Oakmark Funds & Janus Transaction Download - Issues with Password [Edited]

I am running Quicken Classic Premier version 27.1.65.17 on Windows 10 Pro version 22H2 Build 19045.6691 64 bit and am facing the same problem with Janus Henderson.

Having same issue with Oakmark download. When I attempt to download from the Oakmark menu I am asked to input the Oakmark password. When I add the password, I get the below message. I am using Quicken Classic release 65.17 build 27.1.65.17 with the data file on my local machine.

Please add me to the ticket. Same issue

R65.17 Build 27.1.65.17

Did two patches take helped for a couple of tines.

Resetting one of the accounts does make it work for one or two times. Reset before doing the update. Does not fix in the long term.

Please add me to the ticket. Same issue with Janus accounts and inability to enter password.

R65.17 Build 27.1.65.17

Quicken Deluxe for Windows - just installed new update today 12/22 but the problem hasn't been erased

I've had a Janus account for decades. Never had a problem with one step update until the past couple of weeks. I've deleted and re-added my password in the vault, and when I try to update I get a popup that says you need to add the password for Janus, but there's no window to add the password, and I delete and re-add my password and still no dice.

How many pages of complaints does it take for Quicken to open an alert?

December 2025 release Version 65.29 (Build 27.1.65.29) still has the problem.

Back to Version 64.30.

@Quicken Kristina

Quicken Kristina, please add me to the Janus ticket for notification of issue resolution.

For everyone else, I've been through this before, at least twice, with Vanguard and with my local CU. Both had been technology rock stars and early adopters. My CU changed something and I can no longer download transactions from them. With Vanguard, there was a bit of an uproar and "tickets" were filed, and it was actually eventually restored to functionality.

But there is something everyone needs to understand about all this. "Kristina" seems to mention it and talk past it without actually explaining it. Not sure Kristina even really knows. There are several "connection" types, explained at this Quicken link:

https://www.quicken.com/support/how-quicken-connects-your-bank/

"Web Connect" is just logging in to the bank web site and following some transaction export/download process, hopefully to a quicken QFX file and then importing those transactions with a "File→Import" process. This is where I finally landed with my CU. The download file is very detailed and imports cleanly and was easier than I feared it would be, but you have to pick start/end dates for the download, and transactions on day-boundaries are easy to miss. (Each of my CU accounts had a missing transaction or two when it came time to reconcile this month.) The QFX file contains the bank account number, which matches up with quicken account information so that it knows where to import transactions to. Banks that only support other "download" generics like a CSV file will give you transactions, but getting them uploaded into a complex quicken file is problematic.

The "Direct Connect" option is a 2-way protocol that requires hardware/servers/software on the bank side to communicate directly with Quicken, and once they support this, they can authenticate with your Quicken and download transactions to specific accounts. The "2-way" nature of this is also what allows Quicken to generate changes to the bank, like bill pay, for example. Personally I've never used the "2-way" features to push changes from quicken to create bank transactions. I wouldn't care if that went away. But I really want the full transaction download capabilities. I believe that's what everyone in this thread has referred to and has enjoyed for decades and expects to have supported forever.

The downside of "Direct Connect" is that it requires willful partnership between two independent companies for it to work. And while it's cool for Quicken customers to get this ability to download details, I can see that this ability doesn't offer the BANK any direct benefits, except the indirect goodwill of it's customers. The BANK actually wants to be in control and curate this information to its customer/investors. They invest in their own web infrastructure to provide an online experience. And all they change and improve gets dragged down on by also having to maintain these older servers/protocols, which are probably being used by a smaller and smaller percentage of their customers.

When a BANK says "Enough!" and ends support for Direct Connect, that doesn't automatically imply they will supply the same capability via a "newer" protocol. And there is very little Quicken can do about it to provide you/us the the same experience.

There are newer supported communication methods, that I believe are designed to give improved TRANSACTION downloading, called "Express Web Connect" and "Express Web Connect +". I suspect that these are quicken's response, saying, "Hey Banks, if you don't like Direct Connect any more, how about EWC+? It's one-way communication instead of two, so that's simpler." I don't know the details under the hood, but it probably involves an API that lets Quicken query for transaction information in a formal way, rather than just by web-scraping. And maybe it's generic and open, and Quicken hopes to establish a new method that will entice bank-support. And if customers stomp and screen loud enough at the BANKS, they will either consider accellerating EWC+ support before dropping DirectConnect support.

But this is why both companies point at the other and say "it's their problem". Quicken points to the bank and provides generic "Kristina" responses that "the bank says they don't support Direct Connect" any more…talk to them". The BANK says "who's software is failing to perform their function? Quicken? talk to them…"

We Quicken customers have enjoyed seamless integration for so long and so broadly that we feel it to be a "right" for us to have it continue indefinitely. We don't pay the banks to support a secondary data access method, and we are annoyed at yearly Quicken subscription fee to pay them to keep the lights on. I get it. There hasn't been a "new" quicken feature that I've cared about in 20 years, besides transaction detail download. Dump the rest of the tool bloat-ware and let me download and balance my transactions in peace. Quicken realized that. I'll never pay for new features, but I'll pay to keep the lights on, so there's the subscription. But that's not nothing. What we are asking for is not trivial and it's not entirely in Quicken's control. But it is disappointing that within the last year, I've lost 3 of my financial services, and I suspect the writing is on the wall.

Here's what I would like:

1. Quicken, keep working urgently with bank partners to maintain transaction download, either by getting banks to continue supporting DirectConnect or to begin supporting EWC+.
2. Quicken, be honest and transparent about your challenges. This can't be a mystery to you, so why keep your loyal customers in the dark.
3. Quicken, if all else fails, encourage banks to support QFX download.
4. Quicken, please stop "allowing connection" to a bank that converts my account to "Simple Investing" mode. No one with existing transactions wants them to get auto-hidden. Auto-FAIL that process or allow the person to opt-in knowingly.
5. Quicken, clearly document on your official support pages what is happening now. Create a "wall of shame" for banks backing out of their current capabilities. Advertise proactively to us through the tool when changes happen. Don't let me spend hours trying to figure out if it's a network glitch or a bank change.
6. Customers: Complain to your banks. Report your deep-seated frustration at their changes and your willingness to leave.
7. Customers: Temper your "give me back what I want" attitude and understand the issues (helped by Quicken and Banks being more open and forthcoming).
8. Banks: Do what's right to support advanced external banking features. Work with Industry to help power users. Don't leave them in a lurch and point fingers like you don't know what happened.

Vanguard fixed their issues for now.

My CU, at least they support QFX download.

Janus, I hope we can create another uproar and get them to dial back their ambitions and restore capabilities. Janus has transaction download to CSV files….sigh.

Quicken, please don't make it a USER problem to discover these issues. My yearly subscription comes due in June, and if you can't stem the tide of banks dropping support for your tools, then there will be NO REASON for me to continue to pay you. It's literally the ONLY reason I pay you money, so that my downloads from ALL my financial companies continues to work. Figure it out.