Consolidation unit's divestiture

Hi all,
We are implementing SEM-BCS 6.0 and we have a question.
In 011.2008 we defined in the Consolidation Group that a consolidation unit had Divestiture Accounting at Beginning of Period.
But in 012.2008 when we execute the upload of data from BW it uploads data to the total of records although the consolidation unit was already divested in the prior period.
Should we delete this consolidation unit from the hierarchy?
Because we read in this forum, that after a divestiture the consolidation unit should only be deleted from the hierarchy in the next year.
Thanks for your help.
Best regards

Hi Dan,
Thanks for your answer.
Youu2019re saying that although the data is loaded is ignored in the reporting.
But if data is loaded isnu2019t it considered in the consolidation methods? As in the method for IU IU Elimination and Reconciliation or Consolidation of Investments?
Thanks for your help.
Best regards.

Similar Messages

Moving consolidation unit mid year

Hi,
we need to move 2 consolidation units from 2 different consolidation groups into a new existing consolidation group in June, rather then at year end. We did some testing on this, but it seems that the historical information of those 2 consolidation units is not transferred into the new consol group in July. Is that to be expected? If not, what is the best way to get the historical data into the new consol group? The managers of the old consol units still need to show the historical data as well. Your help is very much appreciated : )

The cons unit/group hierarchy is time-dependent. The best way to accomplish this is to execute the cons group changes tasks, which transfers the balance sheet balances "out" of the old cons group and the standard consolidation logic of the virtual infocube function module will automatically include the balances in the new cons group from the period of the change and thereafter.
Another possibility, is if you are not using any posting level 30 documents types, you can possibly make the change retroactive to the beginning of the year by changing parameters to period 001 for the hierarchy change. In this case, the reporting logic will automatically include the balances in the new cons group and not the old cons group for the entire year.
It is also important to not "drag-and-drop" for such changes, and to include the cons unit in both new and old cons groups with a period of divestiture in the master data of the old cons group and period of first consolidation of the new cons group.

Reparenting - of equity consolidated units upward in hierarchy

Hi experts,
We're doing reparenting of a cons unit (upward in a hierarchy) : The scenario is explained as under:
There are two hierarchies in a single version. The consolidation units falling under both hierarchies are same. Difference being - H1 is a flat hierarchy with parent A and all other as subsidiaries (100% owned and purchase method consolidated)
H2: Has multiple levels (conso groups) with overall parent A. All other companies are equity consolidated (ofcourse parents in each group is assigned purchase method, ownership is again 100% of all units)
In H2: we're doing a reparenting. From a lower conso group(cons group CGB with parent B) a unit(unit C) is moving to the top conso group(cons group CGA with parent A). The master data changes in both conso groups have been made(period/yr of divestiture and period/yr of acquisition set in the sender group and receiver group respectively; added the cons unit C in CGA group).
The organizational change logic is being used.
After the conso group change task and COI task are run, in the report there is a difference in the equity PY surplus at level A - overall parent) in both hierarchies.
There are two equity pickups - A/c1 and A/c2
The opening balances on these accounts are getting reversed in the divestiture period in old parent.
Whereas the PY - RE(Previous year - Retained earnings) account is not getting reversed (in itself) but the balance is being posted to COI:Clearing item (COI clearing item defined in COI settings->Appropriation of retained earnings -> Net income tab)
1. The client doesnt want PY equity surplus to change. In H1 , it is not changing (not reversing) whereas, in H2 it is reversing in the same accounts - balancing to zero.
2. They'd ideally want the PY surplus to goto the COI clearing.
They'd like the system to do this entry and not fix this by doing a manual PL30 journal.
Can you tell me if there is anything in the configuration of COI that can fix this issue?
Why is the system behaving differently for A/c1 (and A/c2)and PY - RE account?
Another thing, when I look at the COI documents posted in the H2 hierarchy, I see the A/c1 and A/c2 (scopes of data for equity method) as double the amount in the new cons group (equity holdings data) whereas in the H1 (where only a total transfer doc is posted) I see the accounts (as part of equity data) with the actual value.
Thanks, AJ
Edited by: A J on Nov 17, 2009 3:17 PM

Thanks Dan.
Appreciate if you can help on the below points as well.
1. As part of divestiture/transfer postings: The system is reversing some Previous Year(PY) equity accounts into themselves. How can we get the system to eliminate them by posting to COI Clearing account. Basically, we dont want the PY accounts to be touched?
For the Retained earnings - PY account, the system is actually posting to COI clearing account.
These PY accounts are part of some scopes for equitization.
Is there any link between the "balance carry forward" - list of items table and the divestiture postings?
Does the system check this table while posting/reversing the equity(PY) accounts?
2. I want to understand the sequence in which the system posts the documents at the old parent and new parent (group) level.
The same activity number is there for Total Divestiture, total transfer documents posted at new parent level and total divestiture document posted at old parent level.
Does the system follow bottom up approach? Thereby creating total divestiture document at old parent level.
Followed by documents at upper level (new parent level)
Also , at the upper level(new parent level), does it post documents in the way they are shown in the log? (We havent changed the default sequence maintained in UCWB - COI settings). so it will post first consolidation doc, followed by total divestiture, followed by total transfer docs at the new parent level?
Is this the reason for the double value being posted at new parent for equity holding data?
Will studying the statistical items (corresponding to eliminated equity holding items) be relevant here to understand why at upper level there is double the value being posted by system?
Thanks.

Total transfer of equity consolidated unit using organizational change

Hi,
We have a scenario where we are doing total transfer of an equity consolidated unit (100% owned) from one company(old parent) to another (new parent)
The new parent is one level above the old parent in the hierarchy.
We've used organizational change logic and have set the divestiture dates/flag in the sender consolidation group and accordingly first consolidation dates/flag/OC number in the receiver consolidation group.
The investment AFD is submitted with "total transfer" with OC number.
There are multiple scopes of reported data for equity method in our configuration.
Each scope(equity pickup) is inturn created by reclassifying several equity accounts to a single BCS only item(the scope item)
When we run COI, the system posts one total divestiture document at the old conso group (where old parent is situtated) and posts a first consolidation, total divestiture, total transfer documents at the new conso group level (which is one level above the sender conso group)
The total divestiture document at upper level is reversing the divestiture document posted at old parent.
The first consolidation document jas only statistical items posted in it.
The real document to check is the "Totals transfer document" which actually reads the investment (at old parent and new parent) , the equity holdings adjustment data(the scope items) and adjusts the investment in subs at new parent with offset going to divestiture account but of double the value than the expected scope vlaue.
Issues faced:
Q1. Consolidation group change tasks (at PL02, 12, 22) are not posting any documents. Is there an issue? Since I am using these tasks for the first time and dont know if this is possible.
Q2. The total transfer document is reading the equity holdings data as double the expected value( for each of the scopes of equity method). What could be the possible reason? How to fix this?
Q3. I would appreciate if someone can clarify what kind of postings the system makes as part of divestiture/transfer in case of equity consolidated unit transfer.
Please help!
Thanks,
AJ

Thanks Dan.
Appreciate if you can help on the below points as well.
1. As part of divestiture/transfer postings: The system is reversing some Previous Year(PY) equity accounts into themselves. How can we get the system to eliminate them by posting to COI Clearing account. Basically, we dont want the PY accounts to be touched?
For the Retained earnings - PY account, the system is actually posting to COI clearing account.
These PY accounts are part of some scopes for equitization.
Is there any link between the "balance carry forward" - list of items table and the divestiture postings?
Does the system check this table while posting/reversing the equity(PY) accounts?
2. I want to understand the sequence in which the system posts the documents at the old parent and new parent (group) level.
The same activity number is there for Total Divestiture, total transfer documents posted at new parent level and total divestiture document posted at old parent level.
Does the system follow bottom up approach? Thereby creating total divestiture document at old parent level.
Followed by documents at upper level (new parent level)
Also , at the upper level(new parent level), does it post documents in the way they are shown in the log? (We havent changed the default sequence maintained in UCWB - COI settings). so it will post first consolidation doc, followed by total divestiture, followed by total transfer docs at the new parent level?
Is this the reason for the double value being posted at new parent for equity holding data?
Will studying the statistical items (corresponding to eliminated equity holding items) be relevant here to understand why at upper level there is double the value being posted by system?
Thanks.

Concept of Integrated Consolidation Unit of SEM BCS

HI Experts,
I'm now in the SEM BCS 4.0 and BW 3.5 implementation. Previously I was the ECCS specialist and before the FI and AM specialist.
Now I'm in SEM BCS implementation.
I have one question in connection to the integrated consolidation unit. As the reference, I take the concept of this using the ECCS.
As you might know, the creation of integrated consolidation unit for using realtime update method in ECCS, is pulled from FI company ID.
Meanings if I set the configuration properly, I can pull out the company master data as the consolidation unit master data in consolidation monitor.
Now, in SEM BCS, I want to do the same thing. I mean, off course I can create company ID in R/3 and then create the consolidation unit manually using UCWB. But this scenario can create inconsistency, and I also think this is not the right concept of doing integration between R/3 and SEM BCS.
My question is : what is the concept of this master data integration, and what is the proper way to do it?
Any advise on this question is highly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
regards,
Halim

Hi Halim,
You need to build properly your data basis in data model.
Assign your company to a consolidation unit role:
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_sem350bw/helpdata/en/dd/f3783bcfef4a2de10000000a114084/frameset.htm
I sent to you the file concerning BCS that you asked for in another thread.
Best regards,
Eugene

How to link ECC Company code with BCS Consolidation unit

I have to create new consolidation unit in BCS, parallelly in SAP R/3 also I have created a company code.
I could read following in the forum :-
The Company Codes from ECC are assigned to the characteristic Company in BCS, thus creating a one to one relationship between ECC & BCS company codes.
BUT HOW TO DO THE SAME.
Also any advise on Profit centre and cost centre etc in BCS in line with ECC. This is first time I am configuring in BCS,

Typically in ECC company codes are assigned to a company. The company is typically used for cons unit in BCS, but it is not uncommon for company code to be used as cons unit.
When company code is used, it is an attribute of the characteristic company and thus in the load mapping, the company is mapped to the attribute company code. This results in company code being mapped to company.
Otherwise, if company code is in the databasis as the cons unit role, then it is simply mapped to company code to company code.
For profit center and cost center, these are typically assigned the role subassignment, but it is not uncommon for profit center to be a cons unit for a matrix consolidation. However, these characteristics must first be included in the totals/databasis infocube.

Consolidation Unit Clearing account for Income / Expenses elimination

Hi,
When companys are leaving the group, where the parent comapany has some income/expenses elimination transactions with the company leaving, there is still balance on the parent company on consolidation unit clearing account with the company leaving the group as partener company.
This shows incorrectely the retained earning for the parent company for posting leve20 when balances on consolidation unit clearing account is not included. Please advise.
We are not unsing COI but we are using Group change functionalities when company leaves the grop.
Furthere, in all auto elimination document type for Balance Sheet Elimination and Income statement elimination, we have assigned same consolidation unit clearing account. Please advise.
Best Regards,
UR

When viewing the results using the standard reporting mode I suspect the balances are okay. Please clarify in detail how the data is being analyzed so we may better assist.

SEM-BCS how to make Consolidation Unit with Business Area

Hi all,
I am newbie in SEM-BCS and implementing BW-based BCS. Our situation is as follows.
Situation
- we have 7 companies worldwide and 4 different Business areas.
   Every company consists of at least two business areas in R/3.
- we have sales transaction in FI among companies.
requirement
- we need consolidated F/S in whole consolidation group and consolidated F/S in Business area level.
actually, we are planning to make the consolidation unit in company level.
Do we have to break down consolidation unit in business area? or just breakdown category solves our requirement?
If we have sales transaction even between business areas within certain company, do we have to make it in business area?

Following are the answer to your questions
Q:   What to do for using this cube in BCS?
A:    Add the business area to the cube. Generate the data basis and the business area gets added to all ODS/DSO , virtual cube.
Suggestion: To avoid deleting the Profit center cube, since you can reduce the complication.
Q:   Is it the problem about DATA BASIS Role?
A:   No. Assign the role of subassignment or consolidation unit as needed. If you are giving the role of consolidation unit to business area, you need to insert the char Partner business area also in the cube.
Q:   Is there some materials to solve this situation?
A:   Refer the matrix consolidation material in help.sap.com from BCS portion. As per SAP literature any relevant object can be made as second consolidation unit such as business area, functional area etc. Dont fear. Once you start it the issue will be resolved in few days.
Expected complication:
If you are going to make business area as subassignment then it is simple. But if you are making business area as Consolidation unit, go for partner business area in cube.
Ensure with your BI consultant that all BCS messages are addressed in BI infoobject for business area specifically.
Things can get complicated only if we allow for it get complicated. But you are doing great.. Keep posted.. Good luck.!!!..

Consolidation unit's hierarchy can not be organized well in BCS

Hi,gurus here.
We are using SEM-BCS to analyse business consolidation based on BW.
In BW,the consolidation unit's hierarchy is good,but when we execute the data load task in BCS,the consolidatioin unit in BCS can not be organized as an entire hirarchy well.
What's wrong?

Hi Dan,
Thanks for your answer.
Youu2019re saying that although the data is loaded is ignored in the reporting.
But if data is loaded isnu2019t it considered in the consolidation methods? As in the method for IU IU Elimination and Reconciliation or Consolidation of Investments?
Thanks for your help.
Best regards.

Balance carryforward consolidation unit with equity method

Hi experts,
One question in relation with balance carryforward in SEM BCS 4.0. Do Additional finantial data of Consolidation unit with equity method must be carried forward to following periods?
I have a problem with AFD validation for equity method.
Best regards,
Beatriz B.

Thanks Halim,
I am not using consolidation unit combination. It is only Legal Consolidataion. However, I have fixed the problem by changing the master data of consolidation unit. I have enabled FCEP.
I have one more question. Do I have to run Consolidation Group Change Task also when I am switching from Equity method to Purchase method for Associate companies?
When I am changing from Equity to Purchase method all the previous C/I postings are reversed, but the profit of Associates which was already accounted by holding company in the previous period is transfered to Net Income-Method Change and second effect is given to Goodwill (GW is enhanced).
Hence, post change of method, when I upload TB of Associate, the Net Income is not eliminated to the extent of the profit Adjusted on account of Method change.
Please suggest,
Thanks,
USR

"No Fiscal Year Variant assinged to consolidation unit" error for 3EC_CS_1A

Hi,
I'm getting following extraction error using RSA3 for datasource 3EC_CS_1A in R3 (4.7) system. Could someone shed some ideas on how to fix it.
No fiscal year variant assigned to consolidation unit 0000000000000000XX.
same error is coming for all consolidation units.
I checked ECMCT table and it has records in it.
I went to "Consolidation unit change" using CX1N and found out that above consolidation unit has our customer defined "standard fiscal year variant assigned" for the corresponding ledger listed in ECMCT.
What else might be missing & how to fix it. same error in both DEV & QAS. Appreciate any inputs
Hari Immadi
http://immadi.com
SEM BW Analyst

thanks for your post.
I checked T009 and see that fiscal year variants are maintained. K4 as well as "customer defined standard fiscal year variant". what else might be missing.
Hari Immadi
http://immadi.com
SEM BW Analyst

Consolidation Unit in the wrong position in Accounting Techniques tree

Hi all,
I'm facing a problem with a consolidation unit (A) in the Accounting Techniques tree (T1).
The issue is resolved when I delete the unit A from the consolidation group tree (T2) but, when I add the unit A to the consolidation group tree (T2) again, the unit appears in two places, and that is not correct.
I've tried to delete and move the unit through the Accounting techniques tree (T1), but the problem continues.
Can you help me??
Thanks in advance.
Inge Eichhorns

In some cases it is standard for a cons unit to be included in the Acctg Techniques assignment multiple times. Because the assignments may different at various levels in the hierarchy, especially when not inherited downward.
One way to check this or change this is to check the assignments via the cons group view by clicking on the cons group and selecting View > Cons Group.
Edited by: Dan Sullivan on Nov 19, 2009 10:38 PM

Consolidation Unit: consolidate only until period 09 (divestment).

I have another problem related to consolidation:
I have a consolidation group with several consolidation units assigned to. For one assigned consolidation unit, I want to consolidate only up to period 09. So, I have edited the year and period of divestment (2008/09). I was hopping that, that consolidation unit wasn't proposed in the consolidation monitor for interunit elimination (for period 10).
Does anybody know what else do I have to do for this purpose?
Thanks,
Paula

This sounds like a minor bug. I suggest you search SAP Notes for solution and if none is found notify SAP via customer message.

Consolidation Unit change from Group A to group B

When I drag consolidation unit from group A to Group in CX1X and then I run CXCd and error message popped stated below;
Entry cannot be posted :B/s and I/S balance of 1.7million.
I think it might be due to moving from one group to another group. please advise and it is very very urgent. What is the solution to this problem.? It is giving the same error when i try to drag back to the same group.
Thank you
Selvam

Hi,
Is it a Production system? In Consolidation if a Consolidation Unit is moved from one group to another it will have serious repurcursions. In one of the projects in test system we had this problem. SAP OSS Notes also suggest that Consolidation Unit - if transaction data is already posted - it should not be moved. Especially if Consolidation of Investments is configured it is going to be a problem.
Thanks
Murali.

Consolidation Unit Hierachy deletion

The consolidation unit is time dependant, but has many duplicate hierarchies created unwantedly over a period of time. Hence this creates confusion in parameter selection in reports.
Can the unwanted hierarchies be deleted in development and transported across? Will the deletion of whole hierarchy get sucessfully transported?
Alternatively rather than deleting the hierarchy , can the hierarchy be put in invisible mode which will not trouble the users, which selection.
Edited by: BCS_BPC on Mar 3, 2011 6:05 PM

Can the unwanted hierarchies be deleted in development and transported across? Will the deletion of whole hierarchy get sucessfully transported?
- Yes, to both Qs, AFAIK. But, remembering that SAP SEM-BCS has two layers: BCS itself and underlying BW, such excersize is the SAP acrobatics. Without experience it might be very dangerous in sense of damaging data.
Alternatively rather than deleting the hierarchy , can the hierarchy be put in invisible mode which will not trouble the users, which selection.
- No, no invisible mode (in full). One may try achivieng it by different visibility in BCS and BW, but it also requires experience and risky in sense of bringing inconsistency between BCS and BW.

Consolidation unit's divestiture

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for