|
Posted by Oilcan on July 6, 2006, 11:41 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Hi Fred!
Personal financial management is centered on Quicken. - Ok, but it
could apply to Money.
Automated coordination of accounts in Quicken and the banks' records is
highly desirable. - Agreed.
The ability to automatically capture at least Categories is highly
desirable. - Agreed.
----------------------
I have used Quicken since 1995 (except for Jan 2005 - May 2005 where I
used Money and switched back). From strickly a banking perspective, I
have used interfaces to or from Quicken from First Interstate Bank (now
Wells Fargo), Woodforrest Bank (Houston Metro area), Patelco CU,
Chevron CU and Bluebonnett CU and E*Trade Bank. I no longer have
accounts with Wells Fargo, Woodforrest Bank, Bluebonnett CU and shortly
Patelco CU.
I have had experience in Direct Connect (both directions), Direct
Connect (Bank to me), Web Connect and the old QIF.
My best experience is with Woodforrest Bank. Free - I could authorize
payments from Quicken or use the Web. Interface was in both
directions. Second best was the old First Interstate. I was $3.95 for
direct interface and the fees increased with Well Fargo (I think it was
$5.95 per month when I closed the account - 20+ year customer). The
remaining CU offered QIF or now Web Connect. Patelco CU is unique in
that it offers a Direct Connect from them. I can't send check (I
request payments on the Web). This has worked well for me. For
Patelco it is real time - something that most lack.
I do not like Web Connect for many of the same reasons you stated.
>From my viewpoint here is what influences my decisions:
1) Availability - I now travel 50% of my time. I need the availbility
to may payment on Business Trips. I can't do this from a Desktop
Application.
2) If Web Connect: it needs a change where you can download multiple
Accounts. I have to download four Accounts from Chevron CU. It sucks.
Money attempted to get around this in 2005 by using Yodlee inteface.
It is nothing but a screen scraper. The interface IMHO sucks and I
think Microsoft made a big mistake. I used Money from Jan 2005 to May
2005 and I am still recovering from the problems of coming back home to
Quicken.
3) Microsoft and Quicken defind the standard of which is transmitted in
the interface. Each Financial Instutions determine how to populate the
fields. I suspect the US Banking Industry is still dealing with pre
90's tech, so much of what I see and don't like is based on their
systems. Can this be changed? Yes, big buck for the banks. Should it
be changed, probably. But, most people do not care, so it is the value
of what you and I bring to the bank.
4) What I would pay? I never have every, really, paid a charge for
checking. Yes I did pay money to First Interstate, but understand I
had free checking for life - Wells Fargo had to honor this and I still
closed the account. I also stopped Bill Payment from Chevron CU when
the start charing a $3.00 fee). If I had to pay for Quicken Direct
Interface, my value is the cost of check printing and the cost of
stamps. This is a value I would pay to the bank. Most FI lose money
from me with checking as I do not bring other business to them.
6) Since most businesses I transact with have bill payment available
for free, I can avoid fees. This is the single cause of why direct
payment from Quicken or Money is going no where with Direct Pay - I
would not pay. E*Trade does not offer a direct interface from the
bank, so I download. In one respect I find this good as it allows me
to focus on the financial flow of money. If a FI has 100000 customers,
60% us Internet, maybe 30,000 us Web Banking, of those how many is
Quicken? At $200 plus per hour for IT, it is expensive to build and
maintain the interface. If I was the bank, I get get 30,000 easy. It
cost me extra money for the Quicken and Money folks. If I do Quicken,
I must do Money. Much like VISA and MasterCard.
7) Simple request to FI is to allow us to category transactions on the
Web, allow us to define those that interface directly into Quicken or
Money. I have done this with E*Trade Bank, but it does not interface.
I also hate to accept what they download in the memo field.
My 2 cents.
Just my opinion.
Fred Marshall wrote:
> I'd like to start a discussion about coordinating Quicken with a variety of
> on line bill paying and register reconciliation methods. I'm concerned that
> the world is moving backwards and figure maybe there's something I'm
> missing.
>
> Assumptions:
>
> Personal financial management is centered on Quicken.
>
> Bill paying is done using some type of on line payment system.
>
> Automated coordination of accounts in Quicken and the banks' records is
> highly desirable.
>
> The ability to automatically capture at least Categories is highly
> desirable.
>
> Trial assertions:
>
> Using web-based bill paying requires a follow-up download of some kind.
> Capturing Categories isn't part of the process.
> That's a major inconvenience because:
> 1) you have to remember to do the download after the bills are paid.
> 2) you have to add the Categories manually
> 3) Often, duplicated transactions have to be deleted or voided.
> 4) Because of all of the above, it's easier to screw things up using
> web-based bill paying and Quicken.
>
> Some bank websites aren't compatible with automated Quicken transaction
> downloads.
> (I'm using Quicken 2004 - so maybe this is improved in later versions???)
> e.g. Bank of America's new login process.
>
> Transaction-based bill paying in Quicken is better in this regard.
> The transactions are initiated in Quicken so the Categories issue is solved
> up front.
> Quicken BillPay and the old Checkfree payment service are the only ones I
> know of.
> The Checkfree payment service is no longer available to new customers - I
> use it but am concerned it will go away.
> I've read some negative things about Quicken BillPay but have no experience
> or recent reports.
>
> What are recommended practices and products? The web-based payment systems
> are often provided free from a bank - so that's an advantage IF the
> difficulties can be worked around.
>
>
> Fred
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap