Matching downloaded transactions.

When I am matching my downloaded transaction manually, I do not like the way the program is working. Perhaps there is a setting in tools or something to help the program do what I want.

When I input deposits, I input each individual's name in the payee field so I can later look back and quickly find who has paid me. Sometime several of these people's checks get deposited on the same deposit ticket. When I reconcile the downloaded transaction, I have to manually match each individual transaction to clear the total deposit.

Quicken automatically then combines those individual transaction into one transaction with "deposit" as the payee, and the payee in the memo field. The reason I entered each of the transactions separatly in the first place was so I would have all the individual names in the "payee" field.

I hope I am being clear enough for you to help me understand how to better enter/work around what I am trying to do. Right now, I am deleting the downloaded (total deposit) transaction, and manually clearing the individual transactions during "reconciliation". The problem with this, is that those individual transaction will not show as cleared under the "manual match" during accepting downloaded transactions. I have to go into each transaction and do the "edit/ transaction/control copy/" thing and manually enter a check mark and clear date.

Is there another way to do this? Thanks for your Help.

Marie

Reply to
mmurrell
Loading thread data ...

One way to handle this situation; Create a new cash flow account - call it Holding or Deposits or similar. Log the individual payments into this new 'holding' account. When you make a deposit to checking(?) - record this in Quicken as a transfer from the holding account to checking. When you download your checking acct info, you can match the downloaded deposit to the transfer - or modify the downloaded transaction to reflect the transfer before accepting it. The holding account balance zeros out over time. The integrity of the individual patments is maintained in the holding account. You will need to include this new account in various reports to pick up the detail.

Reply to
JM

The first sentence you use the word 'deposits' (as in, plural). The second sentence you are using the words 'same deposit ticket'. That's singular. So - how many deposit(s) are you really making??

If you are only passing one deposit ticket to the bank and receiving a single receipt back for a TOTAL of individuals on the same deposit, that's a SINGLE transaction deposit entry in Quicken (and to your bank, for that matter.). So, why not use a split deposit transaction so that the bank's downloaded transaction match your single receipt - perhaps you can use the MEMO field in the multiple transaction to record the individual's name?--

------------------------------------------------------------- Regards -

- Andrew

Reply to
Andrew

That's exactly what's happening.

When you use "Manual match" to match one downloaded transaction to multiple existing register transactions, Quicken creates a new register transaction that is a split of all the pre-existing register transactions that you told Quicken to match to ... with the payee names in the memo field of the split lines.

But when that happens, you lose the ability to see those transactions grouped with the appropriate payee when you run reports that sort, or subtotal by payee.

Reply to
John Pollard

Thank you for the idea. I guess that will be less work than having to manually clear each of these individual deposits with "Edit\Transaction \Control Copy Transaction". This becomes rather time consuming. If I set up this new "clearing" account I would not activate it in any way for online....therefore I would not have these individual transactions show up as needing cleared. Thanks again for the good idea..

Is there no way to have Quicken match the individual transactions, as "individual" transactions and NOT lump them into a new split transaction?

Marie

Reply to
mmurrell

Is there no way to have Quicken manually reconcile these "individual" transaction as "individual transactions and NOT lump them into one split transaction?

Thanks for explaining this to Andrew. You did a better job than I did in the original post.

Marie

Reply to
mmurrell

No. JM's approach is the best one I know of.

An alternative is to supply one deposit ticket for each check; generally the bank will create individual deposit transactions for each deposit ticket. Though you should ask them beforehand.

Reply to
John Pollard

Isn't the whole purpose of split transactions exactly what the original poster is talking about? If you make a single deposit in the register, but use the "split" feature to list the individual payors/checks, matching the downloaded information with the register information is no problem, and if you want to know if John Jones paid his bill every month, just run a transaction report .... provided you've listed John Jones in either the memo or category for each deposit. This system has worked for me for years.

Reply to
Jan Groshan

"Jan Groshan" wrote

In a word: no.

Split transactions are designed to allow you to spread multiple categories for one transaction for one payee.

No one was telling you that you needed to change. If you like what you have, stick with it.

Just don't discount the fact that you can never see all the same payee together in reports/displays sorted and/or subtotaled by payee.

You seem to have missed the fact that the op had this very objection to the process: do you believe that because you like the results you get, that other posters must like the same results?

Reply to
John Pollard

John is exactly right. I will give you an example. Just Friday, I had a client call and say he thought he had paid off all his billings. He wanted me to check my records. When I went back and sorted transactions by "Payee", I found that sometimes he paid part of a bill, sometimes he paid twice in one week, sometimes he skipped months between payments. This would have been a nightmare to go through had I not been able to sort per Payee.

However, Jan did bring up an option I had not thought about. Jan stated "provided you have mentioned (the payee's) name in either the memo or the CATAGORY (field)"...... That got me to thinking; One could set up sub-catagories for each client. In my case, I like the "clearing" account better because I have about 70 or more clients. That is too many sub-catagories for ME to keep track of.

Another benefit to the "clearing account" is that (If entered faithfully), one would record the actual date of receipt of payment in the clearing account. And then the date of actual deposit in the transfer transaction. I must admit, sometimes, a few days (or more) go by before I actually get the money to the bank.

Reply to
mmurrell

One could also use a Class for each client - might be a bit easier than subcategories. But in your case - 70 is also a lot of classes to keep track of.

Agree - Would think that preserving the date received could be very important in some situations.

Reply to
JM

Sounds like Quickbooks might be more useful for you than Quicken.

Reply to
Jan Groshan

Actually, to insure success with that approach when looking for transactions for a single payee, you would need to key the payee name in the report Customize "Matching" "Payee" field (or select it on the Payee tab) and run the report; then clear the "Matching" "Payee" field (or uncheck the payee on the Payee tab) and key the payee name in the "Matching" "Memo" field and run the report again ... and you'd have to remember to do that every time you wanted to list all the transactions for a specific payee (since it's unlikely you would remember which payee names might appear only in the Memo field in some transactions, you would have to assume that any payee's name could appear only there in some transactions.)

Reply to
John Pollard

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.