Trigger			Source			Target
Item			CS			CS			MI
Company			C6			---			---
Cons Group		G1			G1			G1
Document Type		I1			---			---

The group is important in the postings because we want to check in the consolidated financial statement the effects of MI in different

groups but when we do a reclassification the log show us that for the same step 1 the task generated a reclassification for group G1 and G2

first generating the correct reclassification in G2 but cancelling it in G1, so the postings look like this:

Group	Company		Account		Amount
G2	C6		CS		 1000.00 <---Correct (Step 1)
G2	C6		MI		-1000.00 <---Correct (Step 1)
G1	C6		CS		-1000.00 <---Unexpected (Step 1)
G1	C6		MI		 1000.00 <---Unexpected (Step 1)
G1	C6		CS		  400.00 <---Correct (Step 2)
G1	C6		MI		 -400.00 <---Correct (Step 2)

From G1 perspective the total MI is without the adjustment we want but from G2 perspective the MI is correct.

We decided to change step 1 to the following configuration for the purpose of correcting at least G1:

Step 1:
			Trigger			Source			Target
Item			CS			CS			MI
Company			C6			---			---
Cons Group		G2			G1			G1
Document Type		I1			---			---

It generates the following postings:

Group	Company		Account		Amount
G1	C6		CS		 1000.00 <---Step 1 in method (not the group we expect)
G1	C6		MI		-1000.00 <---Step 1 in method (not the group we expect)
G1	C6		CS		  400.00 <---Step 2 in method
G1	C6		MI		 -400.00 <---Step 2 in method

This at least solves the problem from G1 perspective but for G2 we don't have a posting

Any lead on how to solve this problem is highly appreciated

Best Regards

Paul

Edited by: Paul Heredia on Oct 28, 2011 2:31 PM

[former_member209721 · Accepted solution]

My first impression is that your case is quite complex and not following 'standard' principles. That's why I am wondering if it is really relevant to try to automate this.. why not simply post these corrections manually?...

Then, if you really need to automate this kind of 'cons group-specific' postings, I think there's a new functionality in EHP5: apparently you can now manage postings that are only applicable to certain cons groups. You should have a look to the documentation. I had quite a similar issue last year, and this new feature could have been a solution (but EHP5 was not realeased)

[Former Member]

Hi Paul,

I encounter the same issue as you - an unexpected entry in a higher node

Group     Company          Account          Amount

G2     C6          CS           1000.00 <---Correct (Step 1)

G2     C6          MI          -1000.00 <---Correct (Step 1)

G1     C6          CS          -1000.00 <---Unexpected (Step 1)

G1     C6          MI           1000.00 <---Unexpected (Step 1)

I was just wandering if you finally found an solution/workaround to the problem ? or maybe SAP OSS replied your question ?

FYI, The issue I encounter with this SAP design is when we report the numbers using "Cons group" vs "Cons Company with Hieararchy active" we'll get different result

lets say for account CS, with query "Cons group" we will get 1000 in G2 and -1000 in G1

but with query "Cons Company with Hieararchy active"  we will get 0 (because everything is under company C6, hence with hierarchy active the number will be 0 under G2)

[Former Member]

Hi

I'm using this same thread to ask an important related question with the expectation of closing this thread, about the behaviour of a reclassification with a Posting Level 30, and Consolidation of investments application in the document type, why the reclassification task behaves like this when executing it at G1 level, if this is an unexpected behaviour I could send an OSS note to SAP, if this is expected, please explain why

Group	Company	Account	Amount	Comments
G2	C6	CS	1000.00	Expected from Step 1
G2	C6	MI	-1000.00	Expected from Step 1
G1	C6	CS	-1000.00	Unexpected and it is cancelling Step 1 at G1
G1	C6	MI	1000.00	Unexpected and it is cancelling Step 1 at G1
G1	C6	CS	400.00	Expected from Step 2
G1	C6	MI	-400.00	Expected from Step

One remark, for the unexpected postings there is no trigger value but strangely it generates a document...

We don't want to do this manually because it would require too much analysis and manual postings

Thanks in advance

Message was edited by: Paul Heredia (Just adding an important remark after the example)

[dan_sullivan]

Have you tried to include a condition to the reclassification to limit each step to specific cons groups? Doing this may require a change to the method layout.

[Former Member]

Thanks for the response Dan

In each step we specify the consolidation group, it is mandatory for us because we only want to read specific cons group entries, we didn't change the method layout for this one, we just only added the characteristic to the trigger, source and target every time we created a step, adding it to the layout makes a difference?

Best Regards

[dan_sullivan]

Although it should not be necessary to include the condition for excluding the cons group G1 in step 1, it may be worth trying this.

[Former Member]

Sadly it didn't work...it only works if I also use inherit from trigger in the source data (I don't know why), the problem is that the reclassification goes to a non intended group, there are some constraints mentioned in the help (http://help.sap.com/saphelp_sem60ep1/helpdata/en/4b/767176286dd44fa828e7560d799124/frameset.htm) but AFAIK I am following the rules

I will continue to do some testintg and probably will have to send an OSS note

Thanks

[Former Member]

Hi,

What is aCS account?

You use purchase method for COI?

How did you define the parent unit? Please attach a screen shot if you can.

Lilia

[Former Member]

Thanks for the replies

At present we are on release 604 of SEM, so we're going to evaluate the EHP 5, COLLET, is this the funtionality you are refering to?

http://help.sap.com/erp2005_ehp_05/helpdata/EN/be/280db5ca9e468e9218c33d76ab0e61/frameset.htm

I noticed that it is a new posting level (35) but it is limited to manual postings...

Lilia, responding to your questions, CS is an abbreviation I used for "Common Stock" in this example, being the account/item that is going to generate its MI postings at direct shares. I use purchase method with additional finantial data for investments and totals data for equity. The parent unit is defined on the Master Data --> Consolidation Units --> Accounting Techniques section using the check box of "Parent Unit" in each of the companies that have control over other companies in the same group