Old stock is not automatically excess stock. A retain, return or sell decision also needs condition, requirements and available terms.
BDC’s inventory guidance considers demand, lead time, storage, shelf life and obsolescence. It recommends quantity and location records checked against physical stock. A count alone does not establish condition or requirements.
The example below gives every number and permission in advance. It asks two separate questions: which units can leave under the stipulated plan, and which of two offers meets a specified cash deadline? Neither answer determines an inventory valuation or the price of a business.
Start with 100 fictional units
Imagine a wholly fictional business reviewing one item on day 0. Everything that follows—the lots, condition, requirements, permissions, prices and dates—is invented. Numbered days are hypothetical days, not a calendar schedule. The review covers days 1–30.
Lot A: 50 physical units received 180 days ago. We stipulate that 40 are good and 10 are unusable.
Lot B: 50 physical units received 30 days ago. All 50 are stipulated to be good.
That gives 100 physical units = 90 good units + 10 unusable units. The 10 unusable units stay segregated and enter neither offer. Their condition is an assumption; this example supplies no inspection method or certification.
All 90 good units are technically interchangeable for the modeled requirements. There are no other quality, contract or reservation differences. The base case has a confirmed requirement for 60 units during days 1–30, counted once. There are no additional receipts, requirements, reserves or restrictions inside this closed model. These convenient assumptions are not a recommendation to omit such inputs in a real business.
Allocate 60 units; explain the remaining 30
For this example, choose to allocate the older good units first. Retain all 40 good A units, then 20 B units: 40 + 20 = 60. Lot B has 50 − 20 = 30 good units left for the optional actions. This is a chosen allocation, not a recommended stock-rotation policy.
The quantity check is 40 retained A + 20 retained B + 30 available B + 10 segregated unusable A = 100. No unit appears twice. The 180-day-old lot contributes 40 units to the requirement; the 30-day-old lot supplies all 30 units considered for the offers.
Age alone did not decide which units were excess.
A report bucket is a different question
Microsoft’s Dynamics Inventory aging report documentation describes deducting issued quantities using FIFO when allocating period buckets, regardless of the item inventory model. Its example changes the quantity distribution when the report is split by warehouse. These are statements about that named report and example, not proof of physical lot movements or a universal accounting rule. Our chosen lot allocation above is a separate fictional assumption.
Two invented offers, with different forms of payment
BDC discusses asking suppliers about returns, possibly with a restocking fee; that establishes no return entitlement.
For this fictional comparison, a supplier expressly accepts up to 25 available B units. Complete the return on day 5. The supplier grants C$12 credit per unit and deducts a C$2-per-unit fee from that credit. There is no separate cash fee. The credit posts on day 10 and can be used only for eligible purchases from that same supplier before day 60. It cannot be redeemed for cash. Whether such purchases will occur in time is unknown.
A separate invented buyer accepts up to 30 good units not retained for the requirement, at C$8 net cash per unit. Cash arrives on day 3. Both offers are assumed available exactly as stated. No other costs are included beyond those stipulated net terms.
Route A: return 25 and sell five
Return 25 B units. Gross credit is 25 × C$12 = C$300; the fee deduction is 25 × C$2 = C$50. The result is C$250 of supplier credit on day 10. Sell the remaining five units: 5 × C$8 = C$40 of bank cash on day 3. All 30 available units have been assigned: 25 returned + 5 sold = 30.
Record two outputs: C$40 cash and C$250 restricted supplier credit. Calling their arithmetic sum C$290 of cash would contradict the offer. The credit is not an extra bank receipt, and the fee has already reduced it; subtracting another C$50 from cash would count a payment the example does not require.
Route B: sell all 30
Sell all 30 available good units and return none. The result is 30 × C$8 = C$240 of bank cash on day 3, with no supplier credit. Both routes retain the same 60 units and exclude the same 10 unusable units. Their payment outputs differ.
Add a cash objective before choosing
Now stipulate an owner objective: obtain C$200 of new bank cash by day 7 from these routes. Opening cash and other inflows are outside this test. Route A supplies C$40 by the deadline, leaving C$160 of the objective unmet. Route B supplies C$240, exceeding the objective by C$40.
Of the two modeled routes, only Route B meets this invented deadline. That is the conclusion of this test, not a claim that no other mixture could work. We have not searched all possible combinations of returns and sales.
Nor have we established which route has the greatest overall economic value. Route A’s credit arrives after day 7 and never becomes cash under its terms. Its eventual usefulness depends on eligible purchases before day 60, which remain unknown. Comparing C$250 credit plus C$40 cash with C$240 cash does not establish a C$50 cash advantage. This model calculates neither profit nor accounting value.
Change the requirement and rerun the quantity step
Keep the fictional lots, condition and offers unchanged, but replace the 60-unit requirement with a confirmed 90-unit requirement for the same days 1–30. Retain 40 A + 50 B = 90 good units. Available quantity is now 90 − 90 = 0. Neither optional route has units to use. The 10 unusable units remain outside both routes.
Receipt ages stayed the same; requirements changed the action quantity.
A third version leaves the requirement unknown. Do not substitute zero to produce an available quantity of 90. Write “unresolved” for the quantity and both route results. The subtraction lacks an input. Neither a return calculation nor a cash deadline supplies that missing number.
Make the decision explainable before a sale
For your own review, connect the lot quantities and condition to dated requirements and the alternatives actually available. Keep unresolved inputs visible.
The completed base-case record in our example would read: “Day 0; days 1–30; 100 physical, 90 good, 10 excluded; requirement 60; retain A40/B20; available B30. Compare A: return25/sell5, C$250 credit day10 and C$40 cash day3; B: sell30, C$240 cash day3. Objective: C$200 new bank cash by day7. B passes that test; overall economic preference unresolved.”
That record makes the conclusion reproducible. Someone can change the requirement to 90 and see exactly which result must be recalculated. Someone can ask about future eligible purchases without mistaking that unanswered question for an existing cash receipt. Preserve the objective beside the result: removing “by day 7” would hide the reason this comparison selected Route B.
For general information and education, not legal, tax, investment or valuation advice. The fictional example is illustrative and does not predict your business’s value, financing terms or sale outcome. Consult qualified advisers about your situation.
Subscribe to Deal Flow Canada for practical owner guides and Canadian deal updates.