- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Thread as New
- Mark Thread as Read
- Float this Thread for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
We've been using Square for over 6 years. We have over 2000 unique items/variations in our inventory. We've recently upgraded to Square for Retail in an attempt to obtain a Total Inventory Value number.
Going through and adding Unit Costs and Vendors to items to each item/variation does not seem to affect our Total Inventory Value. It only changes if we add a new item, or add new stock, both with an associated unit cost and vendor.
I know the report wont reflect it until the next day, but even then it is not working correctly. It seems like Total Inventory Value only shows NEW stock or items, and does not apply it retroactively.
One issue with this is, I would have to go in and zero out all of our inventory and re-add it with an associated unit cost and vendor to receive an accurate report, which is a lot of work but doable. The other and bigger issue with this is that if an item changes in cost and we updated it, that unit cost will not be retroactively applied to all quantities, meaning once again total inventory value would not be correct.
Maybe we're doing something wrong? Or is this not actually "Total Inventory Value" but only the value of what you have added since upgrading to Square for Retail or adding a new item/stock.
Thank you.
That does make sense for certain situations, but it still isn't giving an accurate "Inventory Value". If the price has been raised by the manufacture, then that is the new "Value". For some of the end of the year reporting for tax purposes, what you paid is irrelevant, what it costs to replace is the important factor and where the "Value" is.
With that being said it still doesn't explain why when I go back to old items that are in stock that have never had Unit Cost(didn't even have that option before), and add a it, it does nothing.
I think the major issue I have here is the verbiage, "Inventory Value" does not seem like the correct term to be using and advertising as an upgrade. Even Squares help documents show going in and updating unit costs for COGS reporting, which again does nothing.
It seems the only way to fix old inventory unit cost is to either zero out all the quantities and add it all back in as new, or go back through 10s of thousands of inventory updates and transactions and individually update each one.
I hope people considering upgrading to Square for Retail realize that it isn't a seamless switch whatsoever, and you will likely have to re-do all of your stock amounts/quantities at a minimum.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Hi @Hpbp
I believe this is intentional, so when you get a new batch in and the cost increased, it reflects the actual costs you paid.
You could export to Excel, multiply Q x Unit Cost, and sum.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
That does make sense for certain situations, but it still isn't giving an accurate "Inventory Value". If the price has been raised by the manufacture, then that is the new "Value". For some of the end of the year reporting for tax purposes, what you paid is irrelevant, what it costs to replace is the important factor and where the "Value" is.
With that being said it still doesn't explain why when I go back to old items that are in stock that have never had Unit Cost(didn't even have that option before), and add a it, it does nothing.
I think the major issue I have here is the verbiage, "Inventory Value" does not seem like the correct term to be using and advertising as an upgrade. Even Squares help documents show going in and updating unit costs for COGS reporting, which again does nothing.
It seems the only way to fix old inventory unit cost is to either zero out all the quantities and add it all back in as new, or go back through 10s of thousands of inventory updates and transactions and individually update each one.
I hope people considering upgrading to Square for Retail realize that it isn't a seamless switch whatsoever, and you will likely have to re-do all of your stock amounts/quantities at a minimum.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report