General Valuation Class as a source in Account Assigment Reference

[Former Member]

Hi Expert:

I got an issue regarding AAR, GVC and the CPLTD

I made the customizing to separate the CPLTD inside a Long Term financial transactions. It run ok but I am facing the following problem:

Valuation Area only one

0001 US GAAP

General Valuation Class

01 Short Term Investments

02 Long Term Investments

03 Short Term Liabilities

04 Long Term Liabilities

21 Long term Invest --> Short Term Inv

34 Long Term Liab --> Short Term Liab

Valuation Class

1 Trading

2 Available for Sale

3 Held to Maturity

4 Liabilities

And in TRGV_VAL_CLS_MAP I have the following entries

Valuation Area	General Valuation Class	Valuation Class
0001 US GAAP	01 Short Term Investments	3 Held to Maturity
0001 US GAAP	02 Long Term Investments	3 Held to Maturity
0001 US GAAP	03 Short Term Liabilities	4 Liabilities
0001 US GAAP	04 Long Term Liabilities	4 Liabilities
0001 US GAAP	21 Long term Invest --> Short Term Inv	3 Held to Maturity
0001 US GAAP	34 Long Term Liab --> Short Term Liab	4 Liabilities

So when I have a Loan i.e 55A 200 w/due date in 5 years the GVC "04 Long Term Liabilities" is assigned.

Later when running TPM15M GVC is transfered from 04 to 34 and get 2 positions in the same Financial Transaction,but looking at the table you´ll find that both positions belong to the same valuation class "4 Liabilities"

After that when going to TPM18 to post and even when going to TPM44 (where flows and amounts are ok separated due to positions) the SAME ACCOUNTS are posted --> So to separate the G/L accounts I will need a different Acc Ass Reference

But when going to TPM32 to differenciate the AAR taken GVC into account I am only facing Valuation Area and Valuation Class not the GVC.

As you can see the Transaction belongs to the same and unique Valuation Area (0001 US GAAP) and the same Valuation Class (Liabilities) which I think is the correct way regarding it is the same Transaction!!! (shouldn´t matter if it has a Short Term and a Long Term portions, that is what GVC is for)

Till know I have solved it adapting the entries en the table

Valuation Area	General Valuation Class	Valuation Class
0001 US GAAP	01 Short Term Investments	31 Held to Maturity SHORT Term
0001 US GAAP	02 Long Term Investments	32 Held to Maturity LONG Term
0001 US GAAP	03 Short Term Liabilities	43 Liabilities SHORT Term
0001 US GAAP	04 Long Term Liabilities	44 Liabilities LONG Term
0001 US GAAP	21 Long term Invest --> Short Term Inv	31 Held to Maturity SHORT Term
0001 US GAAP	34 Long Term Liab --> Short Term Liab	43 Liabilities SHORT Term

This solution had made me create 2 extra Valuation Classes, but it is a resumed situation, that is, I have other valuation classes as Trading, Available for Sale, etc which will make me multiply the entries

As said before, it is not the correct way as rarely (or never) a unique fianancial transaction should belong to 2 or more different Valuation Classes 

Do you know how to put the GVC as a source in the AAR determination or any other better way to solve it?

rgds

Claudio 

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi guys

As mentioned earlier I still would use the transaction types, and you can do the splitting with three digits 1XX for investments, 2XX for borrowings, short term X1X, medium term X2X, long term X3X and then you still have one digit for other usage. The traders are not happy if they have to move to the second screen to change the valuation class. I can assure you this......

Regards

Juerg

[Former Member]

Hi Claudio

I am not sure if your approach for General Valuation Class and the valuation classes is correct especially if you only have one GAAP.

First of all the distinction between Trading, AFS and HTM only makes sense for Bonds. The reason for this is the amortizing cost over lifetime. Therefore you cannot use these groupings for money market, shares etc. For FX deals and Derivatives it does not makes sense to use any of those as they are not recoreded on the balance sheet.

For the split of money market into short, medium and long term I would rather use the transaction types e.g. 200 for short term, 201 for medium term and 202 for long term. Also this split only makes sense if you have to post to different balance sheet accounts e.g. 200111 for short term, 200222 for medium term etc. If this is the setup at the end of the month you can change the account assignment reference with transaction TPM28.

Regards

Juerg Heiz

juerg.heiz@treascon.com