Why does Bank of America make me download transactions from a browser vs quicken?

That's called "Direct Connect"

That's called "Web Connect"

In some states, BofA offers Web Connect, in others, Direct Connect. I believe that it depends (in part) upon what service the predecessor bank was offering. There's a place on Quicken.com where you can view the list of participating FI's, and what level of service the offer.

It costs more to provide direct downloads (One Step Update) than it does to provide web-connect downloads (using bank's web site). Some fi's bury the extra cost in higher fees, higher minimum balances, lower savings interest, higher loan interest, etc. allowing them to appear to "give" their customers the better download method.

B of A offers direct downloads under certain conditions; one option is to pay B of A about $9 a month for direct download, another option is to open an Advantage account with B of A which offers "free" direct downloads for certain minimum balance requirements. Another *possibility* is to open a special account at B of A in which you have your payroll check direct-deposited. Check with B of A.

The bottom line is that the fi controls what type or types of downloads they offer and you must follow their rules to utilize those download types.

Thanks for the info. At least now I know it wasn't something I did.

I have the same problem! I cannot use "one step update". I must log on via Safari and download manually. Must be on Bank of America's end.

Ken

Really? Why? I'm not saying I don't believe that it does but as a person in the computer field for many years I don't see how or why it should be that much of a difference. Both types require servers so they're there already. The difference is in the type or style of data provided. One uses http protocol and the bank must internally develop a web application, deal with things like sign ons and security concerns, etc. The other has similar program considerations. Where's the real difference in cost?

I believe the real answer is simply this: With only Quicken's direct connect (which may or may not be usable with MS Money too) you have limited yourself to the set of customers that have Quicken (Money) and have consciously set up the online portion for direct connect.

With a web site you have no such limitations. Your customers who do not use Quicken (Money) or have not set up the direct connect can still use your web site. It's like the question: Why do people use web based mail? Often they site because that way they can still read their email when on vacation (some vacation! I go on vacation to get away from such things - they'll be there when I get back). As for web based banking, my bank has a web site for that but I by and large don't use it for that.

Or take your business to a bank that operates in a manner that you want.

Just to clarify, Andrew: I did not mention anything about where the "costs" were incurred. Your question appears to ignore the possibility that Intuit might charge the bank more to utilize direct downloads; a charge which, one way or the other, would be passed along to bank customers.

I sure don't see what having a web site, in general, has to do with this. Some fi's have had web sites, but offered no downloads, others offered only QIF downloads, others only OFX downloads, others, web-connect, others some combination of those. None of those methods is nearly as convenient as direct-connect ... which would be another reason why the marketplace might decide that direct connect downloads were worth more than web-connect downloads, even if the underlying cost of providing either one was exactly the same.

Money may be able to do something similar to direct connect; but it would represent a separate cost to the bank. The bank paying Intuit to utilize direct connect to Quicken doesn't automatically acquire the right to offer a Money user the Money equivalent ... that would be a separate agreement between MS and the bank.

Web-connect is also unique to Intuit; as we've already discussed here all too many times, Intuit handles "QFX" downloads differently than Money (Money permits plain vanilla OFX files to be imported).

But yes, banks can provide plain vanila OFX files from their web-sites to their customers who use Money (and any other financial product that can import those files), and they need sign no legal agreements to do so. Users may decide that this is sufficient for their needs, that they are unwilling to pay for the convenience of direct connect ... they may take their business to fi's that provide only OFX downloads; I was not aware that this was in dispute.

And that is implicit in my statement; there is no "or" about it. If the banks set the rules, then obviously, you consider those rules when selecting your bank: I never considered, or suggested, otherwise. What I was addressing though, was the op's question asking whether he did something wrong by saying that he may not have been entitled to direct downloads.