Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : 2000 Date-Change Problem: Scam, Hype, Hoax, Fraud -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (654)	5/3/1998 9:05:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1361

Al, <The "true believers" view is that any company that makes statements (even in documents filed with the SEC) indicating a high level of Y2K readiness is either lying or does not understand their own business .... How do you argue against that kind of logic?> Message 4299380 Please explain why these two companies have IDENTICAL Y2K disclaimers and IDENTICAL wording and IDENTICAL dollar figures ... and WRONG math when combined. Cheryl P.S. No Y2K "true believer" on any of the SI threads has ever made the blanket statement that "all companies" do or don't do whatever. Only skeptics attribute that to us. We're trying to be aware and learn as much as we can so we can better protect our assets and our families should major disruptions occur.

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (654)	5/3/1998 11:30:00 PM
From: David Eddy	Respond to of 1361

Alastair - The "true believers" view is that any company that makes statements (even in documents filed with the SEC) indicating a high level of Y2K readiness is either lying or does not understand their own business. Sounds like a fair description to me. My direct experience with the engine rooms of Fortune 500 companies shows that there is a major communications disconnect between the bilges & the flag bridge. When the standing orders are that only "good" news travels upwards, guess what happens...? This is not to say that it's impossible to solve the Y2K issue. I would come across a fairly typical profile... smallish company (about 50 in the IT staff), company in backwater location & industry, ability for tech staff & management to communicate... shops like this often started working on Y2K 10+ years ago. Then there is a much smaller profile of shops that are just good at what they do. Starting at the last minute (1996), this requires 25% of the normal IT budget to cope with Y2K. Yes there are other easy profiles... if a company strictly uses industry packages & doesn't modify them (could be easy for an insurance company to do). For PacBell to say they're only to spend $100 million is obviously a joke. Regulated monopolies are not known for their disciplined use of project management & software resources... "Oops, costs are up, I guess we'll just have to raise our prices again..." - David