While we were on vacation, I was trapped in the car listening to radio talk shows, my husband's favorite fare. He listens to anything from Rush Limbaugh to financial talk shows. I was amazed to hear a number of people calling to ask about Year 2k. Was that anyone from this group? Some guy called a financial talk show and asked point-blank if the Year 2000 was perceived as a big threat. The host says "No, Wall Street had a successful test and I think that everything is under control". ROTFLMAO. The caller was speechless and hung up. I guess he should have asked "What about everybody who isn't testing?".

I used to be disgusted. Now I'm just amused.

-- Amy Leone (aleone@amp.com), August 11, 1998

Answers

My understanding of the Wall Street test was that everything went as planned. I was encouraged that they were testing at this point. My instincts tell me that, of all places, Wall Street will be ready, which should drive the banking industry into preparedness. I am, of course, an optimist. Not a popular position to be in here. I am also somewhat new to this place, so what the hell does ROTFLMAO translate to in English. Thanks.

-- bhayes (bkhayes@intellex.com), August 11, 1998.

My understanding of the Wall Street Test is that all they tested were the tests that they are going to test with early next year sometime in March I think. I don't understand all of the positive spin that this early test of a procedure is all about. Would someone enlighten me?

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), August 11, 1998.

I find it interesting that intially the word out of Wall Street was A OK. No problems except a few minor glitches that were not Y2K related. However, I just read a story that said there were in fact 1% related Y2K problems. 1% is not a significant amount but the point is......Whats the real story here?

-- C. Poston (Spoonman@prodigy.net), August 11, 1998.

Dan Rather mentioned last night that there was a 1% failure in the Wall Street Y2K tests. I'd like to hear some pertinent information on this too.

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), August 11, 1998.

<< I find it interesting that intially the word out of Wall Street was A OK. No problems except a few minor glitches that were not Y2K related. However, I just read a story that said there were in fact 1% related Y2K problems. >>

One other thing appeared in the Boston Globe's version of the story. The test included only the largest of the financial firms, the one with both the most to loose and the most money to throw at the problem. The other, smaller firms will not be ready until March. What the article did not state was what percentage of Wall Street's overall transaction volume the firms involved in this first test account for.

However, I have to tell you that as a software guy I find a 99% success rate on a first test nothing short of miraculous. I know that won't sit well with some people here, but if it is true it is a tremendous accomplishment considering the complexity of the systems and the number of independent companies involved.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 11, 1998.

Sorry, I had a brain cramp while proofing that last message. That last post should have said "the ones (plural) with the most to lose".

I didn't mean to imply that only one firm was involved in the testing.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 11, 1998.

I agree that a 99% success is phenomenal. If that is a fact........Another comment that caught my eye was a quote attributed to the SIA. "There were only about 2 or 3(out of 28 I think) firms that had Y2K Problems" What does that mean?......."only about 2 or 3"

-- C. Poston (Spoonman@prodigy.net), August 11, 1998.

Was it only a little less than a week ago that I posted Cory Hamasaki's quotes on the SIA tests? How fast we forget....

That report indicated that there was trouble. Of course, it didn't come from SIA spokesmen, only from programmers actually working the tests, who were reporting anonomously because they wanted to eat.

Ah, well, believe the spin if you wish.

-- Rocky Knolls (rknolls@hotmail.com), August 11, 1998.

The news article on msnbc said the test had 1% date related errors but a 10% failure rate overall. I'm guessing the additional 9% came from mistakes made when correcting the original code for Y2K. This is mid 3Q98 and Wall Street's best and brightest have a 1 in 10 chance of failure on any given trade. Can you imagine the disorder that would ensue after only a few day's market volume with a cumulative 10% error? Alan Greenspan can and that's why he said earlier this year that 99% compliance in banking is not acceptable. Hamasaki was right. They've got real trouble on their hands. For that matter, so do the rest of us.

-- anon (anon@anon.com), August 12, 1998.

Think for a moment how many trades are conducted each day. Now what would happen if on Jan 3, 2000 1% were wrong? What would happen if 1% were wrong every day?

-- Lenny Bellows (fsharp@flash.net), August 12, 1998.

Yo, folks, I never said 99% was good enough for the final outcome. Clearly it is unacceptable in real use for these systems. I said it was a hell of an accomplishment for a first test. FIRST TEST. Not yet reality. A chance to find mistakes and problems BEFORE you use these systems for real. A measure of progress towards a gola, not a demonstration of the goal itself.

In that light, 99% (or even 90%) isn't bad at all.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 12, 1998.

We can argue this till we are blue in the face. I guess we'll find out in 16 months! This 1% failure rate is enough to keep me from leaving any money in the stock market! Keep in mind that it only takes about 2% of the population to clean out the banks! I used to think small percentages didn't me much, but in reality they can cripple us!

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), August 12, 1998.

In a system that electronically sends and receives several trillion dolars per day around the globe, a 1% error rate would be tens of billions of dollars of mistakes per day. Day after day.

How many tens of billions of dollars in mistakes can the banking system withstand before crashing under the weight of these errors? 1 day? A week? How about a 10% error rate?

Strap in tight folks, I see turbulence ahead.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), August 12, 1998.

The following comes from the editorial section of the Westergaard2000 web site: http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Media/Articles/jy9832.htm and talks specifically about the differences in how the Wall Street test is being reported on the streets and the impact that could have on the general public.

Business Today reported this week that, "The 28 major securities firms that recently simulated the arrival of the millennium experienced problems completing about 1 percent of their trades because of year 2000 changes."

The tone of this reportage is markedly different from that seen in the almost completely unbridled optimism seen in the Computerworld article covering the same story entitled: "Wall Street aces Y2K beta test." This article stated that some "minor glitches occurred, but those were related to setting up systems for the testing, not specifically year 2000 compliance."

This statement come contrary to facts presented in the previously mentioned Business Today article as well as a ZDNet News article which stated the "Of the incomplete trades, only about 1 percent were related to Year 2000 issues."

John Yellig interprets:

While this examination of perception may seem to be nothing more than an exercise in splitting hairs, the small differences exhibited in these publications do warrant a moment's discussion.

These differences, when looked at on an individual basis, do indeed seem minor. However, when viewed with a gestalt perspective, they can be extremely pernicious. It is just the type of glazing over as seen in the Computerworld article and to a lesser extent in the ZDNet News article that can, over time, distort the public's perception of the issue.

If the public repeatedly hears stories that describe small but significant facts like the 1 percent failure rate of this test in reassuring terms, they will grow complacent and secure in their understanding of Y2K. They will put away they request for compliance statements that they were planning to send to their local governments, banks, trading partners, etc., thereby perpetuating the infamous domino effect that those in the Y2K community are so familiar with. The entities that were destined to receive these requests for compliance will go untroubled by one more concerned citizen, which could have been the one to get them off of their back, and possibly sink deeper into the world of non-compliance.

This is indeed a small detail, but it is the opinion of this publication that all avenues for encouraging awareness should be taken, no matter how convoluted or over-zealous they may seem.

-- Chana Campos (chana@campos.org), August 12, 1998.

Paul said,"However, I have to tell you that as a software guy I find a 99% success rate on a first test nothing short of miraculous. I know that won't sit well with some people here, but if it is true it is a tremendous accomplishment considering the complexity of the systems and the number of independent companies involved. "

What is so amusing, Paul, is your apparent inability to see that if, "as a software guy, you find a 99% success rate nothing short of miraculous", THEN IT PROBABLY ISN'T TRUE. But of course there's that pesky Pollyanna gene you carry.

What chromosome did you say that was on? I forget.

Miracles don't happen too often. You should have more faith in your instincts.

As both Obi Wan and Yoda told Luke, "You have to FEEL the Force flowing in you."

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 12, 1998.