Can't tie more than 1 downloaded security to the same security

K.O. (Win-Premier)

When you download transactions that include investment transactions and there are securities in these transactions that Quicken cannot match to existing securities in your file Quicken pops up the Matching Security dialogue box where the user can either match the new securities to existing security or create new securities.

If you try and match more than 1 downloaded security to the same existing security the first downloaded security that you try and match will take.  The second and subsequent securities you try to match to the same security will act like they matched (i.e. you can select "Yes: this matches the existing security below radio button and select the security and click next) but when you go into the register what has happened is that you will see one transaction matched to that security but all subsequent transactions will have created new securities instead of matching to the security you selected.

To test this create a bogus security XYZ Company with the Symbol XYZ. Download transactions such that you have multiple transactions with securities that quicken cannot automatically match.  Go to the investment register which will pop up the matching securities dialogue box.  For each of the securities that do not match select the "Yes: this securities matches ..." radio button and select XYZ Company as the security to match it.  Do this for every security.  Once done in the register under the downloaded transactions section you will see one transaction related to XYZ Company and every other transaction that you tried to link to XYZ Company will actually be for a new security magically created.  Go to the security list and you can verify that even though you selected XYZ security Quicken created new securities.

q_lurker

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.)

K.O. (Win-Premier)

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.)

I knew someone would ask so here you go.

I'm having so many problems with different brokerage transactions (some are problems with what the brokerages pass in and some are with Quicken) and other Quicken issues related to investment transactions that the work of tracking the each transaction is becoming not worth the hassle.

So for my IRA I decided on 1/1/17 to stop entering each transaction and to just update the account value once a week.  And since there are no capital gains to track for IRAs I don't need the detail.

Problem 1:  I have a margin account and 2 IRAs at the same brokerage and with direct connect I cannot just turn off downloading for the IRAs and leave it on for the Margin.

So no big deal, I'll just delete the transactions when they download.  Ah, but that means every new security has to be added.

So no big deal, I'll just set up 1 bogus security, match every new transaction to it, delete the downloaded transactions, and leave the bogus security out there for this purpose (obviously with download quotes not checked).

And that's how I found the problem.  Only 14 new securities today to go in and find and delete after I delete the downloaded transactions.

So while this is a "work around" two questions for Quicken.  

1) why does the software care what security I link a downloaded transaction to?  Suppose instead of linking 14 transactions to 1 bogus security I linked the 14 transactions to 14 different securities (i.e. not the real ones that were downloaded).  Logic says it shouldn't make a difference.

2) why does the software allow you to link it to the bogus security if it is just going to override it and put back the original security (as downloaded from the broker).  If this creates some problem that I cannot foresee it should pop up an error not not just proceed letting you think you linked it and then unlinking it in the actual transaction.

While my scenario may not be common I recently helped a user who's brokerage used different CUSIPs for the same money market in different accounts.  If this user had 3 or 4 accounts he/she would need to link 4 downloaded securities into 1 security in Quicken unless they wanted to maintain 3 or 4 versions of the same money market fund.

ps.  I believe you are correct wrt CUSIP but best I know it only uses that for linking/matching downloaded securities to existing securities.  I don't believe CUSIP is used after the security is setup in Quicken.  in your scenario of XYZa and XYZb if XYZa is in quicken and XYZb is downloaded in a transaction Quicken will pop up the match security dialogue where you can setup XYZB as a new seucirty or match XYZb security downloaded to security XYZa and if you match it the transaction in your register will be for XYZa.  Now the next time XYZb is downloaded you will be asked the same question and again you'll have to choose XYZa again.

mshiggins

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.

K.O. (Win-Premier)

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.

NotACPA

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.

K.O. (Win-Premier)

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.

Here is the two prompts that I got when I went to deactivate the download for this account.  The first is a confirmation for when I clicked Deactivate.  The second pops up after I clicked OK on the first.

I'm not sure what the intent is of "To cancel the service, you must call your financial institution" but this message needs to be clearer or not even included.  It led me to believe that I could not deactivate the account unless I called the FI so I clicked cancel.

q_lurker

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.  

It is not a clear message.

K.O. (Win-Premier)

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.

mshiggins

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.

smayer97

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.)

rofl