(Canadian

I knew someone would ask so here you go.q.lurker said:I am having trouble visualizing your case in real world circumstances in part because of the CUSIP implications you have not included. Why would one broker send transactions for two different companies (different CUSIPs) but you would want those under one name in Quicken? If two brokerages are involved, even though they may name the security slightly differently, if they have the same CUSIP they should match to the one Quicken security.
Can you expand on the real world circumstances and identify how you handled the CUSIP and holdings portion of the QFX file you manufactured?
If security XYZa from the QFX file has CUSIP 123, and security XYZb has CUSIP 456, I don't see how Quicken could possibly map both those to Quicken security XYZ, which seems to be your desire.
(I am not clear how Quicken manages the security identification. From memory, I recall in the QFX file there was a section that related CUSIP to security name and then the holdings and transactions details referred to the CUSIP#, not the security name. That may vary by FI.)
Why can't you turn off downloading for the IRAs? I'm not aware of direct connect having a requirement that all accounts must be connected.q.lurker said:I am having trouble visualizing your case in real world circumstances in part because of the CUSIP implications you have not included. Why would one broker send transactions for two different companies (different CUSIPs) but you would want those under one name in Quicken? If two brokerages are involved, even though they may name the security slightly differently, if they have the same CUSIP they should match to the one Quicken security.
Can you expand on the real world circumstances and identify how you handled the CUSIP and holdings portion of the QFX file you manufactured?
If security XYZa from the QFX file has CUSIP 123, and security XYZb has CUSIP 456, I don't see how Quicken could possibly map both those to Quicken security XYZ, which seems to be your desire.
(I am not clear how Quicken manages the security identification. From memory, I recall in the QFX file there was a section that related CUSIP to security name and then the holdings and transactions details referred to the CUSIP#, not the security name. That may vary by FI.)
When I tried to stop downloading for just the IRAs a message came up saying that with direct connect I would have to call the brokerage to turn it off for some accounts.q.lurker said:I am having trouble visualizing your case in real world circumstances in part because of the CUSIP implications you have not included. Why would one broker send transactions for two different companies (different CUSIPs) but you would want those under one name in Quicken? If two brokerages are involved, even though they may name the security slightly differently, if they have the same CUSIP they should match to the one Quicken security.
Can you expand on the real world circumstances and identify how you handled the CUSIP and holdings portion of the QFX file you manufactured?
If security XYZa from the QFX file has CUSIP 123, and security XYZb has CUSIP 456, I don't see how Quicken could possibly map both those to Quicken security XYZ, which seems to be your desire.
(I am not clear how Quicken manages the security identification. From memory, I recall in the QFX file there was a section that related CUSIP to security name and then the holdings and transactions details referred to the CUSIP#, not the security name. That may vary by FI.)
If your brokerage doesn't charge for DC, then there's nothing for the brokerage to do. SO, just turn the IRA's off from within Q and ignore the warning message.q.lurker said:I am having trouble visualizing your case in real world circumstances in part because of the CUSIP implications you have not included. Why would one broker send transactions for two different companies (different CUSIPs) but you would want those under one name in Quicken? If two brokerages are involved, even though they may name the security slightly differently, if they have the same CUSIP they should match to the one Quicken security.
Can you expand on the real world circumstances and identify how you handled the CUSIP and holdings portion of the QFX file you manufactured?
If security XYZa from the QFX file has CUSIP 123, and security XYZb has CUSIP 456, I don't see how Quicken could possibly map both those to Quicken security XYZ, which seems to be your desire.
(I am not clear how Quicken manages the security identification. From memory, I recall in the QFX file there was a section that related CUSIP to security name and then the holdings and transactions details referred to the CUSIP#, not the security name. That may vary by FI.)
Thanks NotACPA. The message is misleading. Clicking OK will deactivate just that account.q.lurker said:I am having trouble visualizing your case in real world circumstances in part because of the CUSIP implications you have not included. Why would one broker send transactions for two different companies (different CUSIPs) but you would want those under one name in Quicken? If two brokerages are involved, even though they may name the security slightly differently, if they have the same CUSIP they should match to the one Quicken security.
Can you expand on the real world circumstances and identify how you handled the CUSIP and holdings portion of the QFX file you manufactured?
If security XYZa from the QFX file has CUSIP 123, and security XYZb has CUSIP 456, I don't see how Quicken could possibly map both those to Quicken security XYZ, which seems to be your desire.
(I am not clear how Quicken manages the security identification. From memory, I recall in the QFX file there was a section that related CUSIP to security name and then the holdings and transactions details referred to the CUSIP#, not the security name. That may vary by FI.)
The second message has been in-play for years. The intent seems to be toward those FIs that are charging their customers for PFS access. Those charges may continues even though the user has now deactivated the account. That is why Quicken tells the user to call the FI - to get any charges (and maybe access permissions?) changed.q.lurker said:I am having trouble visualizing your case in real world circumstances in part because of the CUSIP implications you have not included. Why would one broker send transactions for two different companies (different CUSIPs) but you would want those under one name in Quicken? If two brokerages are involved, even though they may name the security slightly differently, if they have the same CUSIP they should match to the one Quicken security.
Can you expand on the real world circumstances and identify how you handled the CUSIP and holdings portion of the QFX file you manufactured?
If security XYZa from the QFX file has CUSIP 123, and security XYZb has CUSIP 456, I don't see how Quicken could possibly map both those to Quicken security XYZ, which seems to be your desire.
(I am not clear how Quicken manages the security identification. From memory, I recall in the QFX file there was a section that related CUSIP to security name and then the holdings and transactions details referred to the CUSIP#, not the security name. That may vary by FI.)
Thanks q.l. For god sakes how hard is it to change an error message to actually be informative to the user.q.lurker said:I am having trouble visualizing your case in real world circumstances in part because of the CUSIP implications you have not included. Why would one broker send transactions for two different companies (different CUSIPs) but you would want those under one name in Quicken? If two brokerages are involved, even though they may name the security slightly differently, if they have the same CUSIP they should match to the one Quicken security.
Can you expand on the real world circumstances and identify how you handled the CUSIP and holdings portion of the QFX file you manufactured?
If security XYZa from the QFX file has CUSIP 123, and security XYZb has CUSIP 456, I don't see how Quicken could possibly map both those to Quicken security XYZ, which seems to be your desire.
(I am not clear how Quicken manages the security identification. From memory, I recall in the QFX file there was a section that related CUSIP to security name and then the holdings and transactions details referred to the CUSIP#, not the security name. That may vary by FI.)
My understanding is its a bit like mating elephants. There's a lot of noise, then nothing happens for two years.q.lurker said:I am having trouble visualizing your case in real world circumstances in part because of the CUSIP implications you have not included. Why would one broker send transactions for two different companies (different CUSIPs) but you would want those under one name in Quicken? If two brokerages are involved, even though they may name the security slightly differently, if they have the same CUSIP they should match to the one Quicken security.
Can you expand on the real world circumstances and identify how you handled the CUSIP and holdings portion of the QFX file you manufactured?
If security XYZa from the QFX file has CUSIP 123, and security XYZb has CUSIP 456, I don't see how Quicken could possibly map both those to Quicken security XYZ, which seems to be your desire.
(I am not clear how Quicken manages the security identification. From memory, I recall in the QFX file there was a section that related CUSIP to security name and then the holdings and transactions details referred to the CUSIP#, not the security name. That may vary by FI.)
roflq.lurker said:I am having trouble visualizing your case in real world circumstances in part because of the CUSIP implications you have not included. Why would one broker send transactions for two different companies (different CUSIPs) but you would want those under one name in Quicken? If two brokerages are involved, even though they may name the security slightly differently, if they have the same CUSIP they should match to the one Quicken security.
Can you expand on the real world circumstances and identify how you handled the CUSIP and holdings portion of the QFX file you manufactured?
If security XYZa from the QFX file has CUSIP 123, and security XYZb has CUSIP 456, I don't see how Quicken could possibly map both those to Quicken security XYZ, which seems to be your desire.
(I am not clear how Quicken manages the security identification. From memory, I recall in the QFX file there was a section that related CUSIP to security name and then the holdings and transactions details referred to the CUSIP#, not the security name. That may vary by FI.)