OFX DirectConnect for Quicken 2020

[Brendan Coupe]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:31 AM Jack <ostroffjh at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> On 2/1/21 10:53 AM, Brendan Coupe wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 11:43 AM Jack <ostroffjh at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> >> On 2021.01.30 19:22, Brendan Coupe wrote:
> >>> I can download my statements without using direct connect so I don't
> >>> think that's an incentive. I think some banks charge if you ask for
> >>> paper statements but I haven't gotten them in a long time.
> >> I hope you don't mean PDF statements.  Web connect does work, but it
> >> requires extra effort on the user's part to start the download.  Direct
> >> connect is a single button push.
> > I may be using the wrong terms. Not sure what the difference is
> > between web connect and direct connect.
> Direct connect uses the OFX protocol over a direct network connection
> between the client (KMM) and the server (the bank.)  In Web connect" is
> just a shortcut for downloading an OFX file and then importing it into
> KMM.  You go to the bank, set the parameters (such as date range and
> possibly types of transactions) but then when you download it, instead
> of saving it as a file, you tell your system to open it with KMM.  It
> just saves some keystrokes.

Then I was using the term "direct connect" as intended.

> > This was a response to the previous comment that said banks should be
> > supporting direct connect since it eliminates the need to mail paper
> > statements.
> Understood and agreed.  PDF statement make paper statements unnecessary,
> but are a separate issue from downloading transactions.
> > In my case, the two are unrelated. For all banks that
> > support it, I connect directly from KMM and download transactions
> > every day or two. For most other banks, I download and OFX file
> > manually and import it into KMM. I have one or two that don't provide
> > an easy way to import transactions (Health Spending Account is one) so
> > I enter the missing transactions manually (most transactions are
> > provided by splits from other transactions).
> >
> > For all banks, I manually download PDF statements which I use as a
> > record and for reconciliation. I was stating that proving a direct
> > connection from KMM is unrelated to the need to send paper statements.
> >>> The real incentive is detecting fraudulent transactions as soon as
> >>> possible. Most banks allow text or email notifications when
> >>> transactions happen but they can be easily missed in the sea of
> >>> notifications that I get.
> >> In addition, those notifications are often based on a dollar cutoff.
> >> Fraud can also take place in smaller doses, so every transaction needs
> >> to be checked.  For some low activity accounts, notification of all
> >> transactions can be  reasonable and useful, but for high volume
> >> accounts, such as many credit cards, notifications are just not
> >> feasible.  If you are only worried about checking for fraud, then
> >> logging in to the bank's web site and looking at recent transactions
> >> may be enough, but I'm pretty sure that's not sufficient for anyone
> >> actually using personal finance management software.
> > The email, SMS and mobile app notifications are useful, but as you
> > say, when there is a lot of noise they are less useful.
> >
> > Website access helps but can be a problem if you have more than one or
> > two banks.
> >
> > I use KMM to monitor all the supporting banks on a near daily basis.
> > The summary of transactions provided at the end of the import process
> > is extremely useful. I see everything in one place when I'm focused on
> > that task.
> >
> > I have a few of online savings accounts with different banks that do
> > not provide this service. It's annoying every month to logon to their
> > website, download the OFX and import it. I wish they allowed KMM to
> > download the transactions so I was aware of any unauthorized activity
> > in near real time.
> >
> >>> I suspect that fewer and fewer customers are using direct connect so
> >>> they don't feel the need to support it.
> >> I'm curious why you think that.
> > It seems to be going away but it's really just a gut feeling.
> >
> >>> While phone apps have their place, a program that works with accounts
> >>> from different banks is much more useful.
> >> I'd call it nearly essential, if I want a picture of my overall
> >> financial status and activity in one place.
> > Me too but I get the feeling many young people just use the phone
> > apps. Some of my banks offer to aggregate all of my accounts on their
> > website which seems like a terrible idea from a security perspective.
> I suspect those folks just haven't accumulated a host of banks, all used
> for different purposes, so the phone app is OK for one or two banks.
> >>> Manually entering transactions from accounts that are used frequently
> >>> (credit cards) is far from ideal. Time to move on from USAA.
> >> I think part of the problem is that most banks have little to
> >> absolutely no clue what "direct connect" actually is.  They contract
> >> with Intuit (or some other software house) to support their users for
> >> Quicken.  That way, the bank's support folks don't need to know
> >> anything - they just say call Intuit, which obviously, doesn't help
> >> anyone except a paying Quicken customer.
> > I'm guessing it often doesn't help a paying Quicken customer:-)
> Interesting: I recently found a web page which reviewed some of the
> commercial applications, and the big negative for Quicken was customer
> support.
> > The USAA problem may only be fixed if the problem broke Quicken and
> > Quicken gets involved. If Quicken happens to be providing the server
> > side solution for USAA, loss of direct connect access to everyone but
> > Quicken may be a feature, not a bug.
> >
> > We can only vote with our business and in researching this I've
> > learned that USAA insurance rates are not that great anymore so it's
> > worth looking for other options. Their insurance service definitely
> > sucked for me last summer.
> >
> > I just don't want to switch to a bank that kills direct connect 6
> > months after I switch.
>
> I may make a suggestion to the ofxhome team to add a field indicating
> how well the bank supports FLOSS software for direct connect
>

A list of banks that support direct connect / FLOSS would be very
helpful. Kind of like https://twofactorauth.org/ for direct connect. A
grid showing direct connect access, ofx download (web connect), CSV
download...

Checking each bank one at a time is painful and even though the USAA
history on ofxhome shows OXF failing for the past week, the front page
shows it passing. I've tried to leave a comment/error but I can't get
through the gate. It won't accept my ofxhome.com login credentials on
the forum page and it won't let me set up an account. It looks like it
doesn't like Firefox and I'm blocked for an hour before I can try
again.

> Jack
>