To your larger point, I suspect you are correct in that probably 80% of the
FIs buy someone else's pre-packaged solution. I suspect the biggies (Citi?
Wells Fargo? WAMU? Wachovia?) might roll their own. So, a a function of
customer penetration, who knows what fraction of the customer base is
banking with somebody who uses one of these pre-packaged solutions?

Note also that FOX site says they added the two factor authentication stuff
to the v. 1 spec simply because of the number of providers who were still at
that level of compliance.

Note also the the OFX changes for two factor authentication--and maybe the
imaging thing as well--were both driven by regulatory/legal changes in the
bank's operating environment. The two factor authentication was driven from
one of the regulatory agencies. (Federal Financial Institutions Examination
Council (FFIEC)?) Check imaging came from Check21 which came from Congress.

"Retired Coal Miner" <...[at]...> wrote in message
news:yvadnTsDMb3VL9_VnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d[at]comcast.com...
- quote -

Hard to keep track. I've never even heard of several of these.

It's interesting that so many people keep trying to tackle this problem.

"Retired Coal Miner" <...[at]...> wrote in message
news:yvadnTsDMb3VL9_VnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d[at]comcast.com...
- quote -

Interesting find, Dick.

To clarify one point, it's not the FI themselves that develop code to
implement an OFX 'solution' They purchase software from 'solution providers',
look at the list on the OFX website. The list of providers has shrunk a bit
since I last looked, there used to be a company named Corillian for example,
not listed there anymore.

And I suppose there is a healthy business in all this. Consumers, banks in
this case, implement a feature for some reason (not handling huge volumes of
processed, printed checks between themselves). Then the OFX consortium gets
ahead of the curve and includes a related feature in the transaction
specification. Then, after a few years lag, the PFMs (Money, Quicken, ....
GnuCash, SplashMoney, MoneyDance, Wesabe, MoneyTrackin ... Hey Dick your FAQ
needs some updating!) add the feature to their products. And somewhere in this
progression the OFX solution providers add the feature, and the banks acquire
the newer versions from them and perhaps implement the new feature.

We users of Money are a small part of this food chain (small in dollars, but
very big in numbers). But I'm happy to spend $40 every two years for new
features like this. Come to think about it, it's more than $40 every two
years, it's always on broadband connections, mobile internet and WiFi routers,
smartphones or PDAs (another $35 for UltraSoft Money), bigger and faster
Laptops every few years, terabyte USB Hard Drives, CDs and DVDs to backup your
data, and on and on.

It is fun to do and to read about.

Dick Watson wrote:
- quote -

But just for laughs I visited their site and found this:

"What is the latest version of OFX?

"As of 11-1-2007, OFX 1.0.3, 2.0.3 and 2.1.1 are the latest versions of the
OFX spec. The history of spec development is as follows.

"The SGML version of the OFX spec went from OFX 1.0 to 1.6 (through several
iterations not including 1.0.3). An XML version of the spec was then
developed, going from OFX 2.0 through several iterations, up to OFX 2.1.

"When Multi-Factor Authentication was introduced in 2006, the linear
progression of spec numbers was interrupted to accommodate financial
institutions that may have developed to older OFX specifications. Because
many financial institutions had developed to 1.0.2, OFX 1.0.3 was created.
Similarly, OFX 2.0.3 was developed from OFX 2.0.2 and OFX 2.1.1 was
developed from OFX 2.1. The only change for each was the addition of MFA.
The difference between OFX 2.0.2 and OFX 2.1 is that loans, images,
investment closing and automatic 1-way are included in OFX 2.1.

"Ultimately, OFX 1.0.3, OFX 2.0.3 and OFX 2.1.1 are only different from
their predecessors in that MFA was added. In all cases the MFA added was the
same, i.e. same tags, meaning, etc. "

Note "images…are included in OFX 2.1." That says that what someone wanted in
OFX is there--at least in the spec.

And how many FIs have implemented 2.1? And how many PFM applications have
implemented 2.1? I'm betting the answer is pretty close to 0. But I could be
wrong.

To get some idea how lively the operation is, see
http://www.ofx.net/PressRoomPage/PressRoom.aspx.

"John Pollard" <invalid[at]invalid.com> wrote in message
news:%23ICGh03wIHA.5620[at]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
- quote -

I don't "know" it's unlikely.

It certainly appears unlikely since fewer FIs support OFX all of the time
and there isn't a demand pulling from users to change the situation.

"John Pollard" <invalid[at]invalid.com> wrote in message
news:%23ICGh03wIHA.5620[at]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
- quote -

Dick Watson wrote:
- quote -

It sounds like a very useful capability.

I don't know that OFX is the best way to implement it, but I'd
sure like to know how you know it's unlikely.

--

John Pollard
First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
Please reply to newsgroup

Actually, having scanning as a feature in Money Plus would limit the
solution. Being able to attach multiple docs to a transaction would be much
more handy. Just important docs and receipts. Anything else is a waste of
time.

Currently I scan and store to a virtual drive with CDR backups in archive
(going on 5 years now and using less then a gig of space. This provides easy
access to the receipts as needed (I travel alot). Also, I find searching for
receipts is an "as needed" event. IE like an IRS audit or warranty event.
Searching is also easy to do online.

Saving mickey d receipts is a waste of data bites and your health.

One story to share. I tried keeping the solution "in the family", meaning
using MS Money Plus with a link to Windows Live Skydrive. It is possible
from an MS Office app, but there are many security setting tweeks in order
for this to work from Money Plus.

Highly unlikely there will ever be one.

"Retired Coal Miner" <...[at]...> wrote in message
news:mMCdnfIc9KzxhqfVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d[at]comcast.com...
- quote -

It's interesting reading the dates on some of the entries in this thread.
Especially so now that banks legally can and do use an electronic image of a
check instead of dealing with the actual paper form.

I think another logical extension of the image link feature is to include the
means to download an image from your bank when you sync and when the
transaction deals with a check image. Maybe in the next OFX version?

In reply to the 'make the links persist', and 'have you though about backing
this up' and I've been using the DOS SUBST command (more appropriately called
a hidden trick, because it's not well known). Details here:
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...1594bb8766e507

If you give some thought to setting this up, such as store all images starting
at the root of a specific folder, you can easily move these files around, and
easily back them up (local Costco is selling 750Gb USB hard drives for $130).

You just need to a command like this in your startup folder and rerun it if yo
ever move the root folder were the files are stored:

SUBST X: "D:\My Documents\Money Files\Home Inventory"


Kristina wrote:
- quote -

"Mark Fields" <mark_no_spam_f[at]siscom.net> wrote in message
news:eir6lWsvIHA.1504[at]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
- quote -


It's common for media players to monitor specified folders for
new/renamed/moved media. Of course, having a process run 24/7 to watch for
this stuff causes a performance hit on the system. In the case of Windows
Media Player 11 on XP, it's a pretty severe performance hit, and unlike WMP
10 and earlier, this monitoring function cannot be entirely turned off.

--
Scott Tyler
agent_scotty-at-hotmail-dot-com

"Kristina" <Kristina[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1CC8604C-04B7-4623-94BF-0DAE1ED1ADCD[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

know of any software that does this.

- quote -

If you "pull out $20 in cash..." I sould assume you are taking $20 from an
ATM. You aren't spending the $20 when you do that you are transferring from
your bank account to a "cash" account. You don't go to all three restaurant
at once. If you go to McDonalds and spend $8 (perhaps catagorized in your
"Food: Eating Out" catagory) then you have now spent $8 from your cash
account leaving $14. Then at Taco house you spend $6 leaving $8 and then at
Dr. J you spend $8 leaving zero in your cash account (let's say your
'pocket' money) and it's time to transfer more money from your bank account
into your 'cash' account.

Then your filing should all work out you can file your receipts by payee
(McD, Taco House and Dr. J) or by category (Food: Eating Out) or however you
like.

Mark

Can you cite an example of a program that know how you move/rename files it
used to know about?

As to multiple items in a scan, many of us would highly recommend multiple
transactions and a petty cash/pocket cash account.

"Kristina" <Kristina[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1CC8604C-04B7-4623-94BF-0DAE1ED1ADCD[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

I was thinking of doing a "petty cash" type of account this morning. Just
would be a mess to try and do that with my previously reconciled
transactions. I am trying to link up all the things I've already got
scanned, so they are easier to find. Still I think it's a function Microsoft
could easily offer. Part of my reluctance in the past was because hubby
doesn't like things too complicated and I know he is going to roll his eyes
at me again when I tell him that we need to do this if we want to be able to
find the copies of our receipts easily.

Kristina

"Scott Tyler" wrote:

- quote -

"Kristina" <Kristina[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1CC8604C-04B7-4623-94BF-0DAE1ED1ADCD[at]microsoft.com...
<snip> Second they need to have an option to link more than one file or at least
- quote -

Some users here handle ATM withdrawals as a transfer to a cash account, and
enter the individual purchases in the cash account register. This allows
the individual purchases to be entered with the proper date and payee
(splitting an ATM withdrawal causes all the expenses to have the same date
and payee) and in your case would also allow you to attach the individual
receipts.

--
Scott Tyler
agent_scotty-at-hotmail-dot-com

I think this would be a great feature too. I'm already trying to scan all
my documents in and being able to link to them makes it easier. Although,
I'd like to see them make the link to image work better before they add the
new feature.

First they need to make the link persist. IE if I move or change the name
of the file the link should auto change. Right now if I move a file that I
have "linked to image" in money I have to go back in and change the link in
money. Takes a lot of time. Most programs now will follow the file. It's
driving me nuts.

Second they need to have an option to link more than one file or at least
make the splits linkable. IE I pull out $20 in cash and spend x at micky D's
and X at taco house and x at Dr. J. I have three receipts that I don't want
to file in the same files. Right now, to link to all three receipts I have to
lump them together in one file, which goes against my filing system.

Interestingly enough this past week I got an add for just such a product
in my credit card bill. Apparently it will do image filing of all your
important papers and stuff (did I just type "papers", duh, maybe it
should be "documents" ).

The thing is called OrganizeMy (TM) Electronic Filing Cabinet.

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-130161.html
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../06/c5054.html

Now this is probably neat and all but it would be slick to be able to
bring up the image for a document related to a given transaction (cc or
store receipt) and have the cc bill image linked to the bill payment.

This should not be all that long in coming when you think of it since
even now I get bank statements as pdf's in email rather than paper in
the mail and other bills come as email.

vs


John Stilin wrote:
- quote -

Troy,

This is an excellent idea. Would be much easier than filing all the paper
and would take up less physical storage. In addition, it would be easier to
find documents when needed. Would be really great if you could archive
bills/documents as PDFs so that payees could have a common simple format for
electronically transmitting bills. Backup is the least of my worries given
the cost of media these days.




"Troy Roberts" wrote:

- quote -

Honestly? To me? Completely useless? Pretty close. The Frequent Flyer
Tracker would be less useful.

But I get no say in what gets into the product. The magazine reviewers, most
of whom don't actually use the stuff day-to-day, they get lots of input.
They rave about this feature.

"Troy Roberts" <TroyRoberts[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news6C388BF-D142-4A31-9B21-4D6A091520AC[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

Ummm hasn't money included the ability to backup to CD and DVD now. We're not
talking about 48bit coloyr scans here at 1200dpi. Bitonal or greyscale at
200dpi takes up minimal space and you can fit tens of thousands on a cd.

Besides we're not talking about a required feature strictly optional. If a
user wants to scan an image of an invoice/bill/receipt/paychecque/tax return
the ability is there. Are you honestly trying to say that this is a
completely useless feature?

"Dick Watson" wrote:

- quote -

This comes up more and more, perhaps from people with terabytes of hard disk
and time on their hands to fiddle with their scanners.

Now that Q has it and reviewers are writing about the feature, it's probably
only a matter of time. Sad as it seems there are many more important things
money as needed for years.

Have you given any thought as to how you'll back all of this up?

"Troy Roberts" <Troy Roberts[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7DE47A08-47C2-48A0-8C9A-3B807ACB1AB5[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -