Morningstar Ratings

[John Lea]

Some time back with Q4 or Q5 I lost the capability to show MS ratings.
I upped to '02 deluxe and the ratings still did not show up. Support
told me that my data was corrupted and I should reenter (Right.). I
established a new file with just one share of each fund and was able
to get the ratings which, while clumsy, sort of worked for me.

But I was worried about what impact the corrupted files might have on
the reliability of the rest of my data so I started fresh with
'02Deluxe giving up the history and still the MS ratings did not
show.

Now I have upgraded to '05 Premiere and they are showing up but
apparently not for Bond funds. Money Market funds show a n/a but the
fields for bond funds are just empty.

Is there still a problem or is this as designed. Online support says
they can't deal with investment questions.

I

 

[Mike L]

Some time back with Q4 or Q5 I lost the capability to show MS ratings.
I upped to '02 deluxe and the ratings still did not show up. Support
told me that my data was corrupted and I should reenter (Right.). I
established a new file with just one share of each fund and was able
to get the ratings which, while clumsy, sort of worked for me.

But I was worried about what impact the corrupted files might have on
the reliability of the rest of my data so I started fresh with
'02Deluxe giving up the history and still the MS ratings did not
show.

Now I have upgraded to '05 Premiere and they are showing up but
apparently not for Bond funds. Money Market funds show a n/a but the
fields for bond funds are just empty.

Is there still a problem or is this as designed. Online support says
they can't deal with investment questions.

In addition to not being able to deal with investment questions, their
standard answer is alway "your data is corrupted" any time they simply
are not sure of something. This allows them to quickly close the
incident with no further work required from their end.

"your data is corrupted" are really just code words for "figure it out
yourself. you are on your own now. thank you for chosing intuit products.
have a really nice day.".

 

[John Pollard]

Some time back with Q4 or Q5 I lost the capability to show MS
ratings.
I upped to '02 deluxe and the ratings still did not show up.
Support
told me that my data was corrupted and I should reenter
(Right.). I
established a new file with just one share of each fund and
was able
to get the ratings which, while clumsy, sort of worked for me.

But I was worried about what impact the corrupted files might
have on
the reliability of the rest of my data so I started fresh with
'02Deluxe giving up the history and still the MS ratings did
not
show.

Now I have upgraded to '05 Premiere and they are showing up
but
apparently not for Bond funds. Money Market funds show a n/a
but the
fields for bond funds are just empty.

Is there still a problem or is this as designed. Online
support says
they can't deal with investment questions.

I have no trouble getting Morningstar ratings in Q2002 deluxe,
Q2004 H&B, or Q2005 deluxe ... all for Windows, US.

Have you ever Validated your file? Super-Validated? (Those are
the things to do if you really have, or believe you have,
corrupted data).

But before you do either of those things, see if any of this
helps.

I started a new file and played around with getting morningstar
ratings for one municipal bond fund. It turns out it matters
how you have the security setup. I am not 100% sure which of
the security properties was crucial, nor even if it was only one
property that mattered ... as opposed to needing all the
properties to be correct.

When I initially setup the muni fund, I intentionally set almost
all its properties incorrectly, including ticker (blank). My
first download did not get any morningstar results. Then I kept
doing quote downloads, modifying one more property each time to
see if I could get morningstar data. I modified several
properties and still got no morningstar data. When I finally
changed the drcurity "Type" to "Mutual Fund", I got morningstar
data.

It does make sense, inasmuch as Morningstar is a mutual fund
rating company; but my methodology does not rule out
requirements that other Quicken security properties may be
required to have certain values for the morningstar download to
work. Here are a few other property values I had set when the
Morningstar download worked. Asset Class:Mixture; Download
Asset Class Information:checked; Tax Free:checked. Naturally, I
think, you do have to have the ticker symbol correct too.

 

[John Pollard]

In addition to not being able to deal with investment
questions, their
standard answer is alway "your data is corrupted" any time
they simply
are not sure of something.

And your evidence for this is what? Do you have a transcript of
all Intuit/User conversations from which you have accurately
tabulated responses. Do you have any accurate information about
other than a tiny, statistically insignificant, fraction of
Intuit/User conversations.

This allows them to quickly close the
incident with no further work required from their end.

"your data is corrupted" are really just code words for
"figure it out
yourself. you are on your own now. thank you for chosing
intuit
products. have a really nice day.".

Baloney. What are your credentials?

 

[John Pollard]

When I finally
changed the drcurity "Type" to "Mutual Fund", I got
morningstar
data.

Definitely had my fingers on the wrong keys there. I suspect
you could deduce what I was trying to say, but just in case, I
changed the *security* "'Type' to 'Mutual Fund'" and finally got
Morningstar data.

 

[Jim Craig]

I can't seem to find how to get the Morningstar data. I went to the Help
screen which said:
1.. Choose Investing menu > Go to Investing Center.
2.. Click the Analysis tab.
3.. Scroll until you see the Mutual Fund Ratings from Morningstar
snapshot.
After doing steps 1 & 2, I scrolled down and couldn't find any Morningstar
snapshot on the page. What am I doing wrong?

Jim

 

[John Pollard]

I can't seem to find how to get the Morningstar data. I went
to the
Help screen which said:
1.. Choose Investing menu > Go to Investing Center.
2.. Click the Analysis tab.
3.. Scroll until you see the Mutual Fund Ratings from
Morningstar
snapshot.
After doing steps 1 & 2, I scrolled down and couldn't find any
Morningstar snapshot on the page. What am I doing wrong?

Do you have Q2005 Premier or better? I *think* (I found some
conflicting evidence) that the display you are looking for is
only available in Premier and above.

But that was not where I was verifying the presence of
Morningstar data in my earlier reply; I was looking on the
"Portfolio" tab in the Investment Center with "Show: Mutual
Funds" selected. Even in the Deluxe version, the Morningstar
data seems to be available there.

 

[Jim Craig]

I forgot to say that I have Q2005 Deluxe. I found the problem - when I
looked at the Portfolio tab with "Show Mutual Funds" selected, only one fund
had the Morningstar data. I found that I had apparently added a security
type of "mutual funds", and all the funds except the one with the data had
that for a type. When I changed them all to "mutual fund", the Morningstar
data appeared for all of them.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Jim

 

[djebens]

And your evidence for this is what? Do you have a transcript of
all Intuit/User conversations from which you have accurately
tabulated responses. Do you have any accurate information about
other than a tiny, statistically insignificant, fraction of
Intuit/User conversations.

There is some truth to the former statement; I have yet to receive any
response other that "corrupt data" from tech support (that's why I rely
on this ng for assistance). When I was unable to open qkn 04 on 01/01/04
I was given that explanation by online support. Turns out it was a qkn
bug caused by estimated tax scheduled transactions NOT corrupt data.

 

[Mike B]

There is some truth to the former statement; I have yet to receive any
response other that "corrupt data" from tech support (that's why I
rely on this ng for assistance). When I was unable to open qkn 04 on
01/01/04 I was given that explanation by online support. Turns out it
was a qkn bug caused by estimated tax scheduled transactions NOT
corrupt data.

I agree. There are many of us (myself included) who, at one time or another,
was given the "corrupt data" spiel by Intuit tech support. Upon
perserverance it eventually turns out to be some other cause.

 

[John Pollard]

There is some truth to the former statement; I have yet to
receive any
response other that "corrupt data" from tech support (that's
why I
rely on this ng for assistance). When I was unable to open qkn
04 on
01/01/04 I was given that explanation by online support. Turns
out it
was a qkn bug caused by estimated tax scheduled transactions
NOT
corrupt data.

If the operative phrase is "some truth", I wouldn't argue. I
just don't care for extreme claims that lack supporting
evidence, especially when it's clear the claimant could not
have, or ever get, that evidence.

I have no doubt that Intuit misses some diagnoses, and I have no
doubt that they sometimes suggest checking for corrupt data when
they can find no other answer. That happens here too. There
has been more than one question asked here, where it was
suggested the op check for corrupt data, when the problem later
turned out not to have to do with corrupt data. I also suspect
that there were other occasions when corrupt data was suggested
as a possibility here, when no better answer was ever found ...
but the op could not fix the problem by
validating/super-validating or any manual pruning of data.
'Course then there are all those times when validating did solve
the problem.

If a question is otherwise unanswerable, what should a responder
say? Seems to me, checking for corruption may be the best
last-resort answer. What would you think if the responder did
not suggest checking for corruption when no other cause could be
found? Especially if it turned out there was corruption?

 

[The Michael]

And your evidence for this is what? Do you have a transcript of
all Intuit/User conversations from which you have accurately
tabulated responses. Do you have any accurate information about
other than a tiny, statistically insignificant, fraction of
Intuit/User conversations.

Baloney. What are your credentials?

You protest WAY TOO MUCH John. One reason this group exists is because of
the lack of support from Intuit as you well know. You have supplied many
a user with patience and understanding in helping them work through or
solve a problem (that they were not able to get help for elsewhere).

You yourself run older versions of Quicken until all the bugs have been
discovered or make it to the knowledge base. You spend untold hours
paralleling Quicken 2005 before trusting to use it yourself. I highly
suspect you do all of this because you feel Intuit support is crap. Also
because of this, I suspect you have had little experience dealing with
Quicken "support" on new and unknown problems in recent years (post USA).

You have been here long enough to know their support is not highly
thought of, ESPECIALLY for new problems.

I will at this time say "Baloney" back to ya guy I will followup in
the next couple of days explaining my view point on Intuit's "corrupted
data scenario" and why I believe it is not at all necessary (especially
in this close group) to document this with transcripts. Don't be silly,
John

Most of all, thank you also for being as helpful as you have been to the
members of the group.

 

[John Pollard]

You protest WAY TOO MUCH John. One reason this group exists is
because of the lack of support from Intuit as you well know.
You
have supplied many a user with patience and understanding in
helping
them work through or solve a problem (that they were not able
to get
help for elsewhere).

You yourself run older versions of Quicken until all the bugs
have
been discovered or make it to the knowledge base. You spend
untold
hours paralleling Quicken 2005 before trusting to use it
yourself.

This is only partly right; I did want to know how newer versions
worked, but as much to see for myself which value judgements
made here corresponded with reality as that I was fairly certain
that one day, I would have to start using some new version.

I highly suspect you do all of this because you feel Intuit
support
is crap.

Not really; I never think of that. I think the comments about
Intuit's support here are largely meaningless. They have no
context; little or no relation to reality. I believe that
Quicken users are basically getting the support they pay for.
Personally I am not willing to pay a lot more money for Quicken
so someone can get stroked by Intuit's tech support staff. My
sense of it is that the vast majority of those whining about
Intuit's support haven't got a clue how difficult/expensive it
would be to provide unreproachable support.

Ever notice how many people adamantly refuse to pay Intuit for
support ... under the false assumption that it is owed to them.
And what limits do you suppose they would ever accept on what is
"owed" to them. I believe that the number of questions posed
here represents a very tiny fraction of the number of questions
that would be posed to Quicken support if it were "free". And
how many of the questions posed here should be paid for by
Quicken users who took the time to either figure it out for
themselves or to look up the answer at Intuit's support site, or
to look up the answer in the archives.

And when you read the level of nastiness demonstrated by many of
those complainers, you might also remember that no one likes
hearing that sort of hateful derrogatory insulting and often
profanity laced speach. You're not going to find a lot of
highly qualified people who will sit around a take that crap ...
definitely not me. Here, I do not have to worry about Intuit's
reputation one way or the other; no one can run me out of here
because they think I am not acting like a subservient Intuit
employee. If I leave it will be on my own terms.

Also because of this, I suspect you have had little
experience dealing with Quicken "support" on new and unknown
problems
in recent years (post USA).

You are correct, I have not had much experience with Intuit's
Quicken support. Virtually everything I know, I learned by
trial-and-error, and by reading this group. The closest I come
to knowing the specifics of Intuit support are the transcripts
of chat discussions that occasionally get posted here.

But I wonder how much any person knows of the total quality of
Intuit support; how many "issues" are dealt with by Intuit each
day; what percentage of those are issues posed by people posting
here? If Intuit were dealing with 5000 issues each day, and 5
of the results were posted here, would you feel you had a good
insight into the quality of Intuit's responses?

You have been here long enough to know their support is not
highly
thought of, ESPECIALLY for new problems.

Can't argue with you there. Doesn't mean I must agree with the
underlying notions expressed by those who are unhappy. As I
said, I think the entire issue is a crock; the quality of the
support is closely related to the price being paid for it; and I
don't believe the whiners would be willing to pay for the level
of support that would end their whinings - they've certainly not
offered any evidence to the contrary.

If you ignore every other consideration, could you say "Intuit's
support for Quicken could be better"? Of course; but it is the
context that matters. I could say the exact same thing about
every company that I ever dealt with that has ever provided
support; and I got some very good support from a couple of
companies (and in one of those cases of good support, there was
still a separate, non-company-sponsored newsgroup to supplement
the company provided support).

But like I said, the comments here are *necessarily* out of
context; we are missing all the pertinent information to include
in the cost/benefit analysis. Without a *lot* more information,
we have no benchmark to compare to. For example, it would be
silly to compare the desired "free" Quicken support to the
company support I referred to above - it cost my company
something like $1200 a year for that good product support ...
and while we liked what we did get, that didn't stop us from
turning to the newsgroup for even more (and more economical)
"support".

I will at this time say "Baloney" back to ya guy I will
followup
in the next couple of days explaining my view point on
Intuit's
"corrupted data scenario" and why I believe it is not at all
necessary (especially in this close group) to document this
with
transcripts. Don't be silly, John

Sure wasn't trying to be: just trying to point out the level of
hyperbole that gets thrown around here: lots of statements, very
little support for them. And some comments do not deserve quite
the same level of consideration as others.

The bottom line: even if the poster was correct, even if Intuit
*required* every support session that could not be resolved to
be ended with the sugggestion that the problem could be
corrupted data ... what is the problem with that? What would be
a better alternative? What if the opposite was true, what if no
mention was made of the possiblity of corrupt data? Then what
if the problem really was corrupt data? Isn't it better to
suggest that people with unresolved problems consider the
possibility that they might have corrupt data, rather than say
nothing about the possibility?

Most of all, thank you also for being as helpful as you have
been to
the members of the group.

You are very welcome.

 

[djebens]

I forgot to say that I have Q2005 Deluxe. I found the problem - when I
looked at the Portfolio tab with "Show Mutual Funds" selected, only one fund
had the Morningstar data. I found that I had apparently added a security
type of "mutual funds", and all the funds except the one with the data had
that for a type. When I changed them all to "mutual fund", the Morningstar
data appeared for all of them.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Jim

I'm glad you found the answer for me I see the area where Morningstar
ratings are but only 1 of all mutual funds has any morningstar data the
rest all show N/A. I did validate & super validate w/the same response.
We rebalanced our portfolio at the end of last year so have many new
funds which qkn added w/no problems, correct type "mutual fund," correct
ticker symbols & all. Would like to see the ratings for the rest, any ideas?

 

[The Michael]

This is only partly right; I did want to know how newer versions
worked, but as much to see for myself which value judgements
made here corresponded with reality as that I was fairly certain
that one day, I would have to start using some new version.


Not really; I never think of that. I think the comments about
Intuit's support here are largely meaningless.

ALL of them? Are you joshing us?

They have no
context; little or no relation to reality. I believe that
Quicken users are basically getting the support they pay for.
Personally I am not willing to pay a lot more money for Quicken
so someone can get stroked by Intuit's tech support staff. My
sense of it is that the vast majority of those whining about
Intuit's support haven't got a clue how difficult/expensive it
would be to provide unreproachable support.

Ever notice how many people adamantly refuse to pay Intuit for
support ... under the false assumption that it is owed to them.
And what limits do you suppose they would ever accept on what is
"owed" to them. I believe that the number of questions posed
here represents a very tiny fraction of the number of questions
that would be posed to Quicken support if it were "free". And
how many of the questions posed here should be paid for by
Quicken users who took the time to either figure it out for
themselves or to look up the answer at Intuit's support site, or
to look up the answer in the archives.

And when you read the level of nastiness demonstrated by many of
those complainers, you might also remember that no one likes
hearing that sort of hateful derrogatory insulting and often
profanity laced speach. You're not going to find a lot of
highly qualified people who will sit around a take that crap ...
definitely not me. Here, I do not have to worry about Intuit's
reputation one way or the other; no one can run me out of here
because they think I am not acting like a subservient Intuit
employee. If I leave it will be on my own terms.


You are correct, I have not had much experience with Intuit's
Quicken support.

.... and yet that was pretty much the topic you and I got into What
then are your credentials for labelling my viewpoint "baloney"?

Virtually everything I know, I learned by
trial-and-error, and by reading this group. The closest I come
to knowing the specifics of Intuit support are the transcripts
of chat discussions that occasionally get posted here.

But I wonder how much any person knows of the total quality of
Intuit support; how many "issues" are dealt with by Intuit each
day; what percentage of those are issues posed by people posting
here? If Intuit were dealing with 5000 issues each day, and 5
of the results were posted here, would you feel you had a good
insight into the quality of Intuit's responses?


Can't argue with you there. Doesn't mean I must agree with the
underlying notions expressed by those who are unhappy. As I
said, I think the entire issue is a crock; the quality of the
support is closely related to the price being paid for it; and I
don't believe the whiners would be willing to pay for the level
of support that would end their whinings - they've certainly not
offered any evidence to the contrary.

If you ignore every other consideration, could you say "Intuit's
support for Quicken could be better"? Of course; but it is the
context that matters. I could say the exact same thing about
every company that I ever dealt with that has ever provided
support; and I got some very good support from a couple of
companies (and in one of those cases of good support, there was
still a separate, non-company-sponsored newsgroup to supplement
the company provided support).

But like I said, the comments here are *necessarily* out of
context; we are missing all the pertinent information to include
in the cost/benefit analysis. Without a *lot* more information,
we have no benchmark to compare to. For example, it would be
silly to compare the desired "free" Quicken support to the
company support I referred to above - it cost my company
something like $1200 a year for that good product support ...
and while we liked what we did get, that didn't stop us from
turning to the newsgroup for even more (and more economical)
"support".


Sure wasn't trying to be: just trying to point out the level of
hyperbole that gets thrown around here: lots of statements, very
little support for them. And some comments do not deserve quite
the same level of consideration as others.

The bottom line: even if the poster was correct, even if Intuit
*required* every support session that could not be resolved to
be ended with the sugggestion that the problem could be
corrupted data ... what is the problem with that? What would be
a better alternative? What if the opposite was true, what if no
mention was made of the possiblity of corrupt data? Then what
if the problem really was corrupt data? Isn't it better to
suggest that people with unresolved problems consider the
possibility that they might have corrupt data, rather than say
nothing about the possibility?


You are very welcome.

I was not whining, swearing nor asking for un-reproachable support, nor
discussing costs and benfits. I ONLY commented on Intuit's use of the
"corrupted data scenario" as being very "lame". You have labelled it
baloney and obviously are not interested in hearing more on the subject.
I will therefore spend absolutely no time following up on this (I do not
have the same level of patience as you anyway).

I will however feel free in this group and our sister group to express my
views on Intuit's support in the future when I feel it is appropriate and
I will not be archiving any transcripts for you... Hey, what good would
that do anyway

 

[John Pollard]

ALL of them? Are you joshing us?

Why did you place your reply here instead of after my
explanation of the sentence you replied to?

... and yet that was pretty much the topic you and I got into
What
then are your credentials for labelling my viewpoint
"baloney"?

I was not whining, swearing nor asking for un-reproachable
support,
nor discussing costs and benfits.

Why in the world did you assume I was speaking about only your
reply. I did not in any way refer to you or your response when
I gave my general description of those that I was referring to.
I went to some lengths to idenditfy posters that I did not think
you could possibly include you. Still, somehow, you seem to
want to be so identified. Was I wrong?

You endeavored to speak for a number of other people; my reply
was about those people you endeavored to speak for.

I ONLY commented on Intuit's use
of the "corrupted data scenario" as being very "lame". You
have
labelled it baloney

I explained and expanded on that in my reply to you ... did you
actually read it.

and obviously are not interested in hearing more
on the subject.

At what point did I say that?

I will therefore spend absolutely no time following
up on this (I do not have the same level of patience as you
anyway).

I have no idea what this response means when applied to mine.
Based on what I am reading here, you did not even come close to
reading/understanding what I said. Apparently you assume that
if I disagree with your defense of others, that I am somehow
picking on you for their offense or "not interested in hearing
more on the subject" ... not a word I said suggested that I
would be unwilling to listen to well reasoned, well supported
discourse on the subject.

I will however feel free in this group and our sister group to
express my views on Intuit's support in the future when I feel
it is
appropriate and I will not be archiving any transcripts for
you...

Sorry you took the position you did; based on your comments, it
is not related to what I actually said/meant. Seems like you
want to make statements, but can't stand any disagreement. That
is not my doing ... I took your comments as basically well
meaning; you, on the other hand, take disagreement as
unacceptable. I can not think of any good remedy for that.

 

[Andrew]

(lots of snips to reduce the private argument discussion that I really
don't care to repost....)

.... and our sister group ....

What "sister group"??

 

[Jim Craig]

You might check the "One Step Update" screen, click on "select quotes to
download", and make sure that your new mutual funds are checked to be
downloaded. Then run a download and see if the info is updated. I tried it
on a fund that I no longer have and was showing "N/A" - after checking it
and downloading, the MS data appeared.

Jim

 

[slb]

I've been lurking here for quite a while and find incredibly amusing the
mindset of some of the posters.

I've worked for a PC software company. For those of you who don't
understand the software business, do some simple math before you shoot
your mouth off. A good tech support person costs money, $20-60k plus
benefits. If the vendor makes $20 gross profit per unit, they have to
sell 1,000 copies to pay JUST THE SALARY for each low-end tech support
person EACH YEAR.

Tech support doesn't write software. They don't market software. They
answer questions, often stupid questions that could be answered if only
the user opened the help file. We resolved issues that had nothing to do
with our products. The average tech support call at our firm was more
than 4 minutes. That's 15 calls per hour per agent. We had 120+ agents
working 24x7. We had $1.3mm in the call center infrastructure ($200k+
for a phone switch alone) plus salaries, benefits, taxes, rent,
depreciation, insurance, marketing, logistics, legal, electric, and the
list goes on.

Just what do you expect for $30-$50?

Do I think Intuit is a good company to do business with? Not
particularly. But I've come to depend on Quicken and haven't seen a
better alternative, yet. I was happily using Quicken 01 Basic and
received a letter from Intuit saying Checkfree/Quicken Bill Pay would no
longer work after March 1. Was I upset? Damn straight. Change is always
traumatic. However, Intuit sent me a FREE copy of 05 Premier. I
converted -- there are some features I like and others that are a huge
step backward. But I saw enough benefit (Checkfree) to go through the
upgrade process and give up 01.

Also look at other software companies. I've purchased and implemented
large-scale software systems for 30 years. A multi-million dollar
purchase is only the beginning. On top of the purchase price the client
paid 15% per YEAR in maintenance in perpetuity. That bought you
upgrades, patches and support. Now the vendors charge 18-22% (including
the year you buy the product -- $2mm x 20% = $400k per year). Even with
these kind of dollars support can be spotty. And after a certain number
of years support costs increase dramatically if you don't keep up with
the upgrades. Eventually support drops entirely. What do you expect? The
vendor can't support old systems forever at no additional cost.

It always seems to be a small group of people who complain here who
think they are "entitled" to unlimited free support forever for their
$30. Ten years ago that was true for a number of software vendors.
However, they long since went out of business. No wonder Intuit doesn't
respond or care about this news group. Why should they? They sell
millions of copies a year and see 100 complaints on this news group in
the same time frame. Again, do the math. The percentage of complaints
isn't even statistically significant to waste the time and money to try
to respond to someone who's irate. That 4 minute call will last 30
minutes and won't result in a sale.

And when John Pollard, or other moderates try to explain, they get
flamed. Geez. Can't please anybody who feels entitled. This group
exists, not because Intuit doesn't provide support. Intuit provides
support -- you just have to pay for it. This group exists because people
like John and others generously "DONATE" their time to help others.

So flame away folks. But understand, you ain't gonna make a difference
to me or Intuit. The law of large numbers is definitely working against
you. Either learn to live with the situation or select a different
product. And, if you find one that has ALL the functionality of Quicken,
by all means let us know.

sb

 

[John Pollard]

I'm glad you found the answer for me I see the area where
Morningstar
ratings are but only 1 of all mutual funds has any morningstar
data
the rest all show N/A. I did validate & super validate w/the
same
response. We rebalanced our portfolio at the end of last year
so have many new
funds which qkn added w/no problems, correct type "mutual
fund,"
correct ticker symbols & all. Would like to see the ratings
for the
rest, any ideas?

Not sure exactly what you mean by "new funds", but according to
Intuit, Morningstar does not rank funds in business less than
three years.