Your Stocktake Report Is Either a Goldmine or a Shambles
Updated: Sep 4
This is Part One of a four-part series on reading your own stocktake report properly.
A keg of Guinness selling 95 pints instead of 88 isn't luck. It's £45.50 sitting on your stock report as a surplus. Run the same maths the other way, and that's exactly how a deficiency gets caught too.
Most operators are handed a stocktake report every month and told a number. Few are ever shown how that number actually gets built, or what it's genuinely telling them. This is Part 1 of a four-part series on reading your own stocktake report properly, starting with the variance report itself, the foundation everything else in the series builds on.
What's a surplus, what's a deficiency
Take the Guinness example properly.
An 88-pint container's been purchased. 95 pints have actually been sold from it, because a good head was being generated on every pour. The stock calculation is looking for 88 pints' worth of sales at £6.50 a pint: £572.00.
What's actually been taken is £617.50: 95 pints at £6.50.
£617.50 minus £572.00 is a £45.50 surplus on that one product.
A deficiency works the other way.
Say 72 bottles of something have been used, at £6.00 a unit, but only 64 have actually gone through the till. The stock is looking for 72 × £6.00 = £432.00 in revenue.
What's actually come through is 64 × £6.00 = £384.00.
£432.00 minus £384.00 is a £48.00 deficiency.
Add every single product line in stock, calculated exactly the same way, and that's how a full variance report gets built, line by line, until it totals into the one overall number. The overall figure works the same way too, minus any agreed allowances for things like tapping and venting.
Why the report is only ever as good as what's fed into it
Depending on how disciplined the team's been on the till, how carefully they've actually rung things through, a variance report is either a genuine goldmine of information or an absolute shambles. The report itself doesn't lie. It just can't be any better than what it's been given.
One of the biggest things that ruins it before you've even started: cross-keying. That's when something gets rung through as the wrong product: a lager rung in as a different lager, one spirit rung in as another. It costs the business nothing at the time, but it wrecks the numbers afterwards, because one product shows a surplus that isn't real while another shows a matching deficit that isn't real either. It clouds the issue and drags attention away from the figures that actually need looking at.
A big part of preventing this comes down to how the till itself is set up. There should be a specific button for every product, no generic "open drinks" key. An open key can be abused, and even where it isn't, it makes the stock data very messy, because a sale rung through it doesn't tie back to anything specific. The more precise the information the till generates, the more precise the result that comes out the other end.
You'll see a disclaimer on most stocktake reports stating that the validity of the result depends on the information supplied. That says it all, really.
It's on the operator, too, to make sure the stocktaker actually gets to every stock item. Miss a store room, an overflow fridge, stock kept somewhere unusual, and that leaves a grey area in the result. There's no way to know what's actually been counted and what hasn't, and that uncertainty undermines everything else in this series.
What you're actually looking for
Not every small fluctuation. The big numbers: the major surpluses and the major deficits.
A major deficit doesn't automatically mean something's gone wrong with the stock itself. It might mean the count's wrong. Accidents happen; that's not a comment on whether a stocktaker's any good. Any major variance needs a recount before a single conclusion gets drawn from it, because that number's about to drive everything else that happens next.
For me, a major variance is a blue light on top of a police car. It's an alarm going off. It's telling you to stop and look properly, not file the report and move on.
Once it's confirmed real, where you look depends on what's missing
If it's complete units, whole kegs, whole bottles, whole cases, the first thing that should come to mind is a short-drop: stock invoiced and paid for that was never actually delivered in full.
For spirit bottles specifically, there's another explanation to rule out before theft: a dropped or broken bottle. Check the wastage log to see whether it's already accounted for there. But that only works if the wastage log can actually be trusted, and that depends entirely on how breakage gets treated when it happens. Come down hard on someone for dropping a bottle, and all that's been taught is to hide it next time. Then a real accident starts looking exactly like an unexplained deficit.
If the delivery checks out and there's no breakage logged, then the next thing on the list is theft. Day-to-day minor stock shortages, the ordinary small stuff, don't typically accumulate into a whole missing case or bottle. Getting to that level usually means something specific happened, not a slow drift of small errors adding up.
Related reading: Beverage stock deficiencies: What the number is actually telling you · Gross Profit & Where Profit Goes: Common Questions
The paperwork that makes all of this possible
Retain every delivery note, whether it's from a main brewery supplier or a top-up run to the corner shop. Whatever's been purchased and added to stock needs to be accounted for, regardless of where it came from.
Log wastage religiously, and log as much detail as possible. This is worth understanding properly: recording a big wastage loss doesn't help this period's GP. That loss has already happened, and writing it down doesn't undo it. But it turns an unexplained variance into priceless data that can actually be acted on. A loss that's logged properly points at where to go and fix the problem. A loss that's never recorded just stays a mystery, indefinitely.
And record every internal transfer of stock from the bar into food production too: beer used for a beer batter, red wine into a steak pie, Tia Maria into a bavarois. Without that logged, the bar looks like it's lost stock it never actually lost, and the food side's true cost is understated at the same time.
Where this leaves you
Once the formula at the top of this piece actually makes sense (actual against theoretical, line by line, added up into one number), a stocktake report stops being something you're told and starts being something you can check. That's the whole point of starting here.
I'm David Holden, with 30 years of experience across stock control, financial management, and internal audit, I help hospitality operators find exactly where profit is being made and lost.
Cross-keying, short deliveries, unlogged wastage, or a variance report that's never actually been checked properly. If your numbers don't add up, or you're not sure whether they do, let's find it.
Comments