In a previous post, Costes V: Liq. No order for explain how to alter the clearance of product movements. We saw that this change in the settlement also altered the cost of disposal made (in fact, that was the purpose of the example we did). The example that illustrate the post was a valued product to the inventory valuation method FIFO. We saw that the last recorded output was not taking the cost of entry that would have played according to the FIFO, but took the cost of entry that interests us.
But with the Middle ... What about the Middle? What would happen if we were making the same examples with a product value in the medium? Alter the clearance. Okay, fine. But in theory should not affect costs, since in the inventory valuation method average, the cost that is given out is not a specific cost of entries. It rather gives the average cost existing at the date of departure, as explained in the first post in the series of costs: costs I: Inventory Valuation Methods .
Let's see an example what effect does use the "Liq. By no order" in a product valued by the method of inventory valuation East.
How do you see in the picture, there have been 3 innings, one with a unit cost of 10, the second with a unit cost of 10 5 and the latter with a unit cost of 11. The current average cost, as can be seen in the product data sheet is 10.42.
Then, an exit wound from the last of the purchases, what cost will it take? Does the current average cost of the product? Or the cost of the selected input?
Let's try and see:
The cost has been to the selected entry. Also, if you look at the new unit cost in the product details, we see that it has been updated so that the input has settled out in this way has not been taken into account in calculating the unit cost Product.
This behavior is appropriate for the course outlined in the previous post. We made an emergency purchase more expensive than usual. We knew that the subsequent sale of the stock took the emergency purchase, so we wanted to reflect this situation for the benefit in that sale was correct.
And in this case, it is, the sale takes the cost of this last entry, so that the benefit will be correct, and in addition, the purchase of urgency we have not altered the average cost of the product. Perfect. Cristina
Nicolàs
Dynamica
