(Canadian

It was available in the past. It stopped about a year ago after banks updated connectionsWhat 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?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.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.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 onlineWhat 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.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.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.
Yes. And this is not at all the same as pending/processing transactions that are not related to recurring bills.steagl3, I assume you know about transaction reminders?
@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.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.
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.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).
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.)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
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.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.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.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.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.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.
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.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!
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.
We don't need to prove anything to you. The issue is that ANYTHING that changes Q processes is elaborate.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!
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!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 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?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!
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.
.