The sign on my bank.......greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
When I drove by my bank today the "scrolling" sign had this message on it: Y2K.....Year2000.....We are taking it very seriously!.....call for more details. So I just give them a ring on Monday and see what they've got to say!! Should be interesting!!!
-- Donna B (Dd0143@aol.com), September 18, 1998
Our credit union had an insert in our statements on how they hope to avoid any problems with y2k. The funny thing is they said there may be power outages, disruptions in services, etc..., but that the ATM's will be compliant by 01/01/00.
In Wells Fargo's small business magazine they included a 30-40 page book on Y2K and it's potential effects on small business. The banks cannot survive a run, therefor, they will say anything to calm the masses. Clinton will look like an eagle scout, compared to Alan Greenspan next year.
-- Bill (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 18, 1998.
The one thing that they will not say -- because they cannot say -- is: "This bank is Y2K compliant today". It is now FALL 1998, and not one bank (nor for that matter any electric utility, telecom, etc.) is compliant. Not one. Its great that they are taking Y2K seriously....
-- Joe (email@example.com), September 21, 1998.
All bank clientele will find the Y2K bank disclosure on the subject to include a clause to the effect "we'll be okay, however, we cannot be sure or commit to the compliance of our suppliers, vendors, etc, ad nauseum". In other words, most firms will fall back on this and it is to be considered suspect unless they are willing to state 100% compliance, on letterhead...this 100% issue applies to banks in particular. There is no fudging on this. This "clause" is a relatively new clause (wasn't predominant back in April this year) and has caught on as the catch-all phrase to lull customers into thinking compliance issues are all on track, however there 'could be a few glitches'. It is insidious, suspect, and allows any company who uses it to "bow out" of direct negligence.
Be very wary of these companies and ask direct questions about this. You have every right as a customer to require documentation of compliance. If they refuse to comply, take your business elsewhere thereby making a statement about how you feel. If enough customers hassle them they will get the point...perhaps too late, however, you will have done your best to wake them out of their legal stupor, and for once, show them that their customers are more savvy than the lawyers they hired.
Of course, if you don't trust the lot of them and are pulling or have pulled your funds out, good on ya'!
Just my 10 cents worth.
-- Goldi (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 22, 1998.
Inflation? Uncle De.. only needed $0.02 worth.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (email@example.com), September 23, 1998.
Re the lawyers and disclosure: Would it make any difference in their forthcoming with information if one approached them from the stance of being an INVESTOR or potential INVESTOR rather than just a peon customer? Any "disclosure" requirements differences?
-- dave bean (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 20, 1998.
Ah, the question echoes....The grid?
At my sister's bank in Chicago area she found a cute little pamphlett from the FDIC about Y2K...boiled down to it's bare basics the pamplett said,..."speak to your bank representative". I wonder where the bucks left will stop?
-- Donna Barthuley (email@example.com), October 20, 1998.
So? What did your bank say when you called them on Monday?
-- Hardliner (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 20, 1998.