You want to use the Landed Cost (Action menu item) function during Receipt Entry.
To do so, the purchase part can have no overhead or burden already set up to be applied.
Once you've received your lines into the Pack, slect Landed Costs and a new form opens where you can add additional charges (like freight). You then must specify how it is ti be distrubuted across the items receipved in the Pack (by weight, by value or manually). I beleive you can specify what G/L accounts get hit with the charges as well.
It is an intriguing function we haven't tried to use yet - so I can't garuantee it even works.
I've alway had a beef with comparing internal cost estimates to vendor quotes. The vendor may be choosing to make a years worth (exagerated in most cases perhaps) to minimize non value added set up lot charge adders to their cost. They would then just ship from their stock on demand.
Internally, the amortized set ups would be real - based on the real drivers in your business for determining desireable lot sizes. More than likely, the internal estimate would carry more set up cost.
I've always viewed shipping costs as the equivalent of lot set up charges for purchased items. Inlcuding them in the quote results in a truer 'apples to apples' cost comparison and better over all in/out sourcing decisions (of which cost is just one factor - but it might as well be accurate).
At the same time, no one wants to artificially increase unit cost of anything that will exist in stock and be construed as a taxable inventory assset. Amortizing freight into purchased costs (versus immedaite absorption and writeoff) is just nuts from that stand point.
In fact, in the 'lean world', fabrication set ups are increasingly treated like a non-direct cost and total annual set up is amortized against all annual production (run cost) asset value - by value - (as a non-taxable asset overhead -absorbed immediately and writtten off much like freight or building supplies).
Both extremes are an interesting game to play (with real consequences) - but your auditors definitely have to be educated as to why a method was selected and they must be on board with it.
Rob Brown
To do so, the purchase part can have no overhead or burden already set up to be applied.
Once you've received your lines into the Pack, slect Landed Costs and a new form opens where you can add additional charges (like freight). You then must specify how it is ti be distrubuted across the items receipved in the Pack (by weight, by value or manually). I beleive you can specify what G/L accounts get hit with the charges as well.
It is an intriguing function we haven't tried to use yet - so I can't garuantee it even works.
I've alway had a beef with comparing internal cost estimates to vendor quotes. The vendor may be choosing to make a years worth (exagerated in most cases perhaps) to minimize non value added set up lot charge adders to their cost. They would then just ship from their stock on demand.
Internally, the amortized set ups would be real - based on the real drivers in your business for determining desireable lot sizes. More than likely, the internal estimate would carry more set up cost.
I've always viewed shipping costs as the equivalent of lot set up charges for purchased items. Inlcuding them in the quote results in a truer 'apples to apples' cost comparison and better over all in/out sourcing decisions (of which cost is just one factor - but it might as well be accurate).
At the same time, no one wants to artificially increase unit cost of anything that will exist in stock and be construed as a taxable inventory assset. Amortizing freight into purchased costs (versus immedaite absorption and writeoff) is just nuts from that stand point.
In fact, in the 'lean world', fabrication set ups are increasingly treated like a non-direct cost and total annual set up is amortized against all annual production (run cost) asset value - by value - (as a non-taxable asset overhead -absorbed immediately and writtten off much like freight or building supplies).
Both extremes are an interesting game to play (with real consequences) - but your auditors definitely have to be educated as to why a method was selected and they must be on board with it.
Rob Brown
--- On Wed, 4/30/08, sam05318 <rob.sample@...> wrote:
From: sam05318 <rob.sample@...>
Subject: [Vantage] Roll Shipping charges into the cost of purchased parts
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 5:57 PM
Some of the raw material we purchase has significant shipping costs
associated with bringing it into our company. Since we use average
cost, I would like the part cost to reflect these higher shipping
charges. Example, if we buy 1 part for $20 and pay $1000 to ship it
to us, I would like the system to treat the part cost as $1020.
Does anyone have any idea how I could make Vantage do this? We are
running version 8.00
Thanks,
Rob
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ