Unreconciled Historical Increase/(Decrease) in Cash

Hey Tarjei,

Did anyone revert on this one? This one can be tough to get to the bottom of.

Core thing is that the balance sheet cash movement, doesn't reconcile with the cashflow movements.

If you don't have issues with historical target balances, or dividends occurring when they shouldn't be, then it means there's a journal somewhere that might be one-sided, so the net movements on the balance sheet + P&L don't equate to your cash movement.

Usually when trying to track this stuff down, I generally go down the methodology you'd employ when trying to balance your balance sheet, i.e. Is the variance accruing and building, is the figure only in one period, etc.

Hope that helps, there's actually no super easy way on this one, as I've had to track this down a couple times and it's usually an incomplete journal.

Jun

Hi Tarjei,

Have you made any customisations to your historical calculations? That particular line is a reflection of historical cash flow logic derivation, rather than whether the data itself reconciles.

Even if your historical data is completely random, whilst you will get an equally random dividend paid (and received!) line, the data should still internally reconcile:

The "Unreconciled Historical Increase/(Decrease) in Cash" line is designed to pick-up where logic changes deriving historical cash flows aren't correct.

Feel free to ping me the model through support if you'd like us to review.

Cheers. J.

Hey James,

Oh that's interesting, I've had it come up a couple times when the underlying logic was correct.

Maybe I'll try and find an example, but good to know.

Thanks!

Jun

Yes. Definitely let me know if you find any instance, Jun.

Shouldn't be possible with the standard content (unless we've goofed up somewhere!) used in the standard way.

Cheers. J.

Hey James, ahhhh makes a lot of sense.

Looking through, it does look like it's all with content we've customised. A lot of it is with the IFRS16 stuff, which is probably why I'm seeing it more and more.

So no, definitely no goof up on your side! I've just misread that error. Good learning for me!

Thanks James!

Jun