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: David Eddy who wrote (5388)	4/8/1999 9:54:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 9818

One thing I've started to see is an increased (?) number of "earnings surprises" that are often attributed to a noticable slow down in spending as companies enter year 2000 spending freezes or "lockdowns" where nothing new is introduced... Anyone have a handy list of stocks with PEs above 50? David, Considering that only 10-15 stocks are making up 50% of the gain in the S&P 500 so far this year, you have some pretty slim pickings to choose from. We probably shouldn't get into particulars on certain stocks as that would be for another thread. But the majority of stocks are already suffering a major bear market at the moment while the "four horsemen" carry the Nasdaq. However, you can always buy LEAP puts for 2000 on the high flyers. I'm really curious as to whether or not MSFT will finally receive its comeuppance and reflect slower revenue growth from fewer systems being sold. When the Microserfs all start realizing its time to cash in their options and "diversify", watch out market. Regards, Ron

To: David Eddy who wrote (5388)	4/9/1999 2:50:00 PM
From: Ken	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Expert Says (in 1997) It's Too Late to Revise Existing Code. <Peter G. W. Keen is one of the most published men on the Web. Search his name on Alta Vista, and you get pages and pages of entries. He is a specialist in business management and Information Technology departments. His latest book was published by Harvard Business School Press. His June 16, 1997, article in COMPUTERWORLD announces: "Year 2000: give up, move on - now." We're out of time. Stop trying to fix the legacy systems. Instead, build new systems using new software. "Don't even try to solve the year 2000 problem," he warns. "You can't fix it, and the cost of trying will put your firm's infrastructure at risk. Accept defeat." He's right. It's too late. Except for heading off post-2000 lawsuits, there is no reason to try. (If the courts don't survive because the banks don't survive, the threat of lawsuits disappears. That's the good side of y2k.) This means that whatever y2k can do, it will do. However small or large this threat is, it cannot be stopped. "The problem is far worse than the pessimists believe. Gartner Group's much-cited figure of $600 billion to fix it is misleading. If God or Bill Gates wrote out a check for the full amount, nothing much would change. The year 2000 problem is a people- and time-resource issue, not just a financial one. You can't buy time at any price." My view: Too bad there's not enough time to port all of the data in the legacy systems into new systems. Too bad it will take programmers far longer than we have until 2000 to design, code, and test new systems of 100 million to 500 million lines of code. Also: Too bad it's illegal for firms in many industries, such as insurance, banking, mortgage companies, and universities, to tamper with archived data. They must convert the stored information without in any way altering it. How can this be done with the tools, programmers, money, and time remaining? It can't. It's over. The only question now is this: How extensive is "it"? computerworld.com.