Report 109 - Customer - Summary Aging Simp.

markborges

Hi everyone,

Does somebody use this report 109 - Summary Aging Simp. for Customers?

My accounting user is using it as an Aged Documents for customer, but she is complaining that if you take the report on September 1st, with date as of September 1st, the results are different from a report taken on December 1st, aged as of September 1st.

As I could see in the programming of the report, it doesn't ignore postings that were made AFTER the "AS OF date", so if you take this report in one month, and then take this report again in the other month, even if you fill the "AS OF date" with the date of the last month, the results will be different.

She asked me, then, what is this report used for?

Can somebody give me a simple explanation of this report?

Thanks in advance

muksha

Can you clarify if the report is changing the value for the same date after running over a period of time...if it is not changing than the report is correct and standard report is very correct and meeting the purpose.

markborges

What is its purpose? :?:

Alex_Chow

Have you check the NAV help on this report? It tells you what the report is used for.

davmac1

I just finished changing this report to use the posting date for aging and provide a net balance.
For such a simple report, it sure was convoluted.

ara3n

Can you identify the changes? My guess somebody back posted a transaction.

markborges

Alex Chow wrote:

Have you check the NAV help on this report? It tells you what the report is used for.

It gives to me a simple description, but I wanted to know when Accounting/Financial users should use it.

As far as I could analyze it, it shows the Balances Dues for customer divided in periods. In the options Tab you have "Starting Date", and for my accounting user, she thinks this "Starting Date" is a kind of "As Of" date... I mean.... She thinks that if she takes the report for September 1st on September 1st, the results will be the same of taking the report for September 1st on December 1st, and this is not what really happens.

I wanted to know if somebody has a well defined context in which this report may be applicable. For example: "You can use this report only to see the open dues at the moment. You cannot use this report to see historical dues, only CURRENT dues".

Navision tells me what this report does, but it doesn't tell me where it could be used. And I wanted to know this, because I think my user is using it in the wrong way, but I cannot say she's using it in the wrong way unless I know the RIGHT way to indicate to her.

davmac1 wrote:

For such a simple report, it sure was convoluted.

Completely agree!

ara3n wrote:

Can you identify the changes? My guess somebody back posted a transaction.

I can identify some of them. This reports leads to think that there was a back posted transaction. But, in fact, it's not right to say this because, since the report doesn't filter by posting date, then if you had an open amount in September, paid it in October, then took the report again with starting date of September, the results would NOT be the same.

Sorry for writing so much pals, but I'm trying to make myself clear.... Did I? :-k

ara3n

markborges wrote:

I can identify some of them. This reports leads to think that there was a back posted transaction. But, in fact, it's not right to say this because, since the report doesn't filter by posting date, then if you had an open amount in September, paid it in October, then took the report again with starting date of September, the results would NOT be the same.

The aging report will remove the application that was done on october, so the report should look the same.

What I'm suggesting is that somebody in October posted a transaction with posting date of September.

markborges

ara3n wrote:

The aging report will remove the application that was done on october, so the report should look the same.

Yeah! You are right. I was missing this point. At the time I looked at the programation, I didn't see this filter! #-o

ara3n wrote:

What I'm suggesting is that somebody in October posted a transaction with posting date of September.

That is what I was thinking too, but since I didn't see the filter you mentioned before, that's why I thought it wouldn't be correct to say that. But I now agree with you, I'm starting to believe that there was back posting, otherwise these numbers shouldn't be changed.

I will try to check that with my user.

Thank you ara3n and thank you all

ara3n

you are welcome. Let us know what you find.

Administrator

[The use of [SOLVED] is no longer supported. Please use the Topic Attribute to put a green checkmark next to the Topic Title]