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 (5371)	4/9/1999 3:07:00 PM
From: Ken	Respond to of 9818

A realistic report of the true situition.< Victor Porlier points out that there is no y2k leadership politically. The big companies that should have been compliant months ago aren't. The reports of progress are not verified by third parties. In short, we are flying blind. We have only 9 months to go. There is no panic. The public is oblivious. The stock market is up. There is no sign that the y2k problem is a blip on the world's radar screen. Yet the radar screens may go blank in 9 months. We are not God. We are not omniscient. We must make decisions that are based on incomplete evidence from biased sources. Here's my recommendation: don't assume that the world's computer-dependent infrastructure will sustain your life when, so far, there is not one compliant, tested power company. from Westergaard's site (April 7). I have the impression that only a tiny but growing minority of individual Americans are making some contingency plans and acting on them. . . . Then there are the larger numbers who are vaguely nervous about their bank accounts and investments and are contemplating taking various sums of cash out. This is true for both households and businesses. I conclude that it is this group's concerns that trouble the institutional authorities the most. Bank runs are something to be avoided as they threaten the lifeblood of the economy. I suspect this is the root of the fervent message that the banks will be "ok." It is unfortunate that there have been no national discussions or town meetings to allow the American people or their community opinion leaders to hear the different viewpoints, analyses, and concerns of Y2K analysts across the broad spectrum. Nor is there likely to be, lacking any national leadership from the Beltway or from the philanthropically able. With less than nine months until 2000, what are some concerns that are likely to have a strong bearing on global forecasts, actions, and outcomes? First, I find most of the talk about 1999 pre-cursor checkpoints more misleading than helpful. . . . Second point: we can't possibly know what is going on in the millions of remediation efforts underway globally. On the one hand, we are told that many successful completions are not being reported because: that might imply a warranty and if there were a glitch, however minor, such an implied warranty would be grounds for litigation, by keeping mum a possible competitive advantage may be gained over less diligent competitors, and your programming staff may become targets for recruiters looking for seasoned Y2K help. On the other hand, many currently unsuccessful and seriously lagging projects are not being honestly reported because top management knows they are behind but does not want stock analysts or customers to know, top management thinks the IT staff is on schedule, but it isn't and the IT staff members are afraid to report for fear of "shoot the messenger" responses, and many companies are relying solely on the producers of the products they use to certify their own Y2K compliance. Based on known inaccuracies of some producers' compliance certification, the failure to test such purchases could be a serious mistake. When "cautiously" or "reasonably" optimistic forecasts are made on the basis of incomplete (often seriously so) surveys, how can one be encouraged? Most of those industries that do respond are offering self-assessments that are not independently verified or validated. We aren't talking facts here. We're talking leaps of faith. I am unclear as to why such forecasts can even be labeled "informed." If these organizations had sufficient foresight and project management expertise, they would have initiated their Y2K efforts long ago and be finished now. With only a few months to go they are still not finished and continue to promise success soon. Furthermore, we are told little or nothing about their other non-mission critical systems which are only important and supportive, their electronic data interchanges, their embedded systems, or their supplier-customer dependency chains. The official compilers of the minimalist data are, nevertheless, sufficiently optimistic to say Y2K will be a "non-event." . . . . We must not allow our minds to become consumed by spirits of fear nor by spirits of complacency. Rather we need minds that are alert, questioning, and discerning; minds that do not blindly trust in assertions and forecasts that are more faith than fact, more dream than data. y2ktimebomb.com >>>>