Quantech 4.3 testing issues - unconfirmed transactions

[rcline46]

Am I the last to know? In Quantech 4.3, unconfirmed MATCH transactions do NOT show in the ACP test (reportedly fixed in 5.0). When posting with 415 limits, NO UNCONFIRMED TRANSACTIONS are used (reported fixed in 5.0). Here's the best one - in doing the 410(B) Average Benefits Percentage Test, NO UNCONFIRMED TRANSACTIONS ARE USED. THis is NOT changed for 5.0 or 6.0.

Am I wrong in believing these are serious oversights? Who would check the totals on a test if each of the individual reports were correct??

[Guest]

I would say that is a major issue, (I don't care what software you are using). I would also recomend moving or posting the question on the Quantech board on Benefits Link - there is one available if you are not aware.

Since we don't use the 'confrim' feature in our office, I can not comment further.

[Guest John McCrary]

You have sparked a debate between Tom and myself. Having worked in the daily environment, I don't see it as a system bug. We both agree that there should be a pop-up box reminding you that unconfirmed transactions need to be released before testing.

[rcline46]

I view having various test reports (ADP and ABPT) showing different answers as to contributions made as a very serious bug. Why would one check the totals on the ABPT when the 401a report and ADP/ACP are correct? Either the ABPT should not run at all, or it should correspond.

Tom, I thought this WAS the Q board at benefitslink.com - that is how I got here!

Reed Cline

Benefit Consultants Group.

[Guest]

actually there is a separate Quantech board(as well as one foe Blaze and Trustmark), this is the 401(k). I don't have a problem with notes being posted here either, but I mention the 'software' board just in case others are not aware of it!

I try hard to point out possible 'bugs' or problems under that section.

If the ABPT is pulling in unconfirmed 'numbers' while the ADP test isn't, then I would say there are some serious inconsisties. I don't know, cuz we aren't using that option of confirmation required.

the crystal ADP report I 'wrote' (I use the term loosely) will correctly pull whatever deferrals are in the census compensation field so it wouldn't matter whether you are running confirmed transactions. however, I don't think such a field exists for match.

The YTDMATCH field pulls from the account data, and includes QNECs as well. go and figure.

anyway, I am getting carried away. I didn't say "Hi Reed!" and all that other stuff.

If you are looking for the Crystal Report for ADP tests, I have a flock of them on

LDA-FCPA.com

they handle a variety of scenarios the best I could (e.g. if there are deferrals only). There is a version that will actually use the 'shift' option, (A revised, final version I have been working on. Because of a minor inconsistency I haven't put it out on the website yet, you have to contact me directly for that one, and I'll warn you of the problem.)

Hope your workload isn't as bad as mine!

[This message has been edited by Tom Poje (edited 02-28-2000).]

[rcline46]

Tom, it is the ABPT that is NOT finding the unconfirmed transactions, and still is not under 5.0 and supposedly 6.0. The ADP and the 415 limits are (supposedly) fixed under 5.0.

I still cannot find the Quantech board! Is it on Benefitslink?

[Guest]

keep scrolling down, past 401(k), past cross testing, past distributions, SEPS etc. You will eventually hit PRODUCT USERS BOARD!

The Product User Boards are not affiliated with any of the software companies.

I know at least the Quantech Board is looked at from time to time by Quantech support, which is fine with me, this is not suppose to be a 'hands off' deal. On the other hand, since it is not affiliated, it hasn't become a 'sales' board or anything like that, which is great.

Do I think it is used enough? Heck no, if others are encountering problems, I would certainly like to know them. The actual Quantech web site doesn't seem to keep up on reporting known problems, and that frustrates me. I realize some problems are user errors (not bugs), but I would much rather have someone throw something out on the board such as "Has anyone had this problem..." Especially when it involves issues like you reported.

Thanks for sharing the problem!