Here is a dumb guy kind of question. I use Morgan Stanley, and I was
very interested in 2005 to be able to get the transactions
electronically, just as Quicken has been able to do, or at least that
is what I understood from the Microsoft website. Now that I have the
program, it appears that the application can't do it, but MSN Money
can get the data via Yodlee, and that I can sync the data into 2005
with MSN Money (but haven't done it quite yet). Was this the intent?
If so, couldn't one have built the application to make that leap
instead of a two step?

Thanks,
Phil

Re: 2005 and MSN Money by Larry

Larry
Wed Oct 06 02:24:29 CDT 2004

MSN Money is the application doing the updates using Yodlee. Money only
support OFX Direct Connect. In 2005 they made it so that Money asks MSN to
connect to Yodlee to get the info. This was done for many reasons. One was
security... another was cost... another is ease.

Now, the problem that we are seeing with the banks not supported by Money
when they are supported by MSN Money is that there was an error with the way
the bank list was created in Money 2005. This error meant that banks in the
list were not assigned to their correct account types... i.e. FirstUSA would
show up as a Bank Account and not a Credit Card Account. So, MSN Money bank
list should be right and MS Money bank list should look more like MSN Money
bank list when the issues get worked out and the first software update/patch
is sent.

Larry

"Phil Criswell" <pwcriswell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9579F377549D0pwcriswellcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
> Here is a dumb guy kind of question. I use Morgan Stanley, and I was
> very interested in 2005 to be able to get the transactions
> electronically, just as Quicken has been able to do, or at least that
> is what I understood from the Microsoft website. Now that I have the
> program, it appears that the application can't do it, but MSN Money
> can get the data via Yodlee, and that I can sync the data into 2005
> with MSN Money (but haven't done it quite yet). Was this the intent?
> If so, couldn't one have built the application to make that leap
> instead of a two step?
>
> Thanks,
> Phil