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

anybody else having a miserable experience with quicken

Plampe

I have used it for approx 20 years and now it has become an ordeal. 1/2 the time multiple accounts don't download and I have to keep going in to reset, etc. I have several chase acct that I have tried to reauthorized multiple times and quicken keeps telling me that I need to do it despite the fact that I've received multiple emails from chase telling me it is done.[Removed-Rant/Third Party Question].

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

NotACPA

Why to you blame Q for your issues with Chase? It's CHASE, not Q, that decided to change the connection type ...which precipitated the problem.

splasher

So, Schwab, Bank of America, Discover AND Chase are all incompetent? I don't see where Quicken has completely clean hands in these issue, it may not be their fault entirely, but they are involved.

Barbara Lynch

I am finding that it takes forever to download transactions and to switch between accounts within Quicken. This is something that has shown up in the past two weeks. I am thinking that it has something to do with one of the recent updates from Quicken.

Chris_QPW

splasher said:

So, Schwab, Bank of America, Discover AND Chase are all incompetent? I don't see where Quicken has completely clean hands in these issue, it may not be their fault entirely, but they are involved.

I agree with the statement, and the biggest problem I have with Express Web Connect/Express Web Connect + is not being able to know which party(s) have the problem. In general, I think there is plenty of room for a lot of this to be the financial institution problem especially for Express Web Connect + because it is a standardized protocol where the financial institution is clearly the one generating the data that is transferred to Intuit using the FDX protocol. Unlike Express Web Connect there isn't any chance of Intuit's "scripts" pulling the wrong information parts of the financial institution's website.

But there is still the chance that Intuit/Quicken think the X data is in field Y when the financial institution has put it in field Z. Not mention confusion over what is "the online balance"/pending transactions.

And there is plenty of room for this to be a problem in Quicken (the program), Quicken servers(this is mobile sync after all), and whatever Intuit is doing with the data and passing it on to the Quicken servers.

But let's not lump all of these problems into the same bucket, clearly there are lots of bad things going on here.

There is the reauthorization process with Express Web Connect + where it doesn't work for some people or their accounts don't link right, or incorrect opening balance changes, or missing accounts, ... Certainly, both of these can be Quicken (the program) and the financial institution problems.

Then there are the missing transactions with no errors reported. Did the financial institutions not put the transactions into the flow because of the way they handle pending transactions for instance? Is it Quicken sync caching incorrectly? Something Inuit is doing with caching the transactions before passing them on to the Quicken servers?

FDX is a new protocol it takes people time to work out how it all is supposed to work, which fields are what and such and how it ties into their servers.

And note that your "incompetent" bucket holds completely different problems.

Discover never changed to Express Web Connect +. They dropped Direct Connect, but didn't go to Express Web Connect +, they just left the users with only Express Web Connect. And they were known to have problems with Express Web Connect for years. That is why people (including you) were recommending using Direct Connect when people reported problems with Discover/Express Web Connect. And then Quicken Inc now has this "reauthorized" process that isn't for going to Express Web Connect +. From what I can tell is they created a different process for changing over to try to make it smoother than telling people to just deactivate and reactive, but this isn't working as nice as they would like. You can tell these processes are different than going to Express Web Connect + because there isn't any logging into Discover to authorize this like there has to be for Express Web Connect +/FDX. So, to me, Discover "messing up" after forcing everyone to Express Web Connect is a given. It wasn't working in the past, there isn't any reason to believe it would work in the future when Direct Connect was dropped.
Capitol One was the first to go to Express Web Connect +/FDX. And yes, all of these changeovers have been terrible, that is what is the same, but past that, I don't see any Capitol One customers complaining about missing transactions or in some cases no transactions downloading at all. And the same for Schwab.
For Schwab which is investments only I have seen complaints that the transaction types aren't always correct especially for certain types of securities. But again, either everyone has given up, or most of the problems have been worked out.
When I see that both Chase and Bank of America and other Express Web Connect financial institutions are having all kinds of problems with the online balance it starts to seem to be something wrong with the whole system, but it is certainly really hard to pin down where that problem is exactly without being able to trace data through all these systems. And the same hold for no transactions downloading, and missing ones.

Plampe

It is not just ONE account.....it is MANY accounts that are not downloading correctly.....Chase is one that I have tried to fix at least 15 times to no avail. , It is at least 10 of my accounts that have been messed up and I've had to go thru line by line to see what is missing. Some of them I have managed to correct using reset etc some not but I'm tired of manually going thru them because they are not downloading. I also tired of paying an increasing annual premium for software that has gotten worse and worse. I use the home, business and rental version so I have lots of accounts. Not worth the price if I have to manually fix everything for months now. It is eating up too much time that I need to spend elsewhere. I agree....there is something wrong with the entire system. Both the banking side and the quicken side are to blame. [Removed - Rant]

Lsnau

Yes. The cloud based Quicken is awful. The old school local to your computer Quicken was much better and more reliable.

Greg_the_Geek

Lsnau said:

Yes. The cloud based Quicken is awful. The old school local to your computer Quicken was much better and more reliable.

@Lsnau, why do you think the current Quicken is cloud based? If you don't use Quicken Mobile or Quicken on the Web, it's still the same local Quicken software.

TMMac

The connections to FInancial Institutions and Quicken has been very inconsistent. It started with the big Charles Schwab migration earlier this year and to date there are still problems with downloading all the correct transactions. I've posted about E*Trade MFA issues where Quicken never prompts for the MFA code. Citbibank card downloads are consistently coming back CC-502. So that is 3 different financial institutions that are having a hard time communicating with Quicken. Keep in mind that Quicken moved to a yearly subscription service a few years ago so they are collecting a lot more money from us with a service that is very inconsistent.

Tom Young

@Chris_QPW

"I don't see any Capitol One customers complaining about missing transactions or in some cases no transactions downloading at all. And the same for Schwab."

No, there's been complaining about missing transactions and no downloading at all. I'm one of those complainers. For a while at

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7912566/to-whomever-in-quicken-deals-with-the-program-processing-ewc-for-schwab#latest

I was listing out specific problems but eventually stopped as it didn't seem to be doing much good. In messages between myself and Quicken Kathryn it's been acknowledged that multiple users have been experiencing the problems.

It's a work in process.