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: Hawkmoon who wrote (5084)	3/27/1999 5:45:00 PM
From: Ken	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

An aggregate look at the Y2K Experts rating at Russ Kelly's famous Y2K Experts rating page which is at russkelly.com. I took the below people's latest rankings (some have a range, such as myself) and create averages for all. The scale of 0-10 is not explained at Russ's site, but most Y2K researchers are familiar with the 0-10 scale used by the Washington DC Y2K SIG email survey done twice in 1998 and explained in Bruce Webster's 1999 book, The Y2K Survival Guide (does anyone have a URL for this scale/WDCY2K survey)? It's probably buried in Bruce's book. I used the below analysis in a slide I'm using henceforth in my speeches. --Roleigh >From russkelly.com (plus using Excel to gather averages) - the description of the scale is from Bruce Webster's book (see above). Low High Average Joel Ackerman 8.2 8.2 8.2 Dave Bettinger 7.4 7.4 7.4 Joe Boivin. 10.0 10.0 10.0 Dr. Douglass Carmicha 6.0 8.0 7.0 Dennis Elenburg 7.1 7.1 7.1 Thierry Falissard 8.5 8.5 8.5 Mark Frautschi 6.2 6.2 6.2 Karl Feilder 7.0 7.0 7.0 Dr. Reynolds Griffith 7.2 7.2 7.2 Cory K. Hamasaki 7.0 7.0 7.0 Dr. Leon Kappleman 6.0 6.0 6.0 Russ Kelly 8.5 8.5 8.5 Roleigh Martin 5.5 9.0 7.3 Michael Maynard 6.0 6.0 6.0 Dr. Gary North 10.0 10.0 10.0 Scott Olmsted 8.7 8.7 8.7 Charles Reuben 5.5 5.5 5.5 Alan Simpson 5.5 5.5 5.5 Harlan Smith 8.2 8.2 8.2 Timothy J Wilbur 9.0 9.0 9.0 Ed Yourdon 8.5 8.5 8.5 Nicholas Zvegintzov 1.0 1.0 1.0 AVERAGES: 7.1 7.4 7.3 Scale used in March 3, 1998 WDCY2K Email Survey of 700 listserv members, reproduced in Bruce Webster's book, The Y2K Survival Guide, page 401: 0 No real impact 1 Local impact for many enterprises 2 Significant impact for many enterprises 3 Significant market adjustment (20%+ drop); some bankruptcies 4 Economic slowdown; rise in unemployment; isolated social incidents 5 Mild recession; isolated supply/infrastructure problems; runs on banks 6 Strong recession; local social disruptions; many bankruptcies 7 Political crises; regional supply/infrastructure problems and social disruptions 8 Depression; infrastructure crippled; markets collapse; local martial law 9 Supply/infrastructure collapse; widespread social disruptions and martial law 10 Collapse of US government; possible famine

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (5084)	3/27/1999 5:59:00 PM
From: Ken	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

Re: How many banks will stay up? Any comments? First, there is the cascading cross default effect. Second, there is the computer shutdown effect. Third, there is the traditional bank run. Take your pick. Here is a report on bank runs, posted on the GOLD-EAGLE site. * * * * * * * * * * * * With only months remaining before D-Day arrives, the critical issue must be raised; when and how will the banking system be paralyzed as a result of Y2K? Take note how the previous was worded. The question is not "if," or "maybe," but when. Indeed this seems to be the easiest Y2K event to predict: the shut down of the banking system. At some point later this year we should see a situation were demand for currency will significantly exceed supply. Our economy operates under a means of payment called a fractional reserve banking system. Whenever a deposit is made, almost all of it is lent out to a borrower as a loan that is turn paid back in installment payments over a period of time. The depositor is then told a lie; that he can get all his money out anytime on demand. Reserve requirements in the U.S. today are around 6-12%. On the surface this may seem like a comfortable range for normal banking operations-and it is! But wait. In reality actual cash reserves sitting in vaults and spare currency in Federal Reserve holdings is much lower. These numbers are between 1.5-2.75% of total deposit obligations. Therefore the system relies universal public and depositor confidence and faith they will have access to their savings, as it would take a mere 5% (or less) to deplete all reserves. When banks fail, the FDIC steps in and cover a failing account for up to $100,000. However, it cannot at any one time bail-out large numbers of banks simultaneously. This is because it only holds approximately 1.5% in total deposit obligations. As a result, the FDIC can realistically insure a very small minority if a serious financial crisis were to emerge. So how then can we be so sure our financial system will be in crisis within the coming year? The global financial network has been heavily computerized in recent times. Most of these computers by their very design have the Y2K bug built in. If the system is to remain intact, virtually all computers in this interdependent wire system must be repaired or near full compliance. Anything less than 99% accuracy in routine calculations in this digitized network creates debilitating, cumulative errors that eventually overwhelm-then halt the flow and processing of data. This is the problem of imported data between interfaces and can be likened to the way a virus can propagate. There comes a time when propagation of bugs in the system become so pervasive that the flow of money/funds/data no longer be processed, as the time expended to hand check for corrupted data exceeds the capacity and ability to do so in a manual fashion. There is no way other than computers to efficiently handle this many transactions. The velocity of money would be drastically reduced-if not halted. The modern division of labor would collapse without this constant transfer of information to occur. This means that even if 70, or 80, or even 90% of U.S. banks managed to get 100% compliant before 2000, the seeming minority who fail would mess up the compliance of the whole system. That being said, we have a legitimate concern that ATM's and other transactions will suffer severe disruptions in the weeks and months following Jan 1,2000. This would necessitate the prudent action of withdrawing (or refusing to deposit) a "month or two" of cash from the bank. At least that is what any reasonable person would conclude. There are 103, 000,000 households in the U.S. The average monthly earnings are around $3,000 per head of household. For the sake of argument let's conservative and say that the average worker (139 million) will have $1,000 cash on hand (which takes into account the fact that some have none and some have much more) This would be $139 billion. Let's say that households take out an average of 15% of their bank accounts to be safe. This would be another $50 billion. Now let's say that 25% of small businesses plan to have two weeks cash to ensure payroll for employees. That's another $31 billion. Let's say that businesses, out of concern for their investments, withdraw an average of 5% of their deposits (Business deposits total $3.1 trillion). That's another $155 billion. Now let's add it all up. $139 Billion +$50 Billion, +$31 Billion, +$155 Billion A Total of $375 billion in cash will be demanded. This doesn't sound too bad does it? What if these numbers are doubled? $750 billion. So this begs the question: Is there enough currency to meet this demand? Fact: Existing bank reserves are 49.4 billion. The Federal reserve has promised to have an extra $200 billion specifically for Y2K. Adding these two figures we have a total of $249 billion that the banks will have available. This would not only drain ALL reserves, but banks would be short -$125 billion!!-There would be no more cash left. But wait, it gets worse. The above are based on very reasonable assumptions and disregards real-life. If such a small amount of withdraws could cause wreak so much havoc, what will be the general public's reaction when the panic begins? At some point in the midst of a crisis, infamously known as a bank run, sentiment will change in a dramatic fashion. As the lines get longer it becomes "Give me it all please." Recall the 5% rule: the approximate percentage of depositors required to shut down the financial system if they were to behave in this manner. There have been many recent polls indicating something quite alarming. The percentage polled who intend to withdraw ALL of their cash before 2000 ranges from 16-31%. Those who say "most" is even higher at 30-47%. From these numbers it can be concluded that there will indeed be a popint only months away when a freeze on the bank accounts takes place. What is as yet unclear is the precise date it will occur, or the manner in which it is executed. Presumably bankers and those in authority know the day of reckoning is quickly approaching and they are shaking in their boots.There is currently a well-orchestrated anti-bank run campaign underway, but this may only succeed in forestalling the inevitable. Such efforts typically involve attempts to downplay the magnitude of Y2K or give happy-spinned reports about how well they're working on it. They will publicly compare Y2K to a storm that lasts a couple days. Anyone who says anything more than this status quo will be labeled an "enemy of the people" or a "doomsayer," etc. This is part of the ongoing blame-game directed at those seeking the truth to which the author un-apologetically attempts to do. In the case of the fractional reserve banking system a lie has been told for too long. A lie that must now be painfully revealed.