This post has been closed and is not open for comments or answers.

Check #'s are not appearing in Quicken 2012 after downloading from US Bank

Check numbers for manually written checks have always appeared in quicken after downloading from US Bank.  They have not appeared since my upgrade to 2012.  Any idea's as to what the problem could be?  The downloaded transactions are correct.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "the downloaded transactions are correct" - have you already confirmed that the OFX transmission shows the <NUM> tag with an actual check number?  If you're referencing that the Payees and Amounts are correct, that doesn't confirm that the OFX from US Bank contains Check Numbers.

    Open the OFX Log (Help > Log Files), save it to your Desktop or other easy-to-find location on your hard drive, then double-click that saved file to open it in Notepad.  Once you have it open in Notepad, you can search for the tag to see what is being downloaded from US Bank via OFX - Ctrl + F and look for <NUM> or US Bank (to get the entire session info) or even search for a specific check number to see what's being transmitted.

    If the OFX Log does show that the check number is being transmitted in the <NUM> tag by US Bank, we would need your OFX & Connlog files in order to determine why Quicken 2012 isn't properly populating that field in your register.  To get those logs to us, you would need to contact Quicken Support (quicken.intuit.com/support and click the Contact Us button) and reference this Community thread (tell them Tamara sent you, basically).

    FYI, I don't have a US Bank account, but the downloads from my 4 FI's (Wells Fargo, Chase, Vantage West, and Compass) all have different behavior because of the different OFX formats they each choose to use - some of them send check number, some do not, some of them use the check number in the Payee (or NAME) field while others use the actual Payee, but use a combination of the check number and clearing date in the NUM field.
  • I am having the same problem, but with a smaller local bank (M&I Bank).  Up through last week, when I was using Quicken 2011, the check numbers came through fine.  After upgrading to 2012 this weekend, the check numbers no longer come through.  I checked the OFX log, and it does not appear that the check numbers are included in that log.  However, if I manually download a QFX file from the bank web site, the check numbers do appear.

    I guess there is a possibility that the bank happened to change the format that they use for their file over the weekend, but it seems too coincidental with the timing of my 2012 upgrade.  All I know is that it is very frustrating trying to manually match the transactions now, when they automatically matched last week!
  • Thanks for the information, weisj.  If the OFX transmission doesn't contain the data, there's no way for Quicken to display it.  It's possible that the financial institution used 2 different engineering groups or uses different server groups for the 2 different versions.  You might try getting their Online Banking Support to escalate to get the OFX to populate that <NUM> tag.

    The QFX you download from the website is usually not identical to the OFX they transmit through Direct Connect, so that could be why you see <NUM> in QFX but not OFX.
  • We just got Quicken Deluxe 2012. Used Money before.  We are having the same problem with the check numbers not downloading.  It is very hard to match checks with no numbers, and the checks have no payee.  We use Associated Bank. That is 3 different banks.  Seems to be a problem between Quicken and the banks systems.  I hope you are looking into the problem and not just blaming it on the banks.
  • "Seems to be a problem between Quicken and the banks systems".

    You need to read all the posts in this discussion ... carefully.

    First of all, the evidence in this thread so far does not indicate a problem with Quicken (though there could turn out to be one).

    Second, I download from two different financial institutions into Q2012 and I do get check numbers in the downloads.

    Third (and most important): you need to look at your OFXlog (or QFX file) to determine whether the check number was ever downloaded. As noted earlier in this discussion (and which should be obvious): if the financial institution does not download the check number, Quicken can not display it.

    If you can not submit evidence that the check numbers were downloaded by your financial institution, you have no complaint coming here.

    If you can submit such evidence, I believe Intuit will be happy to look into it.
  • I am having the same problem as the original poster.

    I run Quicken 2010 on one computer, and it successfully downloads transactions with check numbers from my two banks.

    I am setting up Quicken 2012 on a second computer.  It does not get the check numbers from either bank.  I looked in the OFXLog and sure enough, there are no check numbers in it.  So that certainly explains why there are no check numbers in the register for the downloaded transactions.

    However, I have a hard time believing this is the banks' problem, at least not exclusively.  Why do I think that?  Simple: I can download the SAME transactions from the SAME banks on my Q2010 computer and the Q2010 register WILL show check numbers.

    When I am working with a customer on a tech support issue (I'm a developer who does a lot of support for my team's product), the first thing I ask is "what has changed?" and in this case, what has changed is the version of Quicken.  The banks are the same, the transactions are the same.  All that has changed is the version of Quicken (OK, to be pedantic the computer has changed as well, but if that's the problem, well, I'm in serious trouble anyway, as I am decommissioning the old computer).

    I can envision an architecture where Q2012 talks through a different server than Q2010 and/or uses a different protocol.  But I have a very hard time envisioning an architecture in which the Q2012 server talks differently to the bank than the Q2010 server.

    However, if that is indeed the case, then yes, I suppose you could technically say that it is the bank's problem for not communicating properly with the new server or using the new protocol.  BUT, and here's the rub - if that's so, it's STILL a Quicken problem.

    Why do I say that?

    If Intuit released a new protocol, they must have communicated it to the banks.  If not, that's Intuit's problem, not the banks'.

    Furthermore, if they released a new protocol, they should have had in place a testing system to verify a bank was using it properly before listing the bank as available.  If they don't have a testing system, that's Intuit's problem, not the banks'.  If many banks passed the testing system even though they fail to provide accurate complete downloads, that is a failure of Intuit's testing system, not the banks.

    I am, of course, assuming a new protocol and/or servers in the above.  If that is not the case, I would like to request that someone from Intuit explain to us the process by which a newer version of Quicken fails with MULTIPLE banks while an older version succeeds.
  • Freundlichs - you are oh-so-close, but with one slight flaw; the financial institutions or their service provider create the OFX transmission tables for the specific personal finance management application version.  It's very easy to have 2 completely different teams of OFX engineers (or engineer-singular) for each PFM and each PFM version.  It's also possible, not necessarily probable, that the FI/SP uses different data centers for different PFM/PFM versions.

    We do not dictate OFX Specs nor change any "protocol" outside of those specs.

    The only difference between the 2 Quicken Products is the AppVer, which will display in OFX as < APPVER >2100 for Quicken 2012 and < APPVER >1900 for Quicken 2010.

    There is a caveat, one that has not been addressed in this thread - connection method.

    Direct Connect is completely hands off for Quicken - the FI/SP does all of the coding, server maintenance and updating, Quicken just receives the response.  We can notify the FI/SP if there's a server outage or malformed OFX transmission, but the resolution is ultimately up to them.

    Web Connect is completely hands off for Quicken - the FI/SP does all of the coding and posts the QFX file on their website.  We can notify the FI/SP when there's malformed/missing OFX, but the resolution is ultimately up to them.

    Express Web Connect is more complicated and involved, and this is where there's the potential for it being 100% a Quicken problem.  EWC can be performed by screen-scrape, capture or QFX (OFX) download.  If the FI/SP provides QFX (displayed as QFX_enabled='T' in the OFX Log), this is the same as the Direct Connect response and is completely hands off for Quicken.

    If the FI/SP is scrape, we can only scrape what we see on the account details screen of the FI website.  Most of the time, there are transaction numbers (check numbers), but there are some FIs that don't post that info because of Check 21 processing/compliance.  If the FI/SP is capture, we're getting gross data from the FI/SP servers and then translating it to OFX.  These 2 EWC types are where there is room for error on our part and we would have to resolve.  We are currently actively researching logs and data to see if there's a script defect where we're not properly translating to < CHECKNUM > for the Quicken download.

    [Edited to account for coding issues with QLC; spaces after < or > would not appear in log files, only here]
  • Tamara,

    THANK YOU for that detailed, comprehensive, and clear information!  One big mistake I made was assuming that OFX was an Intuit protocol, not a standard.  Lesson for me: google is my friend :-)

    When I get home this evening, I'll take a look at the settings for the two banks I'm dealing with and see which connection method they are using.  I'll also look at the OFX files and see what I can glean from them given what you've said.  I should be able to move forward from there with either Intuit support or my banks' support, depending on what I learn.

    I have one extremely large suggestion, which is that the Intuit tech support team should be officially made aware of this situation and given the information you gave here, in order to help them when dealing with customers experiencing the issue.   I spent a half-hour or so in online chat with a support tech, and all he could tell me was "your bank isn't supported", which clearly isn't the case.  If he'd been able to walk me through looking in the OFX file for the details you describe, he and I could have gotten much, much further.

    Instead, I walked away with the impression that Intuit didn't know what the heck it was doing (both from a product standpoint and a tech support standpoint).  Your information tells me that perhaps I was wrong from a product standpoint, but the fact that the tech didn't know anything about OFX versioning and connection methods is still a problem that it would benefit Intuit to address.

    Thanks again, and I will report back once I've got more details.
  • Now that the Thanksgiving weekend is drawing to a close, I'm looking into this again.

    Quicken 2010 (working):  APPVER is 1900, the accounts use Express Web Connect, and there's no QFX_enabled in the OFX file.  All "screen" and "capture" fields seem to be no-op or default values (e.g. an IP Address of 0.0.0.0)

    Quicken 2012 (fails - no check numbers): APPVER is 2100, the accounts use Express Web Connect, and QFX_enabled is set to "T".  All screen and capture fields also seem to be no-op or default values.

    The lack of QFX_enabled would suggest that the 2010 version is using scrape or capture.  However, the fact that the screen and capture fields are no-op/defaults AND match the fields in the 2012 log makes this not so clear to me.

    Question 1: How can I tell (in 2010 AND 2012), which form of Express Web Connect an account uses?

    Question 2: If Quicken is using QFX download, does that suggest that using the bank's "download QFX file" feature might also be incorrect?  Or is it common for a bank to get their "download QFX" right but their Express Web Connect QFX wrong?
  • The QFX_Enabled may very well be available for the 2012 version of Quicken only; I'll confirm that when I'm back in the office tomorrow.  The zero IP address is not an issue, I've been advised by the EWC engineers, so the only difference now is "how is Quicken 2010 getting the data?" and (again) I'll have to confirm that tomorrow.

    In answer to your 2nd question, the QFX files are usually one-and-the-same - I've not seen any files that are one way on the FI website but another way in EWC download.  If your FI provides a QFX on their website, you can test importing a download into a new TEST Quicken file to see if you get check numbers in that file or not, as confirmation of the issue without risking your live data file.  Another "test run" would be to make a backup of your regular, daily-use file and import a QFX from the FI website; this process would allow you to compare actual data results in a more specific fashion, and you have the backup to restore if things go awry.
  • I have another thread where the check # are missing, and a person that has the OFX logs that prove the check number is in the OFX data.:
    https://qlc.intuit.com/post/show_full/crPqXoL2Gr4lH_acfAralO/how-do-i-make-quicken-2011-download-check-numbers-when-downolading-transactions-from-my-bank?ppid=143952830
  • Thanks, Chris - I've added a Comment to that thread.  WillSmith is clearly seeing the expected info in the OFX Log, which now requires a little digging on our part.  Freundlichs has pointed out on this thread, here, that there's no CHECKNUM found in the OFX Log, so they'll be checking to see if the QFX from the FI website provides that info.
  • The plot thickens ...

    I did a "Web Connect File" download from my bank's web site, and both 2010 and 2012 imported it correctly (all transactions imported, check numbers are present).  So if I switch to using this technique, I can move forward.

    As an experiment, I bought a copy of 2011 and installed it on yet another computer.  It couldn't even do its initial connection to and download from my bank.  So 2011 is right out ...

    I'm not thrilled with having to do manual downloads from the banks.  I've got one primary account at bank A, and then at bank B I have a secondary checking, a savings, and two accounts for each of my kids (short-term storage and long-term savings).  That's 9 web-site-based downloads I'll have to do in order to keep everything up to date, as opposed to going into Quicken and hitting "Update All".   Blech.

    "OK, Freundlichs," I hear you thinking.  "Why not just stick with 2010, since it was doing your downloads correctly?"  Well, what started this whole adventure was the fact that 2010 silently dropped a bunch of transactions in September.  I'm not sure whether it had them and lost them, or whether it just never downloaded them.  But it really messed me up, since my bank statements were in moving boxes and I couldn't find them to do a reconcile until November.  At which point I found out I had less money than I thought.

    Had it only been a one-time problem, I'd have lived with it.  But 2010 dropped some recent transactions as well.  So that led us to wanting a newer version, which led to 2012, which led to missing check numbers in 2012.

    So my choices are:

    1. Express Web Connect with 2010.  Easy to do, but it drops transactions
    2. Express Web Connect with 2012.  Easy to do, but it drops check numbers
    3. Manual Web Connect File download with 2010 OR 2012.  A pain in the body part, but it gets all information about all transactions.

    sigh.
  • Is there anything new on this issue?  On 11/27/11 Tamara said she needed to do some digging, but haven't seen anything new.  Unlike Freundlichs, I am not a computer guru.  I haven't a clue what he is talking about, or how to do what he is doing.
  • Sailorboy50,

    The gist of it is for now to get the check numbers you need to do a "Web Connect", which that you go to your financial institution's website and you download the Quicken Web Connect (QFX) file to import your transactions, instead of using One Step Update to do it.
  • 1 What is a Web Connect and how do you do it?  I need step directions cuz I don't know how to do this.

    2 Are you working on a solution to this?  cuz this is not the product that we thought we were purchasing according to the specifications on the box.
  • Sailorboy50,

    I'm suggesting it for a workaround until Intuit fixes the problem.

    As the for exact steps I can't give you them because that varies depending on which financial institution you have.
    What you should do is contact your financial institution and tell them that you need the steps to download transaction in Quicken/QFX format.
  • Thanks to everyone looking into this issue.  I have resorted to downloading the QFX file from my checking account.  I have 10 other accounts at the same bank and they all work fine in One Step Update,  Only my checking account is affected.  It is a bit disconcerting that this version, 2012, was released with such an irritating problem.  Especialy since Intuit has a virtual monopoly on the personal finance software market.  Also, the fact that Intuit doesn't seem to have a handle on it.
  • Frudendlichs,
    I'm with you all the way on this...I know my way around apps and code and this is a quicken issue.  I'm having the same problem but perhaps with a variation...the check number is imported into the payee column and has the syntax 'CHECK xyz'.

    FYI - incident 111214-007518
  • One thing people should be doing is checking the OFX logs to see what the data really says.

    There seems to be a few things going on here and the data in the logs (which comes from the financial institution or from Intuit processing data from the financial institution) will pin down the source of the problem.

    First off there are the missing check numbers.  This has NOTHING to do with the payee.  There is a special data field for the check numbers and Quicken should be picking it up.  So right there you can have the combination of the check numbers are there and not being picked up OR the check numbers aren't in the data.  Clearly two different problems.

    Next the Payee information.  Your financial institution almost NEVER has the payee for a check.  Financial institutions get your check as an image and some coded information like the account number and check number.  The coded number are in the form that the computer can use (and does use), this does not include the payee.  It is an image of a payee someone wrote on the check.  Unless your financial institution does optical character recondition to translate that image into text (I have not seen any that do), it doesn't have the payee.  So most of them instead of leaving he payee blank will put in "Check #2343".  This is exactly how it should work and that is exactly what you should expect in Quicken, since it can't make up data.

    The normal process would be to put in the Quicken register before they are downloaded, and given the check number and amount Quicken can match up the transaction in Quicken to the one downloaded.  When the check number itself goes missing for whatever reason then the match can fail and such, but that is completely different then the payee being "Check #1232".  And please note Quicken does not look into the payee to try to find the check number.  The check number is suppose to be provided in the separate data field.
  • All,  I've spent quite a few hours chatting with and finally calling Quicken support during the last 2 days.  I, too, am no computer guru unlike a number of the engineers on this thread.  I did, though, while chatting with Mir at Quicken Support today, finally get that this was a known problem and I was able to find this thread while chatting.  The alternative of moving from Express Web Connect to downloading QFX files by date from my bank and uploading scared the bejesus out of me and gave me a feeling that Intuit might be a bit more "Industrial Strength" than that for their customers.  A subsequent phone call to support with an incident number got me to a very helpful and apologetic support agent who said that development knows about the issue, accepts it as their issue to fix, and is working on it now.  Obviously no ETA on the fix but the attitude of resolution rather than blame was EXTREMELY ENCOURAGING and more of the "Industrial Strength" perspective that I expected from Intuit.
  • Same thing is happening to me.  Hopefully they get this fixed it is a PITA to have to do per check manually. Also hope they fix it that all the checks default to the last check payee.  Now I have to manually add the check number and change who it was too.  I don't remember having to do this before.
  • i just invested large quantities of money on quicken rental manager (due to inability to sell old house without major loss & needing to rent it out, and wishing to keep track of everything involved).  last week, i upgraded (?) from premier 2011.  last week,  all was well with one step update.  since installing qrm 2012, i have been working for 6 days on getting one step update to quit crashing quicken, and now, upon "updating" from 4 different banks (yes), there are no check numbers.  eeeeeeeeek.  i suppose if i became really irresponsible, none of this would matter.  i know i don't know much, but i really feel stupid.
  • The recent Q2012 update (release 5) claims to fix the problem, and as far as I can tell, it does.  I want to watch it for a few weeks' worth of downloads to be sure, but at this point, it seems to be resolved.
My log file shows <REFNUM> instead of <NUM>. Is it possible to get Quicken to recognize this as the check number?
  • There is no option to select what fields it will use, so based on you are asking this question, that means Quicken isn't using it, and the program would have to be changed to make it happen.  You can always go to this site and suggest it, but at the earliest it would be put in is next year:
    https://getsatisfaction.com/quicken