Bill,
We seem to both be on SI at the same time and I would like to respond to your thread.
I would like to begin by stating that I am not a Y2K zealot. When ZITL went parabolic, I came out of lurk mode and told said shareholders to wake up and invest in stocks with FA, products, ideas, but not a calendar date scam.
Further, I wholeheartedly agree that MANY Y2K stocks are scams (Y2K longs clearly recognize this also and discuss/research the merits of various Cos) Further, I don't know the exact $$$ which will be required to address this issue and neither does Dejager(sp). However, I do believe that both the Y2k problem and the "Denial of the Y2K problem" are real issues which will create stock wealth for those properly positioned.
Subsequent to my anti-ZITL days, I have personally watched organization after organization indicate that Y2K compliance is indeed a problem which must to be addressed - In other words, the meetings started. FYI, many of said organizations are ultra conservative, low tech operations who previously believed that Y2k either did not exist or was something which could be easily (manually) corrected.
I believe that the issue is not whether the world/corporations will shut down on 1/1/2000 (or before) is the issue. The issue is if there is a distinct possibility that the Y2k problem COULD cause a lack of productivity, would a competent, properly notified CEO/owner/manager not take prudent preventive measures to avoid such a catastrophe on his/her watch.
I have recently, in the course of my job, come across published legal articles attempting to measure the legal ramifications of the Y2K issue: Should Co A rely on Tech-boy Bob from tech support appraise/address its possible Y2K issues or should said Co outsource this duty to Co. XYZ, at a much greater cost, so that XYZ would be legally liable for any losses in productivity due to Y2K noncompliance. I have also seen an extensive article discussing various schemes designed to keep/lock in a company's top-notch programmers as the Y2k headhunter wars have been heating up.
These sources have lead me to change my previous contrarian position and accept that Y2K is more than an internet scam. I agree, it may not cause the world to end in an apocalyptic (sp) fashion as some believe and DDIM will not overtake MSFT in market cap. But, it will have to be thorougly and properly addressed.
If the above is true, and I firmly believe it is, what will happen on the market when so many others realize that Y2k is an issue which can not be ignored. I believe that many real Y2K companies will properly increase in value. Whereas many others wiil be bid up to further unrealistic valuations only to come crashing back down to earth when the market realizes this. Y2k longs are well aware of the scam companies and the lemming like run-up in price. However, be that as it may, many companies will utilize this opportunity to further psotion themselve for future growth.
Well the above is one contrarion turned Y2k long's opinion. (Also, I did not use spell check or edit this closely for grammer.)
Peace
Stephen
Stephen |
