Feature Request: Synchronizing Processing/Pending Transactions

I would like to request that Quicken work with the major financial institutions to synchronize all processing or pending transactions, to allow users to be able to see in Quicken what their available balance will be in the next day or two - not only what has already posted on their statement. 

Reasoning: Constantly being aware of your upcoming balance is really the only way to budget properly. If I have to log into my bank's website to calculate what my available balance will be after my processing charges post, it defeats the purpose of managing these balances in Quicken. Manually enter my pending charges in Quicken to calculate my future balance defeats the purpose of the Quicken Connect synchronizing feature, which is really why I paid for the subscription. 

Technical stuff: My primary bank, Bank of America, displays all processing charges and my future balance - I'm sure most other major banks do as well. This is data that the bank generates through whatever databasing system they utilize, exactly like the posted charges, just with a different metadata tag or similar databasing tool. Technically, it is absolutely possible to sync this data across to Quicken if the correct APIs are built or connected. Programmed correctly, when the transaction status on the bank's side changes from "processing" to "posted", then it would change on Quicken's side as well. I realize that this is information the bank "owns" and they may simply choose to not share that information with Quicken, for whatever reason. If that is the case, then I'll accept there is nothing Quicken can do about it, but it behooves us to at least try and build this bridge (in my opinion, of course). 

To close, I purchased Quicken to have a central location to manage my accounts and to be able to know not just how much money I have right now, but also what I will have in a day, five days, or five weeks. Reading all the similar threads about this issue in this forum, clearly a large quantity of people purchased Quicken for the same reasons. I believe this feature will enhance Quicken's value to current and prospective customers who are actively trying to manage their finances comprehensively. If you agree, please vote up this feature request!

(PS: I'm on Quicken 2018 Starter Edition for Mac, but this issue is OS and version agnostic.)
1
1 votes

No Status · Last Updated

«1

Comments

  • NotACPANotACPA SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2018
    What you're asking, in  effect, is that all of the major banks synchronize their overnight processing schedules.

    1) It won't happen
    2) Time zones make it almost impossible to happen.
    Q user since DOS version 5
    Now running Quicken Windows Subscription,  Home & Business
    Retired "Certified Information Systems Auditor" & Bank Audit VP
  • Helmut BodeHelmut Bode Member
    edited November 22

    What you're asking, in  effect, is that all of the major banks synchronize their overnight processing schedules.

    1) It won't happen
    2) Time zones make it almost impossible to happen.

    It was available in the past. It stopped about a year ago after banks updated connections
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    What you're asking, in  effect, is that all of the major banks synchronize their overnight processing schedules.

    1) It won't happen
    2) Time zones make it almost impossible to happen.

    Thank you for the info Helmut. Do you know exactly what changed as part of this update? And what was the reasoning for the change? 
  • Helmut BodeHelmut Bode Member
    edited November 22

    What you're asking, in  effect, is that all of the major banks synchronize their overnight processing schedules.

    1) It won't happen
    2) Time zones make it almost impossible to happen.

    I do not know the reason. I use Capital One Bank and it started, only downloading posted items, after Quicken announced that Cap One had changed to a new login.
  • splashersplasher SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 22

    What you're asking, in  effect, is that all of the major banks synchronize their overnight processing schedules.

    1) It won't happen
    2) Time zones make it almost impossible to happen.

    I have never known the downloads from a FI to include pending transactions.  For one thing, they change.  That is not a new change in the download process.

    As an example, you buy gas, there is generally a $1 pre-charge to make sure that the card is valid/not overdrawn.  They then do the transaction for the actual purchase, so there are now two transactions for the same purchase.

    Another example is a restaurant charge.  It goes in originally for the cost of the meal, pre-tip.  At some point later, it is changed to include the tip.  If you downloaded in between those two events, how is Quicken to know to delete the first and replace it with the second.
    -splasher  using Q since 1996 -  QW 2015, 2016, 2017 & Subscription  -  Win10
    -Questions? Check out the  Quicken Windows FAQ list

  • Helmut BodeHelmut Bode Member
    edited November 22

    What you're asking, in  effect, is that all of the major banks synchronize their overnight processing schedules.

    1) It won't happen
    2) Time zones make it almost impossible to happen.

    Splasher you are correct what pending charges or deposits are concerned. But Cap One used to download pending future scheduled transactions that they still display online
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    What you're asking, in  effect, is that all of the major banks synchronize their overnight processing schedules.

    1) It won't happen
    2) Time zones make it almost impossible to happen.

    @splasher - using your provided example and my proposed solution, Quicken would know to delete the first charge and replace it with the second charge because it would have two-way API connectivity to the bank's database. Whatever the bank does on their end gets mirrored on Quicken's end, just like it already does with posted transactions. It's really not that complicated to develop assuming (and these are big assumptions) the bank would open up its API in this way (or develop one if it doesn't currently exist) and that Quicken would invest the money to develop the connector on their end.
  • splashersplasher SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 22

    What you're asking, in  effect, is that all of the major banks synchronize their overnight processing schedules.

    1) It won't happen
    2) Time zones make it almost impossible to happen.

    @Helmut ; If you were seeing pending future scheduled transactions, were they scheduled bill pay transactions?  That can only happen with a Direct Connect download connection and CapOne no longer supports DC, in fact, they have changed over to a new API based Express Web Connect download connection and EWC is always a one way connection.

    @steagl3 ; Good luck with that concept, but the FIs don't want to support the cost of a Direct Connect connection, so going even more complicated would mean even more expense and I don't see that happening.
    -splasher  using Q since 1996 -  QW 2015, 2016, 2017 & Subscription  -  Win10
    -Questions? Check out the  Quicken Windows FAQ list

  • mshigginsmshiggins SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018
    steagl3, I assume you know about transaction reminders?
    Quicken user since Q1999. Currently using QW2017.
    Questions? Check out the  Quicken Windows FAQ list
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    steagl3, I assume you know about transaction reminders?

    Yes. And this is not at all the same as pending/processing transactions that are not related to recurring bills.
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    What you're asking, in  effect, is that all of the major banks synchronize their overnight processing schedules.

    1) It won't happen
    2) Time zones make it almost impossible to happen.

    @splasher - duly noted, but realize this is why I am submitting this as a feature request. If enough people vote this up, and the value of a two-way API integration is validated, then we may actually get some progress. 
  • Rick GumpertzRick Gumpertz Member ✭✭
    edited August 2018
    I'm guessing that he might have been referring to checking/savings accounts, not credit cards.  Many of my banks show on their websites my most recent transactions as Pending until they are processed overnight.  The following day they become confirmed.

    While they are less likely than credit card pending transactions to not be cleared, they can and do sometimes disappear overnight.  Hence, they probably shouldn't be downloaded to Quicken unil they really are cleared.

    I don't recall ever seeing pending transactions being downloaded to Quicken in the past.  If it did happen, that was a decision by the Financial Institution, not Quicken (or Intuit).
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    I'm guessing that he might have been referring to checking/savings accounts, not credit cards.  Many of my banks show on their websites my most recent transactions as Pending until they are processed overnight.  The following day they become confirmed.

    While they are less likely than credit card pending transactions to not be cleared, they can and do sometimes disappear overnight.  Hence, they probably shouldn't be downloaded to Quicken unil they really are cleared.

    I don't recall ever seeing pending transactions being downloaded to Quicken in the past.  If it did happen, that was a decision by the Financial Institution, not Quicken (or Intuit).

    Well, again, with a two-way API then anything that happens on the bank side happens on Quicken side. That includes Quicken removing those pending/processing transactions once they have cleared. With this tool, there really wouldn't be any issue with keeping the balances perfectly in sync, essentially in real time. Most of the time, you wouldn't even notice anything happening (unless you're sitting there staring at Quicken all day), but those times where you do want to notice it, it's there.

    Wouldn't you want to remember that you made 3 charges today, before making a 4th charge within 24 hours that overdrew your account, or otherwise impacted your budget? Wouldn't you want to be able to glance at Quicken to get that information and give yourself a very valuable reminder? This is the reasoning behind this, to avoid having to look at Quicken AND your online banking to determine your balance. I think it's a very reasonable request, one that Quicken users mention over and over, and a major reason people turn away from Quicken or don't purchase it at all. This is a win-win for Quicken and its users if this functionality was implemented.
  • ScooterlamScooterlam SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 22
    For me personally,  I would not use this proposed feature, as most of my pendings
    settle to posted status within a day.  I also take into consideration my
    budget before making a credit card purchase.   A pending transaction is still an "after the fact" indicator you may have overspent,   For me, not a practise or path to financial independence.   So, knowing my "pendings"  in near real time, isn't critical to my budgeting process or knowing how close I may be to my credit limit. 

    But...If Quicken were to pursue this.....I think part of a solution might require the FI to expose a reference unique shared by both the pending and posted transaction, so Quicken knows that the pending transaction is now a posted transaction and the final transaction amount is known.  This may then allow the pending transaction to be safely removed from the register, to avoid double dipping into the credit limit.  I would also suggest that downloaded pending transaction be a "checked' option for the end user.

    But, lots of pitfalls in achieving an accurate report in Quicken....As others stated, pending transactions can change once they are posted.
    Those traveling abroad can attest to this, probably due, in part, to currency variations.   Nearly all hotels and car rental companies often pre-approve estimated charges at check-in/reservation (and shows as pending)  that are often very different from the ultimate posted transaction. 

    Recently, on a trip abroad, I had multiple "pendings" from the same vendor for the
    same amount.  Eventually only one of those posted to my credit card.   Likewise,  in this same trip I had posted transactions (such as auto fuel) that had corresponding (and incorrect) pending transactions reported online for 5-10 days after posting.  This delay in removing a pending transaction is also not uncommon for some vendors.

    I'm giving some recent examples to illustrate the not so uncommon practices.  But in my long business travel career, I saw it all the time!  Given the vendor practises out there relating to how their "pending charges" are pushed to your card, would such a feature add any value to the goal of an accurately forecasted credit card
    balance?  Or, would you have to change the "practises" to fit the solution?  Or a little of both?

    Regards,

    Scott
    2018 QW r11.18
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    For me personally,  I would not use this proposed feature, as most of my pendings
    settle to posted status within a day.  I also take into consideration my
    budget before making a credit card purchase.   A pending transaction is still an "after the fact" indicator you may have overspent,   For me, not a practise or path to financial independence.   So, knowing my
    "pendings"  in near real time, isn't critical to my budgeting process or knowing how close I may be to my credit limit. 

    But...If Quicken
    were to pursue this.....I think part of a solution might require the FI
    to expose a reference unique shared by both the pending and posted
    transaction, so Quicken knows that the pending transaction is now a
    posted transaction and the final transaction amount is known.  This may
    then allow the pending transaction to be safely removed from the register, to
    avoid double dipping into the credit limit.  I would also suggest that
    downloaded pending transaction be a "checked' option for the end user.

    But,
    lots of pitfalls in achieving an accurate report in Quicken....As
    others stated, pending transactions can change once they are posted.
    Those traveling abroad can attest to this, probably due, in part, to
    currency variations.   Nearly all hotels and car rental companies often
    pre-approve estimated charges at check-in/reservation (and shows as pending)  that are often
    very different from the ultimate posted transaction. 

    Recently,
    on a trip abroad, I had multiple "pendings" from the same vendor for the
    same amount.  Eventually only one of those posted to my credit card.  
    Likewise,  in this same trip I had posted transactions (such as auto
    fuel) that had corresponding (and incorrect) pending transactions
    reported online for 5-10 days after posting.  This delay in removing a
    pending transaction is also not uncommon for some vendors.

    I'm

    giving some recent examples to illustrate the not so uncommon
    practices.  But in my long business travel career, I saw
    it all the time!  Given the vendor practises out there relating to how
    their "pending charges" are pushed to your card, would such a feature
    add any value to the goal of an accurately forecasted credit card
    balance?  Or, would you have to change the "practises" to fit the
    solution?  Or a little of both?

    Regards,

    Scott
    2018 QW r11.18

    Thanks for your input Scott and I appreciate your perspective! I completely agree this should be an option for the user, not some new default practice. And yes, for international travel, it could become a little cumbersome with how long it takes for some of those charges to calculate and then post. (Though, I would just turn off this feature if I was traveling abroad.)

    However just to clarify, I am speaking specifically about checking accounts (I should have specified that at the beginning) which, typically, have a 24 to 48 hour "pending" period before certain charges are posted. These charges usually do not change, unless it's a restaurant or similar charge with a tip that hasn't been processed yet. But even then, having true API connectivity between your FI and Quicken would be able to handle those situations and the API would adjust Quicken's balance accordingly, as soon as it changes on FI side. I fail to see why that would be a bad thing - it's simply keeping both databases in sync.

    Finally, that's great that you're able to budget without needing to worry about any pending charges you might have floating around out there. FWIW, so am I, but that's beside the point. The point is, Quicken should reflect what your own bank shows you. If Quicken is always 24-48 hours behind your bank, then you cannot accurately depend on Quicken for determining your "real time" or "near future" balance. This is the core issue I hope to raise awareness about.
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited October 2018
    Just wanted to clarify something for folks who may not be understanding the exact reason I am asking for this feature. Here is a scenario that hopefully illustrates my point better:

    1. Before I go to work in the morning I check Quicken for my balance. I've got $1,000 in my checking account, great. Let's say I've been saving up to buy a new TV and now I have just enough.

    2. Throughout the day I spend $54.73 on gas, $21.81 on lunch, and $26.03 at the movies after work. 

    3. The next day I check Quicken. My balance is still $1,000. I don't remember exactly what I spent everywhere recently because I'm relying on Quicken to automatically download my spending. 

    4. (Now this is the very theoretical part, but it illustrates the point) - Later that day, I decide to order the new TV that costs $950 after tax and shipping.

    5. The following day, I look in Quicken and see that I overdrew my account, because those pending charges from two days ago finally posted. 

    Again, this is a very theoretical and obviously not very smart spending scenario. But realize that we all spend, plan, and budget differently. Plenty of people living paycheck to paycheck do not have the luxury of not caring about when all their transactions post or seeing what their balance is in real time.

    Hopefully now the reasoning is clearer behind giving people the option to see their pending charges in Quicken, just like they can in their FI accounts. Again, this is literally just database synchronization, to prevent you from having to log in to your banks and to allow you to manage everything from Quicken. 

  • Hopeful1Hopeful1 Member
    edited November 22

    Just wanted to clarify something for folks who may not be understanding the exact reason I am asking for this feature. Here is a scenario that hopefully illustrates my point better:

    1. Before I go to work in the morning I check Quicken for my balance. I've got $1,000 in my checking account, great. Let's say I've been saving up to buy a new TV and now I have just enough.

    2. Throughout the day I spend $54.73 on gas, $21.81 on lunch, and $26.03 at the movies after work. 

    3. The next day I check Quicken. My balance is still $1,000. I don't remember exactly what I spent everywhere recently because I'm relying on Quicken to automatically download my spending. 

    4. (Now this is the very theoretical part, but it illustrates the point) - Later that day, I decide to order the new TV that costs $950 after tax and shipping.

    5. The following day, I look in Quicken and see that I overdrew my account, because those pending charges from two days ago finally posted. 

    Again, this is a very theoretical and obviously not very smart spending scenario. But realize that we all spend, plan, and budget differently. Plenty of people living paycheck to paycheck do not have the luxury of not caring about when all their transactions post or seeing what their balance is in real time.

    Hopefully now the reasoning is clearer behind giving people the option to see their pending charges in Quicken, just like they can in their FI accounts. Again, this is literally just database synchronization, to prevent you from having to log in to your banks and to allow you to manage everything from Quicken. 

    But what if your $54.73 for gas has also a $1 pending authorization charge added in the pending transactions?  So now your "pending" is $55.73...until it actually gets posted.  

    What if your lunch isn't $21.81, but $21.81 PLUS tip which really makes it $25.81?  So now your "pending" is $21.81, but in reality it's $25.81.

    And what if your $26.03 pending movie transaction somehow is "pending" TWICE (as sometimes happens)?  So now your "pending" is $52.06 when in reality it's $26.03. 

    If you know you've spent close to $100, with a previous $1000 balance, you don't remember that you only REALLY have $900 in your account and can't afford that $950 TV?

    You're right... it's not a very smart spending scenario.

    I completely understand living paycheck to paycheck.  What I don't understand is that you're NOT okay with having pending transactions NOT counted because it gives you an incorrect true balance...but yet you're absolutely fine WITH incorrect pending transactions being downloaded and STILL giving you an incorrect true balance.

    Seems wrong...maybe even both ways.  
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    Just wanted to clarify something for folks who may not be understanding the exact reason I am asking for this feature. Here is a scenario that hopefully illustrates my point better:

    1. Before I go to work in the morning I check Quicken for my balance. I've got $1,000 in my checking account, great. Let's say I've been saving up to buy a new TV and now I have just enough.

    2. Throughout the day I spend $54.73 on gas, $21.81 on lunch, and $26.03 at the movies after work. 

    3. The next day I check Quicken. My balance is still $1,000. I don't remember exactly what I spent everywhere recently because I'm relying on Quicken to automatically download my spending. 

    4. (Now this is the very theoretical part, but it illustrates the point) - Later that day, I decide to order the new TV that costs $950 after tax and shipping.

    5. The following day, I look in Quicken and see that I overdrew my account, because those pending charges from two days ago finally posted. 

    Again, this is a very theoretical and obviously not very smart spending scenario. But realize that we all spend, plan, and budget differently. Plenty of people living paycheck to paycheck do not have the luxury of not caring about when all their transactions post or seeing what their balance is in real time.

    Hopefully now the reasoning is clearer behind giving people the option to see their pending charges in Quicken, just like they can in their FI accounts. Again, this is literally just database synchronization, to prevent you from having to log in to your banks and to allow you to manage everything from Quicken. 

    I get your point, believe me, and in no way am I saying that pending balances are ALWAYS 100% accurate. But as it stands right now, I am constantly checking my BoA balance with my mobile app or on my laptop to find the "truest" balance, because Quicken is 2 days behind - meaning, the balance I'm seeing in my BoA account is ALWAYS different than Quicken's and usually much more helpful to look at it because it gives me a snapshot of my spending over the previous 48 hours and what my actual balance will be after those charges post.

    I think we are agreeing on some core concepts here - like how this is a very stupid spending example, haha - but we're not seeing things the same way in terms of planning for our future balance. I want to know, at any time of the day, how much money I will have in my account in 2 days, or longer. I currently cannot do that without manually entering my debit transactions as I make them. I used to use Quicken Essentials for Mac for years, and ONLY did manual entries like a traditional check ledger, with no Quicken bank connections, for this exact reason. It kept me constantly aware of my future balance so that I could plan and budget more accurately than if I had waited two days for everything in Quicken to sync up with my bank. It was incredibly time consuming and frustrating, and I finally threw in the towel recently and bought the latest version of Quicken to see if anything on the sync side had improved. And, sadly, it hadn't - though it's interesting to see folks like you say this is a good thing when it really isn't for me, based on the way I track and plan for my spending. 
  • QPWQPW Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 22

    Just wanted to clarify something for folks who may not be understanding the exact reason I am asking for this feature. Here is a scenario that hopefully illustrates my point better:

    1. Before I go to work in the morning I check Quicken for my balance. I've got $1,000 in my checking account, great. Let's say I've been saving up to buy a new TV and now I have just enough.

    2. Throughout the day I spend $54.73 on gas, $21.81 on lunch, and $26.03 at the movies after work. 

    3. The next day I check Quicken. My balance is still $1,000. I don't remember exactly what I spent everywhere recently because I'm relying on Quicken to automatically download my spending. 

    4. (Now this is the very theoretical part, but it illustrates the point) - Later that day, I decide to order the new TV that costs $950 after tax and shipping.

    5. The following day, I look in Quicken and see that I overdrew my account, because those pending charges from two days ago finally posted. 

    Again, this is a very theoretical and obviously not very smart spending scenario. But realize that we all spend, plan, and budget differently. Plenty of people living paycheck to paycheck do not have the luxury of not caring about when all their transactions post or seeing what their balance is in real time.

    Hopefully now the reasoning is clearer behind giving people the option to see their pending charges in Quicken, just like they can in their FI accounts. Again, this is literally just database synchronization, to prevent you from having to log in to your banks and to allow you to manage everything from Quicken. 

    steagl3 frankly Quicken isn't the right tool for you, at least not at this time.
    And there are so many barrier that it is highly unlikely this will change for at least many years.

    Quicken has never been "real time".  If you need that you should be using your financial institution's mobile app or website.

    Some of the barriers:
    1. The financial institutions already have agreements and planned "resources" that they are not likely to change.
    2. There is currently no standard for this that all the financial institutions agree to, and so the agreement for this would have be worked out with each financial institution, which means even if a given financial institution agrees there mostly like end up being many "agree methods" causing even more problems.
    3. The downloading of transactions and interfacing with financial institutions is supplied by Intuit, not Quicken Inc.  They can only ask as a "customer" to have such a change made.  One I might add that would most likely affect Intuit's QuickBooks customers that might not feel the same way you do about pending transactions.
    4. There would have to be a way to remove pending transactions that don't go through or provide a system that allows you to see the transactions/balances without "recording them".  Maybe like showing the reminders in the register.  In any case this would be a pretty major change to the way Quicken works.

    BTW the OFX (Direct Connect was mentioned)  The latest version has provisions for this, but even setting such standards doesn't mean it will get done.  There are only about 2,400 financial institutions supporting OFX/QFX/Direct Connect, and there are over 35,000 financial institutions in the US alone. And of the ones that do support it, lots of them are still using 1.0 version of it.  The new pending provisions are in 2.2.  And even in that version it is optional.  I even doubt there are very many financial institutions that are supporting the 2.2 version, at least in the US.  In the EU that would be a different story where the EU has mandated that the financial institutions support one of two standards for downloading transactions.

    For reference here is what the OFX standard says on the subject.

    image
  • Rick GumpertzRick Gumpertz Member ✭✭
    edited October 2018
    My feeling is that Quicken should work on reliability before they work on a change that might require the programmers at many FIs to change their code to provide a marginally useful feature.

    By the way, if you are worried about your available balance, then what about checks you have written that the payee hasn't yet deposited?  Should Quicken also contact all your payees to see whether they are about to deposit a check you wrote?  ;- )

    Asking for an elaborate new mechanism to achieve a marginally more current available balance that can never be truly current seems like a waste!
  • Rick GumpertzRick Gumpertz Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    Just wanted to clarify something for folks who may not be understanding the exact reason I am asking for this feature. Here is a scenario that hopefully illustrates my point better:

    1. Before I go to work in the morning I check Quicken for my balance. I've got $1,000 in my checking account, great. Let's say I've been saving up to buy a new TV and now I have just enough.

    2. Throughout the day I spend $54.73 on gas, $21.81 on lunch, and $26.03 at the movies after work. 

    3. The next day I check Quicken. My balance is still $1,000. I don't remember exactly what I spent everywhere recently because I'm relying on Quicken to automatically download my spending. 

    4. (Now this is the very theoretical part, but it illustrates the point) - Later that day, I decide to order the new TV that costs $950 after tax and shipping.

    5. The following day, I look in Quicken and see that I overdrew my account, because those pending charges from two days ago finally posted. 

    Again, this is a very theoretical and obviously not very smart spending scenario. But realize that we all spend, plan, and budget differently. Plenty of people living paycheck to paycheck do not have the luxury of not caring about when all their transactions post or seeing what their balance is in real time.

    Hopefully now the reasoning is clearer behind giving people the option to see their pending charges in Quicken, just like they can in their FI accounts. Again, this is literally just database synchronization, to prevent you from having to log in to your banks and to allow you to manage everything from Quicken. 

    Don't you enter your checks, debit transactions, and deposits into your checkbook?  That is what it is for!  Alternatively (or in addition) enter them into Quicken manually every evening so your available balance will be correct the next morning.

    if you don't maintain your own records, aren't you going to be screwed anyway if the bank enters a large check or debit {that you forgot about) directly without having it appear as Pending for a day or two?

    What if your assume a $1,000 balance and your spouse does too and you both spend the same money in one day?

    Ever hear of overdraft protection?
  • smayer97smayer97 SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2018
    I have to admit that I do not fully understand the point of arguing against a feature request, especially if it is an optional feature, especially when it is antagonistic; if you want to use it, use it, if not, don't. 

    Ultimately, the choice to implement a feature is a business decision that mostly would be based on a cost/benefit analysis (CBA) vs implementing something else, to which none of us are privy to. These decisions are also weighed against other business needs, such as mitigating business risks or planning for future developments (e.g. split from Intuit, migration off Intuit servers, building infrastructure needed for future feature developments like budget syncing via the Mobile app). The CBA includes determining if this feature would help increase or retain customers.

    Presenting alternatives to achieving the same or similar results makes sense and would be meaningful, as the alternative may be good enough for some or many, naturally dissuading them from needing to vote for a feature, and serves to assist in the CBA.

    Presenting issues that would contribute to the cost might make sense to raise awareness to Quicken (no real benefit to other users) of issues they may not have considered, though most issues are typically obvious enough that Quicken probably does not need assistance in that regard.

    But arguing that a request for feature A would take away resources from working on feature B or how much resource would need to be allocated to implement a feature does not seem an effective way to influence business decisions, especially since again none of us are truly privy to all the factors involved.

    After all, if there is enough interest in feature A over feature B, no arguing against feature A is going to dissuade its implementation if the CBA makes sense (again especially if it is an optional feature). And arguing against feature A in the hopes that this will keep the votes down seems meaningless because if someone wants a feature, they will still vote for it. Instead, the better approach is to influence and increase the demand for feature B to be greater than feature A. Anything else is just presenting opinions that won't weigh in much IMO... that is what votes are for.

    Also note that the number of votes is not the only criterion used to make business decisions. Even low demand features get implemented because they make sense from a UX perspective or other reason. 

    So I think it would be far more beneficial to maintain a positive atmosphere in the conversations, not taking away from still pointing out any of the meaningful issues mentioned above, as is fitting. 

    Anyway, just my 5¢ worth (no pennies in Canada, aye).

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

    (Canadian user since '92, STILL using QM2007)

    Have Questions? Check out these FAQs:
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    Just wanted to clarify something for folks who may not be understanding the exact reason I am asking for this feature. Here is a scenario that hopefully illustrates my point better:

    1. Before I go to work in the morning I check Quicken for my balance. I've got $1,000 in my checking account, great. Let's say I've been saving up to buy a new TV and now I have just enough.

    2. Throughout the day I spend $54.73 on gas, $21.81 on lunch, and $26.03 at the movies after work. 

    3. The next day I check Quicken. My balance is still $1,000. I don't remember exactly what I spent everywhere recently because I'm relying on Quicken to automatically download my spending. 

    4. (Now this is the very theoretical part, but it illustrates the point) - Later that day, I decide to order the new TV that costs $950 after tax and shipping.

    5. The following day, I look in Quicken and see that I overdrew my account, because those pending charges from two days ago finally posted. 

    Again, this is a very theoretical and obviously not very smart spending scenario. But realize that we all spend, plan, and budget differently. Plenty of people living paycheck to paycheck do not have the luxury of not caring about when all their transactions post or seeing what their balance is in real time.

    Hopefully now the reasoning is clearer behind giving people the option to see their pending charges in Quicken, just like they can in their FI accounts. Again, this is literally just database synchronization, to prevent you from having to log in to your banks and to allow you to manage everything from Quicken. 

    @QPW - thank you for the super insightful response, and that one-sheet you shared is really helpful to see how OFX protocol operates and what its limitations are. You clearly are more knowledgeable than I on this subject and therefore I can't really speak to OFX or these technical challenges. I would just say what I am suggesting is modern API connectivity which this does not sound like it is utilizing. I could be wrong, but this sounds more like traditional server-to-server communication which has all sorts of pitfalls and challenges associated with it.

    Still, you are probably right about the overall feasibility of this feature getting implemented everywhere. Certainly, some banks might jump on board and some might not. Intuit might not at all. But the only way to find out is to see how many people support this feature and see if it's enough for Intuit to act on it, or at least respond to it.
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    My feeling is that Quicken should work on reliability before they work on a change that might require the programmers at many FIs to change their code to provide a marginally useful feature.

    By the way, if you are worried about your available balance, then what about checks you have written that the payee hasn't yet deposited?  Should Quicken also contact all your payees to see whether they are about to deposit a check you wrote?  ;- )

    Asking for an elaborate new mechanism to achieve a marginally more current available balance that can never be truly current seems like a waste!

    1. I don't write checks therefore I am not concerned about that scenario. I do send e-checks via my bank's Bill Pay, but those get posted within a day of being issued as they automatically land in the vendor's account.
    2. Prove to me that this is an "elaborate" new mechanism. I've laid out a fairly straightforward proposition on why this would not be elaborate, though of course it would require a lot of cooperation across the board. 
    3. I get that you don't like this idea - you've made that abundantly clear. I am not going to stop supporting this idea though, so either we can continue debating the merits of this indefinitely, or we can simply agree to disagree and move on.
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    Just wanted to clarify something for folks who may not be understanding the exact reason I am asking for this feature. Here is a scenario that hopefully illustrates my point better:

    1. Before I go to work in the morning I check Quicken for my balance. I've got $1,000 in my checking account, great. Let's say I've been saving up to buy a new TV and now I have just enough.

    2. Throughout the day I spend $54.73 on gas, $21.81 on lunch, and $26.03 at the movies after work. 

    3. The next day I check Quicken. My balance is still $1,000. I don't remember exactly what I spent everywhere recently because I'm relying on Quicken to automatically download my spending. 

    4. (Now this is the very theoretical part, but it illustrates the point) - Later that day, I decide to order the new TV that costs $950 after tax and shipping.

    5. The following day, I look in Quicken and see that I overdrew my account, because those pending charges from two days ago finally posted. 

    Again, this is a very theoretical and obviously not very smart spending scenario. But realize that we all spend, plan, and budget differently. Plenty of people living paycheck to paycheck do not have the luxury of not caring about when all their transactions post or seeing what their balance is in real time.

    Hopefully now the reasoning is clearer behind giving people the option to see their pending charges in Quicken, just like they can in their FI accounts. Again, this is literally just database synchronization, to prevent you from having to log in to your banks and to allow you to manage everything from Quicken. 

    @Rick - I am not really appreciating the condescending tone just because you don't like my suggestion. What is it with this idea that makes people so upset? I'm simply calling for database synchronization through API connectivity and leave it as an option for the user - not a default behavior. If Intuit was to do this and you didn't like it, you wouldn't have to use it. How does that negatively affect you? Answer: It doesn't.

    Also, to your first point: If you had read my previous post thoroughly you would see that this is exactly what I did for a number of years. Manual transaction entry in Quicken and comparing against my FI website. Guess what? That gets old really fast. Quicken enables users to automatically download transactions from their FI's, saving me valuable data entry time. As I mentioned in my very first comment about this, manually entering day-to-day (not scheduled) transactions into Quicken defeats the purpose of the automatic FI sync. If you don't know what your real-time balance is, what is the point of the auto download? You already have all those transaction in your FI website, right? If you only use Quicken as a reporting/metrics tool, or perhaps a long-term budget tool, that's fine and certainly one way to utilize it. However, I and many others I know who have tried Quicken were hoping we could use it as a way to consolidate multiple accounts in one area and have at least near real-time reporting on our balances. It provides this, but on a 2 day delay compared to the FI. For me, that is not enough, thus this feature request. 

  • NotACPANotACPA SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 22

    My feeling is that Quicken should work on reliability before they work on a change that might require the programmers at many FIs to change their code to provide a marginally useful feature.

    By the way, if you are worried about your available balance, then what about checks you have written that the payee hasn't yet deposited?  Should Quicken also contact all your payees to see whether they are about to deposit a check you wrote?  ;- )

    Asking for an elaborate new mechanism to achieve a marginally more current available balance that can never be truly current seems like a waste!

    We don't need to prove anything to you.  The issue is that ANYTHING that changes Q processes is elaborate.
    Q user since DOS version 5
    Now running Quicken Windows Subscription,  Home & Business
    Retired "Certified Information Systems Auditor" & Bank Audit VP
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    I have to admit that I do not fully understand the point of arguing against a feature request, especially if it is an optional feature, especially when it is antagonistic; if you want to use it, use it, if not, don't. 

    Ultimately, the choice to implement a feature is a business decision that mostly would be based on a cost/benefit analysis (CBA) vs implementing something else, to which none of us are privy to. These decisions are also weighed against other business needs, such as mitigating business risks or planning for future developments (e.g. split from Intuit, migration off Intuit servers, building infrastructure needed for future feature developments like budget syncing via the Mobile app). The CBA includes determining if this feature would help increase or retain customers.

    Presenting alternatives to achieving the same or similar results makes sense and would be meaningful, as the alternative may be good enough for some or many, naturally dissuading them from needing to vote for a feature, and serves to assist in the CBA.

    Presenting issues that would contribute to the cost might make sense to raise awareness to Quicken (no real benefit to other users) of issues they may not have considered, though most issues are typically obvious enough that Quicken probably does not need assistance in that regard.

    But arguing that a request for feature A would take away resources from working on feature B or how much resource would need to be allocated to implement a feature does not seem an effective way to influence business decisions, especially since again none of us are truly privy to all the factors involved.

    After all, if there is enough interest in feature A over feature B, no arguing against feature A is going to dissuade its implementation if the CBA makes sense (again especially if it is an optional feature). And arguing against feature A in the hopes that this will keep the votes down seems meaningless because if someone wants a feature, they will still vote for it. Instead, the better approach is to influence and increase the demand for feature B to be greater than feature A. Anything else is just presenting opinions that won't weigh in much IMO... that is what votes are for.

    Also note that the number of votes is not the only criterion used to make business decisions. Even low demand features get implemented because they make sense from a UX perspective or other reason. 

    So I think it would be far more beneficial to maintain a positive atmosphere in the conversations, not taking away from still pointing out any of the meaningful issues mentioned above, as is fitting. 

    Anyway, just my 5¢ worth (no pennies in Canada, aye).

    Thank you smayer97 for the input. It's refreshing to hear such a balanced and logical voice after so much dissent. I'm honestly a bit surprised that so many people are aggressively against this particular feature, but I still haven't seen a legitimate argument that it would harm the Quicken experience or otherwise be a detriment to the product. From what I can gather, it's all about how they do things and how they don't want to change how they do things (which they wouldn't, as this would indeed be optional). I would rather have a discussion than a debate, a back and forth of ideas and proposed solutions. Instead, it's mostly been "NO NO NO" - that doesn't quite help me refine the idea, bring up technical discussion, or get my message across to those who are more ambivalent. I hope you're right that people coming into this thread will still be able to see the value in this feature, but if not, at least I tried!
  • steagl3steagl3 Member ✭✭
    edited November 22

    My feeling is that Quicken should work on reliability before they work on a change that might require the programmers at many FIs to change their code to provide a marginally useful feature.

    By the way, if you are worried about your available balance, then what about checks you have written that the payee hasn't yet deposited?  Should Quicken also contact all your payees to see whether they are about to deposit a check you wrote?  ;- )

    Asking for an elaborate new mechanism to achieve a marginally more current available balance that can never be truly current seems like a waste!

    If you or anyone else is going to make a claim about something, then provide evidence to back it up. Otherwise it's just conjecture. Unless you're a Product Manager, Software Engineer or DevOps/Infrastructure employee in a highly advanced development environment, then you really can't claim to know exactly what the complexity of this API integration would be, can you? 

    The attitude of some of you responding to this feature request continuously surprises me. There is no need to get personal or to imply that your preferred method of doing things is better than others' preferred methods, or that X is impossible, or Y is going to ruin the product. Simply don't vote and move on. Unless your'e giving me verifiable, meaningful and insightful technical or financial information (like QPW did), then it's kind of a waste of your time to keep posting negative feedback. 
  • SherlockSherlock SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2018
    I wish GetSatisfaction offered the ability to vote against an idea...

    I don't think its useful to have Quicken attempting to aggregate pending data from multiple financial institutions.  Users interested in maintaining accurate accounts in Quicken for budgeting would be well advised to do so manually (perhaps using the Mobile app).


    Quicken user since 1997
    Premier on Windows 10
  • QPWQPW Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 22

    I have to admit that I do not fully understand the point of arguing against a feature request, especially if it is an optional feature, especially when it is antagonistic; if you want to use it, use it, if not, don't. 

    Ultimately, the choice to implement a feature is a business decision that mostly would be based on a cost/benefit analysis (CBA) vs implementing something else, to which none of us are privy to. These decisions are also weighed against other business needs, such as mitigating business risks or planning for future developments (e.g. split from Intuit, migration off Intuit servers, building infrastructure needed for future feature developments like budget syncing via the Mobile app). The CBA includes determining if this feature would help increase or retain customers.

    Presenting alternatives to achieving the same or similar results makes sense and would be meaningful, as the alternative may be good enough for some or many, naturally dissuading them from needing to vote for a feature, and serves to assist in the CBA.

    Presenting issues that would contribute to the cost might make sense to raise awareness to Quicken (no real benefit to other users) of issues they may not have considered, though most issues are typically obvious enough that Quicken probably does not need assistance in that regard.

    But arguing that a request for feature A would take away resources from working on feature B or how much resource would need to be allocated to implement a feature does not seem an effective way to influence business decisions, especially since again none of us are truly privy to all the factors involved.

    After all, if there is enough interest in feature A over feature B, no arguing against feature A is going to dissuade its implementation if the CBA makes sense (again especially if it is an optional feature). And arguing against feature A in the hopes that this will keep the votes down seems meaningless because if someone wants a feature, they will still vote for it. Instead, the better approach is to influence and increase the demand for feature B to be greater than feature A. Anything else is just presenting opinions that won't weigh in much IMO... that is what votes are for.

    Also note that the number of votes is not the only criterion used to make business decisions. Even low demand features get implemented because they make sense from a UX perspective or other reason. 

    So I think it would be far more beneficial to maintain a positive atmosphere in the conversations, not taking away from still pointing out any of the meaningful issues mentioned above, as is fitting. 

    Anyway, just my 5¢ worth (no pennies in Canada, aye).

    but I still haven't seen a legitimate argument that it would harm the Quicken experience or otherwise be a detriment to the product. 
    .
    Frankly I'm personally not "against" the idea, in the sense that if it was in and working properly, and optional it wouldn't affect how I or for that matter I would think others here use Quicken.

    But the world isn't that simple.

    The feature isn't in, and isn't "working properly".

    Many of the long time users know the history of Quicken.  As in they try to put in features, and things get worse, not better, especially when that feature is complicated.  And even more true if the feature is complicated by the fact that "external forces" beyond their control make something unreliable.

    Talk to anyone about Express Web Connect, Online Bills, Quicken Mobile and see how they are all complicated by the fact that they are in fact not very reliable when you consider the use over the whole user base, and time.

    And there is also the consideration of what doesn't get done.  It very clear that Quicken Inc can't do everything that is currently on their plate.  So, each project like this they take on is time that isn't spent on fixing current features that have long since needed tending to.

    Personally I rather have a program that has solid working features than one that has everything, but none of it is reliable.

    Given all the roadblocks that would make that not possible for this feature, I have hard time seeing how it would benefit anyone.

    Quicken's current data sources aren't "real time", so even if a "pending transactions" feature was put in, most likely it would always be lagging behind.  Which I think the people really want the pending transactions to show wouldn't find acceptable.

    Sort of reminds me of the "Spending Without Taxes" feature they put in, and made the default on the Spending tab.  I don't know who asked for the feature, but I'm sure they didn't want their contribution to charity to be excluded.  But all Quicken Inc had to go on was did a category have a tax line or not.  Sure if they had put in some extra customizing with some other field it might have been a good idea.  But they didn't.  That tends to be the Quicken way.

    Smayer97 is probably right that maybe people should just let a feature be suggested and not have all the negative feedback, but on the other hand it might just be the kind of feedback Quicken Inc needs to do it right, if they do it at all.
Sign In or Register to comment.