The story at this link struck me as a little TOO optimistic in some regards:

http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost.asp?f=981111/2008229&s2=canadianbusiness

Let me know what you think

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 11, 1998

Answers

optimistic? yes stupid? yes ignorant? yes

How do they figure that everything is okey dokey when they haven't yet made transactions with all of the other millions of businesses that will be all screwed up? Do they live in a bubble? Yes.

-- mr. man (man@net.com), November 12, 1998.

"How do they figure that everything is okey dokey when they haven't yet made transactions with all of the other millions of businesses that will be all screwed up? Do they live in a bubble? Yes. "

Well no one would ever be compliant by that standard. A company really can only speak to it's internal compliance.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 12, 1998.

Rick,

I think that there's a good chance that they're telling the truth.

We all realize that some businesses will finish it all in time. Who would be more likely than an insurance company? They've known that their software was susceptible to Y2K problems ever since their first annuity/policy dealt with a date beyond 1999, and that's far longer ago than the general "hue and cry" (if that's not too much of a stretch) hit the airwaves (another great stretch).

I've been in the computer business since they were motor-driven, mechanical monster, whirly-clanks, and companies have ALWAYS been almost fanatical about not letting their data processing "dirty laundry" become public. Nearly all computer crime goes unreported, both to the authorities (although that's changing) and to the press, out of fear of adverse reaction by customers, stockholders, competition, etc. (That's one of the reasons that I think it unreasonable to expect businesses to suddenly "come clean" about the depth of kim-chee Y2K has left them in.)

As someone recently pointed out here, Canada has a population about a tenth that of the US. It would follow that the Canadian insurance companies would be smaller and maybe thus better situated to deal with Y2K in their DP systems.

I think you might find it, ". . .a little TOO optimistic. . .", simply because, like us all, you've been hearing, ". . .not a single compliant (whatever) yet!", until it's become almost a mantra.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 12, 1998.

if this doesn't do it, I'm stumped!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 12, 1998.

Hardliner,

Oh I fully believe some companies will become compliant, but this paticular report just struck me as TOO rosy you know? (That, and I probably have been hanging out in here to much;)

Finally....a good reason to move to Canada! Their smaller!;) (just teasing, no offense meant:)

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 12, 1998.

Rick,

No need to move. Haven't you heard. We're annexing you either later this year or early next year. All we're waiting for are for a few more American planes to head over to Iraq and then........bang!!!

So the incredibly good news is....you can become a Canadian without even moving.......

I'll refrain from adding 'O Canada' midi file to this thread.....just cause I'm a nice guy.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), November 12, 1998.

They could very well believe that they are Y2K compliant and worked their fannies off since 1996. The article doesn't say how small or big the company is. Their statement is certainly laced with a touch of marketing PR which is free and a smart move on their part.

I don't doubt that some companies will be ready and able to function IF the infrastructure is ready and funtioning. I've been waiting for such statements to finally come out in late 1998.

I'm willing to take their statement at face value. Afterall, it's only an insurance company. If a utility company claimed the same though, I'd want hard facts to prove it to me before I'd believe them.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), November 12, 1998.

Craig - Ever seen "Canadian Bacon";)

Chris - "I'm willing to take their statement at face value. Afterall, it's only an insurance company. If a utility company claimed the same though, I'd want hard facts to prove it to me before I'd believe them. "

I really don't want to argue with you, but why? That insurance company is very important to the people who work there, the people who have their insurance with them and so on. If you follow the domino effect every one is important.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 13, 1998.

Rick, yes everyone is important and I understand the domino effect. You misunderstood me,or more likely I've didn't say it right. In my mind, priority companies, keeping in mind the 1-10 scale of social chaos, are the utilities and infrastructures. I already expect at the very minimum a bad recession, even without y2k in the picture. Some companies would/will survive a recession and others wouldn't, without y2k. In terms of Y2K, what I focus on is the infrastructures and the government. And I already am certain that many companies will fail because they're not even Y2k aware or doing much at this time. I expect many companies WILL be ready, starting to reach compliance about now and saying so. Hence why I said I took this company's statement at face value. I expect such statements and I don't have time to focus or worry if they're right or wrong, the infrastructures worry me more. Without them, there's no insurance companies to collect from or go to work for.

I have the nagging feeling that I still didn't explain my thoughts right. I have days like that ;-)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), November 13, 1998.

Chris,

It was your face value comment that threw me off. YOu got your point across perfectly well this time:) I am far more worried about the utilities than an insurance company.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 13, 1998.

Well suuuuure Chris, stick up for your fellow Canadianian .... 8<)

By the way, I agree with you.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 13, 1998.

RICK,

"Well no one would ever be compliant by that standard. A company really can only speak to it's internal compliance."

REALLY?

"If you follow the domino effect every one is important."

YOU'RE GETTING CLOSER! Don't feel bad thoough, there are still a lot of people who don't understand it.

-- mr. man (man@net.com), November 13, 1998.