Guest Daily401k Posted June 25, 1999 Posted June 25, 1999 I will try this again. JohnB, please allow us, Quantech users the ability to share our comments in a professional way. Not all things said on this board should be in support of Qtech. Allow the users of this board to comment on my posting. Quantech obviously scans the board and gets very upset when someone has negative feedback about its product. Below is an e-mail conversation I had with Corbel after I posted a comment on this board about “MY OPINION” “ on how well Qtech handles the needs of a daily shop (see earlier post regarding moving from Datair to Qtech). This board is not affiliated with Qtech and should be available for users to express their opinions. I have taken off the name of the individual from Corbel who sent the following e-mail to my attention in hopes that the moderator of this board will allow the post to stay. Also, below is my reply to that email. Have a nice day! DailyK ---------------------- From: "Daily Operations" Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:57:52 -0700 To: "John Doe" Well here you go. First, I find it quite humorous that you have written me this email. If you are so sure that your product is the best in the market why would you be concerned about my comments? Constructive negative feedback should only be used to make changes that your users need. To answer you first question. Yes, my shop uses both Quantech & TrustMark. I have used it in the past and I am using it in the present, and I will be using it in the future. I too attend a majority of your users group. Not only nationally but also the smaller regional groups. I am aware of how many shops currently use the product. Simply because you have 110 firms using Quantech for daily recordkeeping does not mean its a great system and does not need enhancements. 1) Forfeitures do not work correctly. They are not included in gain/loss calculations. They are not included in fee calculations. This becomes a manual process. It needs to be the default fund in the current version. To forfeit a participant you need to drop a contribution? Can not forfeit and distribute at the same time (negative units). They require a $1 par fund to be used which must be a cash account on Qtech. When you reallocate at year-end, it pulls the current balance. You can only have one suspense account. 2) Eligibility is horrible. If you elect to check the first box, you change the world. The system seems to calculate correctly sometimes and not correctly on other occasions. My administrators seem to mess with plan specs constantly to figure out the logic behind some of Qtech's decisions. 3) To use the VRU you need to either be eligible or have a balance on the system. Not good for the high tech automated world trying to supply better customer service and allow for online enrollment. Unable to swap the database at the plan level, either all plans or nothing. 4) Qtech does not have a trust accounting report! I know, you have been working on it for quite some time now. This is a must in daily! Cash is not tracked for reporting purposes. 5) Employee census information is sorted by effective date rather than trade date. Trade date is used in daily. 6) Activity tracking is non-existent, or at least not very good. 7) Loan interest updates are manual. Does not allow the user to tell the system what interest rate should be used on new loans. (Ex. prime 1) Should be a global level transaction to populate interest at the plan level. Loan modeling does not use the current payroll schedule. Unable to drop a loan fee and loan distribution at the same time. Loan repayments settle on the loan fund at the time of posting; should be on trade date, this can cause straddled transactions at quarter and year-end. 8) No good reconciliation reports available. Nothing at the omnibus level for daily reconciliation. 9) Takeovers are difficult. Required fields to populate with year to date information for testing is impossible unless you back in to the takeover through transactions. Unable to populate hardship information. 10) Census DER - hard to find the accounts you really need. Fund names are cut in half, no account numbers. Reports for contributions run through the system do not show employer match amounts. Unable to view 32 bit file names. Unable to pick a date to extract out ending balance, units or cost basis etc. 11) After you post a transaction, you loose the ability to scroll within that transaction to see what was done. In order to find out the funds used on a transfer or gain loss, you first must reverse the transaction in order to see what was done. 12) No good hardship distribution capabilities. Needs to be done manually in the current version. 13) No ability to use "as of" dates for transactions. Need to flip back in forth between plan years to run the transactions. Then you need to update the current year to reflect proper balance. Census (name, address, vesting changes, dates, etc.) is not carried from one year to the other if changes are made in the prior year. This happens in daily when running in the last file for the previous year which is received after the new year is established. If investment elections change in the new year via VRU or web, last contribution for the old year will not reflect correct allocation. 14) Not able to drop a negative contribution for employer match. 15) Fund prices are wrong sometimes with no corrections by Qtech if using your download. 16) Unable to identify what trades belong to what transactions. 17) 5500 reports? 18) Only one user is allowed in the plan at a time. Should at least offer view only capabilities. 19) Employers with multiple pay schedules can run into problems if the payrolls end on the same date. There are many more things I could come up with, but these are just a few off the top of my head. Qtech does do some very nice things also, but there are needs for enhancements. Future version may make it the system of choice. Until then I must remain true to my opinion that the system does not handle daily as well as others currently. Also, just because users are pleased with the system does not mean they do not encounter problems. I am pleased with both TrustMark & Qtech but would like to see enhancements to both. Best Regards, Daily ---------------- On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:43:31 John Doe wrote: [Note: several paragraphs have been edited (deleted) by me, the webmaster of these message boards -- please see my message later in this thread -- thanks -- Dave Baker] [Note: This message has been edited by Dave Baker]
Guest Charles G Posted June 25, 1999 Posted June 25, 1999 Dailyk, Great points and well thought out. I, too have experience similar frustrating problems trying to operate Quantech in a daily environment. The other day I had an annoying conversation with the technical support. For I mention it would be nice to see a dollar amount noted within the Transaction Entry field for a contribution posting. Well that didn't go over too well. Let freedom reign! ------------------ Dailyk [This message has been edited by Charles G (edited 06-25-99).] [This message has been edited by Charles G (edited 06-25-99).]
Tom Poje Posted June 25, 1999 Posted June 25, 1999 If there are some issues that you feel should be addressed, but don't think are worth discussing on this forum, please feel free to e-mail me directly. There is a national council users meeting coming up, and I will pass them on there. One of the purposes of this meeting is to set possible priorities for future releases. That's right. get your suggestions in now. can't say it will help, but it can't hurt.
Dave Baker Posted June 25, 1999 Posted June 25, 1999 This note is to explain my decision to delete portions of Daily401k's message. I'm Dave Baker, the webmaster. The portion that was deleted appeared to me to be a quote of a private email sent from another party to Daily401k. To publish in a public forum the contents of a personal email without the permission of its author is a breach of netiquette and trust. Even off the net this would be offensive to many -- e.g., the proposal by J.D. Salinger's one-time girlfriend to publish his letters to her from 1972. (If only plan administration were as exciting. Perhaps that's not the best analogy.) Daily401k, I very much appreciate your participation on the message boards. I wonder if you would consider switching to a username that is your full name, though? In a forum where the livelihood and full-time job of several hundred employees is indirectly but very certainly involved -- Corbel in Jacksonville -- I think that the accountability of using full names would go a long way to making the message board more useful and constructive for everybody. It's tempting to paint them with a broad Microsoft-vs.-the-rest-of-us brush, but Corbel seems to have a great deal of competition (unlike MS) and to have every reason to want to improve its product further as efficiently as it can. A balanced and accountable discussion of areas for improvement seems to me to be likely to help make those improvements happen.
Guest Daily401k Posted June 25, 1999 Posted June 25, 1999 Dave, Thank you for allowing a majority of my post to remain intact. I am not yet skilled in the art of netiquette, but as I try do everyday, I live and learn. You make a very valid argument for the side of full accountability, but I do feel that there is a case to be made to remain anonymous. Each month I pay a fair sum of money to Quantech for support. If I responded under my real identity, I may not receive the support needed to maintain my obligations to my clients. Furthermore, I do meet with members of Corbel on somewhat of a regular basis (users meeting etc.), and I would like to continue to see that relationship grow. Therefore, I will remain anonymous for now, but I will continue to participate in healthy discussions on system issues with constructive comments and opinions. Thank you again. Daily401k ------------------ daily401k@mailcity.com [This message has been edited by Daily401k (edited 06-25-99).] [Edited by Dave Baker on 07-31-2000 at 04:47 PM]
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.