Hello.
I have a client that passes many of their non-project asset acquisitions, e.g. laptop computers, through CIP/AUC assets with subsequent transfer to the productive asset via ABUMN asset-to-asset transfer.
(I've recommended to them that they stop unnecessarily passing non-project acquisitions through CIP, but that is a different discussion).
To my thinking, and in my experience, the proper way to move cost from a CIP asset to a productive asset is via settlement. This is of course the case when CIP is collected for a project and then capitalized to a number of receivers. In the case of passing cost through individual CIP assets for large numbers of a small expenditures, it's hard to make a case for settlement as the way to go because ABUMN effectively moves cost in a much simpler way with more features.
With settlement, the user has to create the receiver asset, create a settlement rule for the sender asset, and then execute the settlement. With ABUMN transfer, they are able to automatically create the receiver or process many sender/receivers at one time. ABUMN additionally, given that it can be executed as a single step, lends itself to being executed en masse via a script.
So here's the question; given the current process, what if any, are the advantage/dis-advantages of using settlement vs ABUMN transfer?
Thanks.
