This clearly is not a Suntrust problem. The method for connecting and retrieving transactions is very basic, and rarely requires any intervention on the part of Suntrust. There are simply too many financial institutions out there to setup dedicated and customized interfaces. There are other online services I use which access Suntrust, and they continued to operate fine. Besides, this is not the first time this has happened. It is, however, the longest period of downtime. Quicken Online does have a responsibility to provide a reliable service, regardless of it's price.

Prove you point .. or stop wasting our time. Provide verifiable evidence of your claim ... or stop pretendiing you have anything to offer. If you don't like the totally free service you are getting ... go somewhere else. Forums like these are for the purpose of solving problems ... not for the purpose of you pretending to be superior.

Are you for real? If there is anyone with delusions of grandeur sir, it's you. My comment is the only one that provides any real insight into the actual process. That seems helpful to me, considering the issue is not one typically solved via a forum. This is more like group counseling. See if anyone else is suffering, and then vent. We don't need someone like you adding to the suffering. My work involves these same types of arrangements with banks and financial institutions. Typically, the provider of the transactional data (Suntrust in this case), is simply allowing access via a standard method, XML most likely. The beauty of this method, is that both aggregator (Quicken) and provider (Suntrust), can exchange this data without regard to user interfaces, or arrangement of data. The changes recently made by Suntrust on their website, very unlikely had an impact on Quicken access. Again, a standard XML transmission is ignorant of style and design of any web page. My company exchanges data in this way thousands of times a day. In most cases, issues are on the front end, rather than the back end. Even so, I deal with connectivity issues just like this on a daily basis. That doesn't make me superior. Just well informed. As for the topic at hand, I'm in no position to provide verifiable evidence. How could I? I don't work for Suntrust or Intuit. And quite frankly, to ask for such evidence in the context of a user forum like this is ridiculous. I have no idea where the problem lies. What I've stated in the above paragraph is the best I can do. We can't possibly solve this type of problem. We can only speculate. If we had access to the "real" answer, we wouldn't be in this forum. Finally, you seem to be the type of person who scours web forums looking to pounce on any posting you feel is inferior with rude and disrespectful comments. I've read a few of your recent replies on other threads, and there is definitely a pattern of abuse. You're right about one thing. Forums like these are, indeed, for solving problems. I'm afraid you're not helping.

Your pretense that this can't be a Suntrust problem because the means of exchanging data are standardized is false. There has been plenty of evidence - including statements by financial institutions - over the years that either party in the exchange of data can err.  Having an agreed upon method for exchanging data does nothing to prevent human error. And who said the problem had to be caused by a modifcation to a web page. But as long as we are on the subject: if the data is being collected by the process of screen scraping, then modifications to the method for gaining access to a web page can indeed affect the collection of data.  In fact, some security measures can flat out prevent the access of a web page by a computer program.  This type of problem has been bedeviling Quicken (desktop) and MS Money for some time now. You admit now that you "have no idea where the problem lies", yet in your previous post you were certain it didn't lie with Suntrust.  My asking for evidence was intended to either have you provide that evidence and prove yourself right ... or admit that "you have no idea where the problem lies".  It just would have been nice if you had that viewpoint in your previous post. Your "speculation" isn't going to help anyone here get the problem solved.  You're welcome to vent.  And I'm entitled to comment on your venting. The rest of your analysis of me and my motives demonstrates your lack of analytical skill and a penchant for mis-characterization: you didn't even come close.