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 : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (3516)	1/31/1999 5:23:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

'2000 has already begun at Fred Meyer, Nordstrom by Steve Woodward The Oregonian The year 2000 is closer than you think. For Kmart, 2000 began Thursday - fiscal year 2000, that is. Within a week, Kmart will be joined in FY2000 by a crush of other large retailers, who tend to start their fiscal years on the weekend closest to Jan. 31. The timing allows companies to recover from the shopping frenzy of late December, selling any big inventories that remain in January, before embarking on a fresh financial year. They now will be working within a fiscal year that has dates beyond Dec. 31, 1999. Two software systems in particular - general-ledger accounts and merchandise planning - are vulnerable to the so-called Y2K computer bug, said Ted Grossman, a Babson College professor who specializes in retailing, information technology and year 2000 issues. General ledgers in most industries record a company's financial position by calendar month. But retailers, which do more business on weekends than weekdays, redefine months so that they end uniformly and ensure consistent period-to-period comparisons. That approach means retailers must tell their general-ledger systems on which day to end each month of the new fiscal year, depending on whether it's a four- or five-week month. For many, the final day of fiscal 2000 will be Jan. 29 or 30, 2000. "If the general ledger is not year 2000-compliant, it's gonna go bonkers," Grossman says. The other point of vulnerability is merchandise planning or "open-to-buy" systems, which help retailers create budgets for their buyers, who may have to buy millions of dollars in merchandise each day for sale months in the future. As of Nov. 7, Portland-based Fred Meyer - one of the nation's five biggest food and drug retailers, with stores mainly in the West - was 55 percent complete in Y2K repair of its information-technology systems and 28 percent complete in testing and installing the repaired systems, according to its most recent filing with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. The company, which declined to offer details beyond its filing, expects to spend $25 million to $30 million on its Y2K repair project. Nordstrom, which anticipates spending $24 million, said it expects to repair its critical systems by March 31, with testing to be completed by June 30. "We haven't seen anything yet that's apocalyptic," says Cathy Hotka of the National Retail Federation. Credit-card companies have been working with merchants to prepare them to deal with expiration dates past 1999. Those cards may conflict with some older cash registers, but Hotka says Visa reported only about 150 problems a month worldwide. Other retailers whose fiscal year 1999 ends this weekend include Target, The Bon Marche, Toys "R" Us, Wal-Mart Stores and Home Depot.

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (3516)	1/31/1999 7:35:00 PM
From: flatsville	Respond to of 9818

Cheryl this is may favorite part of the Plice and Schumacher piece: The Must-Be-Fixed Bug The sorting example mentioned above introduces another dimension of the Y2k bug. If, for whatever reason, a particular misbehavior doesn't get fixed, what are the consequences? If the records come out sorted in the wrong order, it is, by definition, a noncompliant system. But how much does it matter? Many possibilities exist. A few that come to mind are: 1) it may not matter at all; 2) it may result in a slight loss of efficiency in the next process using the sorted data; 3) it may be acceptable after making an adjustment in a downstream system; 4) it may just take a bit of getting used to on the part of a user looking at the data on a screen or printout; 5) it might be corrected by a new process outside the original system which has been designed just for that purpose; 6) it may be essential to the internal functioning of the system that it be fixed. This illustrates the inadequacy of the "compliance" metric. The real-world impacts of noncompliant systems are not necessarily all-or-nothing as the label "noncompliant" implies. In fact it may be economically advantageous to leave a noncompliant system alone and work around it, at least for the time being. Maybe these two guys should have a talk with Alan Greenspan. What did the say? Something like 99% compliance isn't good enough for the banking industry? Alan certainly believes it's an all or nothing at all proposition. I wonder what these two guys know that Alan doesn't? I'm sure the Chairman would sleep better at night if they'd only call...<gggg> I just love it. Pesky "sorting misbehaviors." Tell it to the holders of multi-million, billion and trillion dollar accounts that earn hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of dollars a minute. "Sorry gentlemen. We were informed by Plice and Schumacher that it might not matter much. The slight loss of efficiency in maintaining your account will be mitigated by an adjustment in a downstream system by a user who will just get used to looking at the screen differently while we migrate to a new process which will fix this all just fine and dandy. When do you ask? Well, I'm not certain....Oh, now gentlemen! No need for violence! Please, Sir! Lower your weapon!" ROTFLMAO "flatsville"