nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Feature Request/Suggestion: Additional account types (26 Legacy Votes)

Jim Robinson

As a long-time Quicken user I am thrilled with the changes occurring with the new organization. As the Windows/Mac products improve and align, I would like to point out some common types of financial account (and those that have financial correlation) that people need to track but are not currently supported within the product.

Insurance - Life (traditional)
Insurance - Life (VUL)
Insurance - Disability
Investments - ESPP (currently supported... but awkward)
Investments - Options / Grants / etc.
Utilities - Quicken has never supported these as accounts... but should! :-) This includes electric / gas / water / custom / etc.
Loyalty Points - hotel / airlines / car rental / credit card / etc

I list these with the following goals in mind:

AGGREGATE all financial and related data into a single place
AUTOMATE the gathering of this data. Let computers do what they do best!
SIMPLIFY understanding of this data
IMPROVE PLANNING for all types of financial needs

Thanks!

Jim

Find more posts tagged with

Under Consideration

Windows

Accounts

Status: Under Consideration

Comments

mshiggins

Jim, I find Quicken's handling of ESPPs to be very simple to use, the resulting transactions easy to understand, and the tax reporting excellent. What issue do you have with the current ESPP functionality?

smayer97

This IDEA has been added to the:

Mac users may want to click on each underlined link, then follow the instructions on each page to add your vote to more related ideas.

(If you find this reply helpful, please be sure to click "Like", so others will know, thanks.)

unknown

Hmmm, yeah, I used to track such things, especially points and miles in QWin. (in custom currencies of Miles and Points too....

Plus, excluding the accounts from my net worth would help with that calculation....especially since in the conversion they got changed into US dollars....really skewed my balances where I had spent points....(and it did it inconsistently....in some cases it had showed I used the cash equivalent in points... Pretty sure I did use .03 of a point at some time in the past...

Also QW had the option to show hidden accounts in the side window, as "Separate" accounts....which is what I did to keep the Points/Miles Cash accounts separate from all my real Cash accounts.

Also had hidden/separate investment accounts....for what if portfolios....hmmm, the watchlist portfolio seems to be missing too.... Plus I used it to track the micro-loans I did through Kiva... Had also used to do sub-accounts too....

jtk.google

I want a virtual account that combines the mutual fund holdings of several single-mutual-fund accounts, for ease of tracking/observing accounts that have to be downloaded separately from FIs (due to FI software restrictions where they don't support true brokerage accounts).

This virtual account would be like a brokerage account, but the transactions for each mutual fund would be projections of the corresponding transactions in each of the linked single-mutual-fund accounts.

I'd hide all the single mutual fund accounts and use the brokerage account for monitoring/managing the combined account.

unknown

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled How about a Donor Advised Fund account type?.

How about a Donor Advised Fund account type?

J_Mike

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Donor Account.

Suggest you set up a regular brokerage account - tax-deferred.
Set the Display Options as Keep this account separate - as it is not part of your net worth.
Set the Transfers In tax attribute to Schedule A:Cash charity contributions.

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: How about a Donor Advised Fund account type?.

NotACPA

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Donor Account.

Concur.

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: Donor Account.

mshiggins

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Donor Accounts.

Me three.

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: Donor Account.

unknown

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Donor Accounts.

alright, that sound like it ticks most of the boxes. However its like a 401k in that I don't get specific holding/price info so its hard to keep the value current in Quicken.

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: Donor Account.

unknown

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Donor Accounts.

What's hard about it?

In fact without any "holding/price" you don't even need a brokerage account. A checking account will do too. You just adjust the cash balance when the statement comes in.

For an investment account that would just be gear (action) icon -> Update Cash Balance.

For a non investment account enter a transaction where the category is [Account] ("Account" is the name of the account you are in).

Update: Note you could use an asset account type too.

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: Donor Account.

NotACPA

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Donor Accounts.

IF you're running QWin,
instead of the "regular brokerage" that JM originally suggested, use a 401k account type ... and specify that you don't know the holdings.

IF you're running QMac, go with one of QPW's suggestions.

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: Donor Account.

smayer97

I'm not sure if all these account types are really necessary, as many of them differ mostly in name. I would suggest that one could select an account type by what it allows or tracks, e.g. tax related or not, security holdings or simply cash equivalent...This might keep the number of differing account types to a smaller set.

Jim Robinson

I'm not sure if all these account types are really necessary, as many of them differ mostly in name. I would suggest that one could select an account type by what it allows or tracks, e.g. tax related or not, security holdings or simply cash equivalent...This might keep the number of differing account types to a smaller set.

I respectfullu disagree. For example, consider the different types of insurance. A traditional life insurance policy has an associated costt and ttarget value, plus perhaps an expiration date or surrender value. Some policies only have value upon death. Some have cash values thta can be accessed anytime. Some are tax deferred. Some are tax free. These have different tracking and reporting purposes.

My ideal for a financial tracker is to have a single picture of all my finances.

smayer97

I'm not sure if all these account types are really necessary, as many of them differ mostly in name. I would suggest that one could select an account type by what it allows or tracks, e.g. tax related or not, security holdings or simply cash equivalent...This might keep the number of differing account types to a smaller set.

But part of the issue is that it is not possible to make any financial software designed to handle all the possible variations of products...that is simply unrealistic. Instead, financial software should be considered a bit more like a calculator...with possible multiple tools, like a toolbox, but leave it up to the individual to handle the putting together of the necessary tracking...

For example, with the several examples you gave, many of them have a cash value in common and may differ in when the cash is accessible. Quicken could have the tools to track the cash value but then leave the accessibility up to the user to apply.

I am not saying that there may not be some additional account types needed. What I am saying is that it may not be as many as you think to accomplish what you need.

Jim Robinson

I'm not sure if all these account types are really necessary, as many of them differ mostly in name. I would suggest that one could select an account type by what it allows or tracks, e.g. tax related or not, security holdings or simply cash equivalent...This might keep the number of differing account types to a smaller set.

Then we are essentially in agreement. Of course there is no way for any type of software to handle any and all permutations. That said, I've spent a great deal of my career working for software companies and have learned that if you don't over-share possible use-cases what you get is a very limited product. If, on the other hand, the software engineers/programmers understand all of those permutations they can either (1) create a framework capable of supporting those and others, or (2) at least build a foundation for easy expansion over time. If not... then they end up starting over each time.

Mike Lane

I'm not sure if all these account types are really necessary, as many of them differ mostly in name. I would suggest that one could select an account type by what it allows or tracks, e.g. tax related or not, security holdings or simply cash equivalent...This might keep the number of differing account types to a smaller set.

An insurance type might be helpful to allow these to be categorized separately. I track cash value of life policies as an ASSET. It works for me. Death benefit if I want to track is in the settings notes. Changes in cash value are manually updated. I would not want Life Insurance to appear as an Investment subcategory.

I also hold Notes Receivable as an ASSET, which works fine. Receivables is probably uncommon, so I don't think a separate type is high priority.

Likewise I'm not sure how to benefit from a Utility account. I can't think of it as an asset other than deposit. Customer deposits generally would not be material. Utilities are vendors and a separate account seems unnecessary. Tracking of payments can be performed via sorting or reporting.

Even so - I'll vote for this idea because I can see some value in an Insurance type. Thanks for idea.

NotACPA

I'm not sure if all these account types are really necessary, as many of them differ mostly in name. I would suggest that one could select an account type by what it allows or tracks, e.g. tax related or not, security holdings or simply cash equivalent...This might keep the number of differing account types to a smaller set.

The OP, who originally suggested a "Utility" account type simply doesn't understand accounting.
Accounts, in Q, represent assets and liabilities ... whereas your utility bill has an amount owed (which, true is a liability) but when you pay it, that liability goes to $0. So, the account balance would yo-yo constantly. Utility should be treated as an Expense, not an ongoing liability.

Jim Robinson

I'm not sure if all these account types are really necessary, as many of them differ mostly in name. I would suggest that one could select an account type by what it allows or tracks, e.g. tax related or not, security holdings or simply cash equivalent...This might keep the number of differing account types to a smaller set.

The originL poster has a degree in a counting, so your totally off. Also, if you are thinking of Quicken fromtnhe prospective of an accountant then you are missing point. Non-accountant users just want things to be simlified. Period. The recommendation of “utility” accounts is so that Quicken can automatically pull info about the kinds of bills (expenses) people have. As it stands, this info must be manually input.

Give that multiple Quicken competitors already have this capability, why exactly is it a bad thing?

mshiggins

I'm not sure if all these account types are really necessary, as many of them differ mostly in name. I would suggest that one could select an account type by what it allows or tracks, e.g. tax related or not, security holdings or simply cash equivalent...This might keep the number of differing account types to a smaller set.

All these extraneous account types are a big waste of time. Quicken Inc should not waste resources on this suggestion.

Roger M

I'm not sure if all these account types are really necessary, as many of them differ mostly in name. I would suggest that one could select an account type by what it allows or tracks, e.g. tax related or not, security holdings or simply cash equivalent...This might keep the number of differing account types to a smaller set.

@ mshiggins Agreed. There are certainly bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Mike Lane

I'm not sure if all these account types are really necessary, as many of them differ mostly in name. I would suggest that one could select an account type by what it allows or tracks, e.g. tax related or not, security holdings or simply cash equivalent...This might keep the number of differing account types to a smaller set.

Agree there are more pressing issues. The Insurance type should be a sub-category of ASSET like IRA is of Investments, if added. I just see this as a sorting feature and ability to add some unique information under settings.The sort is just a convenience. A data download option is not necessary. Some are one transaction a month others are one per year. Premiums are constant and can be scheduled. Values change but are not publicly traded securities. Not all companies I deal with provide value information online.

Utility expenses are already being added automatically when the payment is made. Mine are on auto-draft. The entry is made when I download bank transactions. I have a friend that uses budget pay with the utilities. They set up monthly recurring payments of the same amount. They only have to edit the schedule once per year. There are lots of ways to reduce manual entry.