Intercompany reconciliatio in FI Vs BCS

Intercompany reconciliaiton is looks to be avialable in FI also. How different is the reconciliation function between FI from  BCS.
For Matrix consolidation, is FI reconciliation is good?
Please share your experience. Points will be rewarded.

I've tried to prototype it. ICR in FI is based on document level reconciliation but BCS is based on balance level reconciliation.
Basically ICR is one of processes of Local closing activities. It collects FI documents and reconciles them. Partner information should be maintained in Vendor/Customer master.
We're implementing ECC6.0 but still it seems to be not stable since I got some of programming errors.
Following is the thread that I posted.
[Re: Intercompany reconciliation in FI|Re: Intercompany reconciliation in FI]

Similar Messages

  • Intercompany reconciliation in FI

    Hi.
    Is there anybody who got  experienced to implement Intercompany reconciliation function in SEM or SEM-BCS similar in FI as follows?
    [http://help.sap.com/saphelp_erp60_sp/helpdata/en/1b/56b63e8697b300e10000000a114084/content.htm|http://help.sap.com/saphelp_erp60_sp/helpdata/en/1b/56b63e8697b300e10000000a114084/content.htm]
    From my understanding, Intercompany reconciliation(ICR) in FI make reconciliation job in accounting document level while basically SEM-BCS does it in Item balance level.
    I just know if it is possible in BCS.

    Hi Todd
    It is always better to have the ICR done in ECC before the data is moved on to BCS so that u can always fix the data before it is moved on to BCS and many companies do like this only.
    It may not be good a idea to reconcile after the currency translation in BCS, since it is virutally not possible to identify and fix the problem at that level.
    Kindly read the following documentation on ICR:
    https://websmp105.sap-ag.de/~sapidb/011000358700000346442007E.PDF
    https://websmp105.sap-ag.de/~sapidb/011000358700000346452007E.PDF

  • SEM -BCS Trasaction currency and Local Currency

    SAPGURUS
    I have one issue , When the users are doing Half yearly BCS they see  that for one company code for one item period values Local currency is diifeernt from
    Transaction currency .
    My question is why this Transaction currency is different from local currecny.
    How to rectify this .
    Are they  missing any exchnage rate conversion .
    Thanks in Advance .
    are they  missing any exchnage rate conversion .

    Hi Dan Sullivan
    Thanks for the quick reply .
    One more question .
    I see in the BCS  T Curency as Euro and Local currency as Euro .
    but the period values localy currency is different from Transaction currency .
    I think the values should be the same if both T Currecny and Local Currency is same .
    I also observed that this particular difference is happening only for 2 particular set of accounts . Those accounts are related to Intercompany related G L Accounts values .
    I also observed that in the Break down category for these G L Accounts The break down structure category has defined as defaulted .
    I would like to know what would be the cause for the above .
    Thanks in Advance .
    Ravindrareddy.P.

  • How unrealised sales is handled by SEM - BCS?

    Hi all,
    For intercompany transferred of inventory at profit, there are two elimination involved:-
    - Unrealised Sales
    - Unrealised Profit & Loss
    In SEM BCS, elimination of unrealised profit & loss is handled by IPI. How about unrealised sales?
    Many thanks.
    Regards, Renee

    Renee,
    You cannot post directly to clearing items. That's why you get the error. The only possibility is to do it with reclasses on 01-10 level of postings without the doc type assigned.
    But you don't need it. AFAIU, you try to make entries for unrealised profit in inventory? Then  the entries you make should be as following:
    DR COGS (or any other cost/expense account) in P&L
    CR Inventory (B/S)
    The system will automatically add:
    DR Clearing item in B/S
    CR Clearing item in P&L
    It's how the clearing items work.
    For an example of this functionality (maybe it'll help you to configure it properly) see here:
    Re: SEM-BCS Journal Posting for Elim.inventory

  • COPA vs. BCS design decisions (ex. profitability by customer in BCS)

    We are trying to meet a business goal of identifying gross profit by customer.
    We realize "customer" as a field in BCS is problematic, so we are thinking of only storing certain customers in BCS with a catch-all "Others" customer - with the goal of keeping the BCS data volume reasonable.
    Consider the scenario: US company sells material X qty 1 to Spain company for 100 with cost of 30 (therefore profit of 70)
    Spain sells same material X qty 1 to third-party customer for 120.
    Spain from a local perspective profits 20, however the group from an overall perspective profits 90 ( the US revenues of 100 eliminate against the Spain COGS of 100 so you are left with revenue of 120, COGS 30, profit 90 - from the group perspective ).
    We want to know how to see, on a customer level, the 90 profit from these transactions. 
    We do not believe COPA can do this, can this may be accomplished in BCS? 
    If you do a "one-sided" elimination (elimination driven by the revenue side only) of the intercompany revenue the system would not be able to reference customer on the elimination. We are wondering if this scenario of analyzing overall profit by customer can be accomplished by BCS functionality and are particularly interested in knowing what functionality you used to accomplish this requirement and in what sequence within the BCS close (BCS monitor).
    Thank you in advance for any input you may have.
    Also we are interested in any opinions/comments anyone may have about design decisions regarding BCS vs. COPA in BW.  BCS business content identifies a sample design for a BCS data model including item, company, movement type, trading partner, functional area, etc.  COPA (as configured in R3/ECC and extracted to BW) commonly features analysis by customer, material, etc.  Considering BCS features elimination functionality, what design concerns have people faced with respect to fields that they include in both reporting systems?  Obviously a prominent concern is sizing of the systems, but what common characteristics has anyone decided to feature in both systems? What considerations drove the decisions as to what common characteristics to feature in both BCS and COPA?

    Hi John,
    Reg, your last question - might be useful info in here, if you have not seen it yet:
    Re: Reports using COPA cube, BCS Cube

  • Intercompany Sales in Planning

    Hi,
    Has anyone implemented planning on Intercompany activity in Planning. I have come up with 2 approaches and see some  cons with both the issues.
    I am hoping someone has a better approach than the 2 listed below.
    Thanks
    -NS
    Approach 1 : Each company code plans for its intercompany activity. Trading partner is used as a tag to denote intercompany activity. Move the data to BCS towards the end of planning cylce, execute elimination. BCS will list all the elimination errors.
    Problem : This may produce a huge reconciling activity towards the end of the cycle.
    Approach 2 : Each company code plans for its intercompany activity. Trading partner as a tag to denote intercompany activity. Planning function creates the reverse entry in the partner company (use a different Planning item to avoid locking problems. This planning item should not be allowed for user entry).
    Problem : The reverse entry in the partner company would affect its Finanacial statements

    Hello,
    I have implemented intercompnay elimination / consolidation several times in BCS and also in BPS.
    You have written a short question, which requires a very detailled answer. This is impossible here, so I try to give some comments, hope it helps.
    You need to have trading partner e. g. in case that data are delivered by SAP EC-CS or FI. In this case company and trading partner is the standard for intercompany data. Thats normally a very good base for planning as well. Lets say company A and B do have intercopany sales.
    The first option is to plan for company A (IC sales) and then to load the same data for company B (IC costs). In this case you dont have any differences between IC sales and costs because: IC costs = IC sales (automatically). But normally company B wants to make their own cost planning and they dont want automatically created costs. Thats possibly the beginn of a very long discussion
    But if you plan in company A independant sales and for B independant costs you can have differences (IC costs <> IC sales). This can be an advantage to make wrong planning transparent to all involved companies and will create reconciliation effort.
    The target in the end of the day is: IC sales = IC costs, which is the target of "elimination".
    you have written: " Each company code plans for its intercompany activity". Yes, thats the normal thing, but for sure in the end of day you will have differences (sales <> costs). I dont see a disadvantage in case that you have huge reconciliation processes: As long as this is reasonable it makes clear why and where unco-ordinated or wrong planning is comming from! If you have to much to reconcile it is an indicator for not coordinated planning processes.
    You have written "move data to BCS to eliminate". To eliminate, this can be done at the end when plannung is done for all companies! To realise this elimination technically is quite simple in most cases (not all). So I would say it is to much effort to plan in BPS to eliminate in BCS. In this case BPS can eliminate in BPS as well. But this depend on the elimation rules: If you have to much it could make sence to plan in BPS and eliminate in BCS to avoid double maintnance of elimination rules and especially chart of account and so on. But it can be very complex in case that you have "Intra-sales" AND "inter-sales", so lets say: sales between business divisions and sales between companies. Dont know wether you have to do that? But normally elimination in BCS depend on law but elimination in BPS depend on companies rules, which means: The rules, which are maintained in BCS are normally very strong because of law. But the rules, which can be used for planning are normally quite simple and dont have to much impact from law but from planning responsibility. Thats the reason why I think you dont need to move data to BCS. You sould discuss this possibilities with your business team and ask for a decission.
    The fundamental question is to use BPS or BCS? This must be clear before planning. A lot of companies dont use BCS for elimination of planning data, they use BPS for elimination of planning data and BCS to eliminate actuals.
    So whenever it is possible I would like to recommend your second approach: "Planning function creates the reverse entry in the partner company (use a different Planning item to avoid locking problems. This planning item should not be allowed for user entry)."
    Have a nice day
    Eckhard Lewin

  • Intercompany reconciliation in R/3

    Hi,
    Does anybody knows if there is any way to make intercompany reconciliation without BCS. We need to have an intercompany reconciliation in R/3 before going to BCS, so any difference can be corrected early.
    Regards,
    Aracely

    Mani
    Read the following link which will throw some light on ICR:
    Intercompany reconciliation in FI
    I dont really care whether you assign point or not since my interest is more of sharing the knowledge than earning points.
    Edited by: Sivakumar Gopalakrishnan on Mar 2, 2008 4:09 PM

  • Intercompany profit in inventory

    Hi, we are on a manufacturing business and im trying to explore the system for ways and means to monitor and track the IPI (intercompany profit in inventory) resulting from intercompany sales.  This is the elimination from the inventory account (Balance Sheet aspect) of any profit or loss on the intercompany sale that has not been confirmed by resale of the inventory to outsiders (non-affiliate).
    We are using SEM-BCS (trading partner and partner profit center fields) for the process of eliminating the intercompany profits and loss on the Income Statement aspect.
    Appreciate your expertise and inputs on this.
    thanks and regards,
    jing

    Hi. Try this. Tag it as an intercompany account (use Y instead of R) and give it a plug account. Put the plug account within COGS. Basically you're doing a one-sided elimination.
    Elimination of profit in inventory is not easy, and if this solves things for you then you're on the easy side of it.
    Regards,
    Eric

  • Difference SEM-BCS and BO PLanning & Consolidation

    Hi all,
    as announced in the subject. I was wondering what the difference between SEM-BCS and BO Planning & Consolidation is(so referring to the consolidation part)?
    Is BO Planning & Consolidation = BO Planning + SEM BCS
    Looking forward to your ideas!
    Best regards
    Hagen

    Hi Collet,
    Sorry I have no time to make a full-fledged comparison SEM-BCS and SAP BPC as you asked.
    Regarding your last link: very interesting information. Thank you very much.
    The citation from the article:
    Known Limitations
    In SAP BusinessObjects Planning and Consolidation (BPC), organizations (i.e. entities and groups/consolidation scopes) car vary according to Category and Time. However, all the other dimensions are static, which means they have neither category nor time dependency. As a result, the model presented here will use static Profit Center and Intercompany Profit Center dimensions.
    Eliminations (so called Automatic Adjustments in BPC) are primarily driven by Legal Entity and Intercompany dimensions. As a result, when it comes to Matrix Consolidation, each elimination will still occur based on this fact. So, basically, an elimination is triggered if both an Entity and the Intercompany entity are being consolidated under the same node (i.e. Group or Consolidation scope). In other words, BPC does not evaluate as such the Profit Center and Intercompany Profit Center dimensions when it comes to performing eliminations. Amounts will be eliminated based on the Legal Entity view. However, it is possible to analyze and group eliminations by Profit Center later on. As a result, Matrix consolidation will heavily leverage the reporting/filtering capabilities of the product.
    I'm afraid that in SEM-BCS' sense the Matrix consolidation has much more deep meaning than that presented here.

  • SEM-BCS: Cons Group Field Required for Inter-Unit Elimination

    Hi!
    I need help.
    I need to use document type for manual postings that allows me to indicate the cons group field.
    I understand the PL10 is cons unit dependent only and not cons group.
    I know that PL12 allows cons group posting.
    But from what I understand PL12 is not captured in the inter-unit elimation task.
    Is there other way?
    Appreciate response.

    Hi Adam and Eugene,
    Thanks for the helpful response.
    However I want my manual entries related to inter-unit elimination to reflect in one cons group only,  considering that we have different hierarchies in our system.
    The manual entries related to I/U elimation is basically an adjustment to the intercompany accounts. The purpose of my manual entries is to minimize the value of the difference of my intercompany accounts.
    for example: (before interunit elimination)
    Company A has intercompany accounts receivable of 100 USD with trading partner Company B
    However, Company B recorded 50 USD intercompany payable with trading partner Company A. Company B has understated figure of 50 USd
    To manually adjust in the BCS system,  I'll post in Company B debit inventory and credit intercompany payable 50 with trading partner Company A.
    Question is I want my adjusting entries to relfect only at the top hierarchy (one cons  group) and not at the other cons group
    Is there a way?
    Please advice.
    Thank you so much

  • ECCS - Intercompany Profit Elimination of Inventory Transfers

    Hi Consolidation Gurus,
    We are trying to eliminate intercompany profits on inventory transfers. We are using the Additional Financial Data and created Product Groups like Machines, Parts etc. How complicated is it to use Reported Financial Data? Is it possible to get profit elim at each item level?
    How do we go about doing the profit elim? Could somebody explain in detail how the intercompany profit is set up(customising) and how exactly it works? What are the steps involved in setting it up? Also, how do we use the flexible upload file? Is there any format for uploading this?
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks.
    SV

    We are going to implement SEM-BCS - So i wanted to know the details of interprofit elimination in detail during the blueprinting process.
    Traditional R/3 for inter company transactions is you create one account for each CC and check that account to see the amount that's due from that CC
    With Trading partner functionality, you will be having one single account for all transactions with all the Co Cds and if you want the balance of a particular Co Cd, you do it with by checking the A/C and the Trading Partner(Company ID).
    Am i correct in saying so ? Correct me if i am wrong anywhere.
    How would things be taken care in BCS? is what i wanted to know.
    Thanks,
    Nandita

  • Intercompany Master Data

    Hi,
      We are currently having the following setup with regards to intercompany customers and vendors in our organization.
    1. In case of a trading partner handling multiple activities/business units, we are creating 1 intercompany customer and vendor for each of the activity.
    2. Name 3 field in XD03 or FD03 is used to denote the business unit or activity for each of these customers and vendors created.
    3. We are using 8KER and 8KES to maintain a list of all trading partners, customer ids, and vendor ids and their default partner profit centers to ensure that we are able to perform intercompany reporting accordingly without manual efforts being spent in reclassification of Intercompany Balances from one activity to another.
    4. These default partner profit centers is the same as the default partner activity of each trading partner.
    However as a result of the above setup we are having lots of issues in the upstream Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable processes. Some of the key issues are outlined below:
    1. Unable to make consolidated payments per trading partner as multiple vendors are existing.
    2. Incurring additional bank charges and service fees
    3. Vendor Reconciliations and follow up requires additional headcounts
    4. Multiple maintenance of master data
    5. On account clearing would take more time since the task need to be performed for several customers
    6. Tax classification need to be maintained multiple times
    7. Users would select wrong customer and vendor codes when performing intercompany recharges
    With above being mentioned, our aim is to have a single customer and vendor code per trading partner so that we are able to tackle the Accounts payable and receivable issues and also ensuring that no effort is spent in manually reclassifying the intercompany figures during the monthly, quarterly, half yearly and yearly closing process.
    We would appreciate if someone can guide us on what is the SAP recommendation in this business scenario and what solutions are available to ensure that we maintain 1 customer and 1 vendor per trading partner without having any impact on the reporting steps. In case there are any solutions then please provide the same for ECC 6.0 EHP 4 (Classic Ledger) as well as for New General Ledger.
    Please note that we are currently using ECC 6.0 EHP 4 (Classic Ledger) and SEM BCS 6.0 for consolidation.
    Rgds
    Venugopal Nair

    Hi
    Wellcome to SDN. These notes will be helpful
    SAP Note 109254 - Customizing stock transport order Cross Company
    SAP Note 308989 - Consulting note for cross-company transactions
    SAP Note 543821 - FAQ: cross-company processing
    Regards
    Eduardo

  • BW BCS cube(0bcs_vc10 ) Report huge performance issue

    Hi Masters,
    I am working out for a solution for BW report developed in 0bcs_vc10 virtual cube.
    Some of the querys is taking more 15 to 20 minutes to execute the report.
    This is huge performance issue. We are using BW 3.5, and report devloped in bex and published thru portal. Any one faced similar problem please advise how you tackle this issue. Please give the detail analysis approach how you resolved this issue.
    Current service pack we are using is
    SAP_BW 350 0016 SAPKW35016
    FINBASIS 300 0012 SAPK-30012INFINBASIS
    BI_CONT 353 0008 SAPKIBIFP8
    SEM-BW 400 0012 SAPKGS4012
    Best of Luck
    Chris
    BW BCS cube(0bcs_vc10 ) Report huge performance issue

    Ravi,
    I already did that, it is not helping me much for the performance. Reports are taking 15 t0 20 minutes. I wanted any body in this forum have the same issue how
    they resolved it.
    Regards,
    Chris

  • Excise Returns in case of intercompany

    scenario in which goods are delivered from a factory plant and the delivery results in an inter company invoice (IV) ánd an normal customer invoice, so TWO  company codes are involved.
    We register the order in CoCd IN01; delivery will be done from a plant belonging to CoCd IN02; Goods Issue in IN02 results in an intercompany invoice (IV) AND an excise invoice in IN02 last document is the customer invoice created in IN01. When returning goods we create returns order in IN01; delivery in IN02, where we receive goods and then trigger IC credit billing document (IG) and we want to trigger the excise document (credit). The question now is how to create that credit, and to which document should we refer to when creating that excise correction (the original excise doc; the credit IC billing doc..?)
    Regards
    Sreekanth

    got the answer

  • Free goods in intercompany billing

    Hi,
    I customize free goods functionality in SAP and all seems to be all right. A sales order makes a delivery with the two itens and after that the invoice have two itens one of then with condition TANN. Everything is perfect...
    But may question is: how can i do this in intercompany billing once in this kind of billing i haven´t the sales order but a purchase order?
                   Best Regards
                         João Fernandes

    Free goods cannot be used in make-to-order production, third-party order processing and scheduling agreements.
    This is the Limitation of setting up free goods
    Cheers

Maybe you are looking for