Yeah, yeah, Y2K is (choose one) either hype, fixed or trivial because Gary North (whoa, wow, yowza) predicted a few critical 1999 dates. Or Ed. Or Hyatt. Or ???

Is it encouraging that the euro didn't blow up (at least not yet)? You darn betcha! Made my heart glad. Is it encouraging that April 1 passed here in socialist New York state without my wife's hospital going out of business a week later? Shore enuf. Wonderful. Really.

And (let's get this out of the way up front), is there a variety of happy face-style news coming out of various places (think NERC). Yup. Is it authentic news? Hate to shock the pollys but I generally take it at face value. I EXPECTED tons of good news throughout 1999. How couldn't there be?

But, just a little but.

A couple of months ago, Paul Davis predicted on this forum that, by now, many, many, many, many companies would be declaring compliance (Paul, that is from memory, correct me on the details if need be). Certainly, pollys predicted that all through last year.

It's basically nada.

Most of us doomers have given reasonable slack to the proposition that the poor wittle companies can't be expected to, you know, DECLARE compliance lest the least little problem next year cause them billions of dollars in legal fees. Maybe. Lawyers I have spoken with consider that a crock. The best protection for companies that are ACTUALLY compliant is to declare it (with any exceptions noted honestly) since the exposure from not having CORRECTED a long-known problem is at least as dangerous as leaving a few loose ends if you gave appropriate due diligence to solve it.

Look, I ain't a lawyer. Thank God. I've probably invited endless legal parsing on this thread, but that wasn't the point.

Point: the long, long predicted declared compliance curve for 1999 hasn't happened. And it can't be put down to, "compliance means tested and of course that won't happen until the end of this year." No. As originally discussed throughout the industry, "compliance" referred to remediation complete with testing to FOLLOW. This was the source of the now infamous promises to be compliant by 12/31/98 and reserve a year for compliance TESTING.

Even though I personally never signed on for the critical date stuff, the way life works is that I have to shoulder some of the fallout since I am usually considered a doomer. Fine. Load it on.

But it's time to face up to the total collapse of the polly predictions about 1998-1999 compliance.

Just personally, this is a heck of a lot more serious and dangerous in my mind than 1999 "critical dates" with respect to Y2K exposures as of today, May 17, 1999. Y2K fixed? How I wish and pray it were so. But vague happy face news coupled to the iron curtain of silence about compliance is, in fact, what the doomers predicted last year.

And that is a fulfilled prediction that, for all the legitimate issues surrounding compliance declaration, remains far more germane than the euro or April 1.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 19, 1999

Answers

Yeah Big Dog, it does raise some questions. If they were totally compliant, it would go out in all directions 24-7

-- cw (cwiowa@uiowa.edu), May 19, 1999.

we SHOULD be seeing lists in the WSJ on a DAILY basis. Are we? Let's see, 1 airline, 2 (or is it 3) lil' banks,

C

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 19, 1999.

Big Dog,

Good overview of the current situation. I agree with your concerns. Perhaps all the debate from some of the Pollys over just what "compliance" means, is their recognition that they are *not* getting the reports they were expecting, and now need to haggle over the meaning of that term. However, as you pointed out, remediation was to be completed by most large business as of 12/31/1998 and that didn't happen. If there were a whole bunch of players now in the final testing period, it would make us all feel better, but that isn't happening either. I guess this is why I'm more concerned now than ever.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

... Dun & Bradstreet, perhaps the world's best-known corporate credit rating organization, refuses to incorporate Y2K information into their rating model, claiming that because Y2K hasn't happened yet, it's not statistically significant.

http://www.y2knewswire.com

-- unspun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 19, 1999.

That tidbit about Dun & Bradstreet is genuinely interesting, though I'm not quite sure exactly what it means. But it suggests both a confirmation of the silliness of the critical date controversy (ie, Y2K is still up ahead, duh) and the fundamental singularity of Y2K (which may also explain better than other factors why the market hasn't yet and, possibly MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO price Y2K in until it begins to happen).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 19, 1999.

snip-- .>T he largest companies in the nation continue to fall behind their >schedules for Year 2000 repairs, and most suspect that their budget >estimates for the remaining work are too low, according to a survey in >April that was the latest in a closely watched series that began in 1994. > > About 22 percent say they do not expect to have all of their critical >systems tested and ready to adjust when the clock ticks over to Jan. 1, >2000. That is up from 16 percent in November and 12 percent last August. > > The number of companies that have actually encountered a computer >failure stemming from Year 2000 date miscalculations jumped to 72 percent >in April from 55 percent in the previous survey, which was completed in >November. Eight percent of the 152 Fortune 500 companies and 14 >government agencies responding said they had severed relations with a >supplier, customer or partner because of Year 2000 problems. This is the >first time that such moves have been reported. > > The surveys, which are sponsored by CAP Gemini America, a New York >consulting firm, are carried out by Howard A. Rubin, an information >technology researcher based in Pound Ridge, N.Y. The respondents are >typically chief information officers or project managers.

-- spun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 19, 1999.

snip-- .>T he largest companies in the nation continue to fall behind their >schedules for Year 2000 repairs, and most suspect that their budget >estimates for the remaining work are too low, according to a survey in >April that was the latest in a closely watched series that began in 1994. > > About 22 percent say they do not expect to have all of their critical >systems tested and ready to adjust when the clock ticks over to Jan. 1, >2000. That is up from 16 percent in November and 12 percent last August. > > The number of companies that have actually encountered a computer >failure stemming from Year 2000 date miscalculations jumped to 72 percent >in April from 55 percent in the previous survey, which was completed in >November. Eight percent of the 152 Fortune 500 companies and 14 >government agencies responding said they had severed relations with a >supplier, customer or partner because of Year 2000 problems. This is the >first time that such moves have been reported. > > The surveys, which are sponsored by CAP Gemini America, a New York >consulting firm, are carried out by Howard A. Rubin, an information >technology researcher based in Pound Ridge, N.Y. The respondents are >typically chief information officers or project managers.

General Accounting Office NEW YORK (CNNfn) - The nation's electric power utilities have completed only 44 percent of Year 2000-related preparedness and testing, giving rise to concerns about the possibility of widespread power failures as the new year approaches, according to a government report.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) also reported that 46 of the participating organizations said they don't expect to be Y2K ready by the industry's June target date.

Furthermore, 16 percent of those organizations said they don't expect to be Y2K-compliant until the fourth quarter of 1999.

...

-- unspun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 19, 1999.

Actually, BigDog, a pretty honest-looking survey was published by Information Week and discussed here earlier.

Among those surveyed, approximately 24% indicated that their Y2K projects are DONE, testing and everything.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 19, 1999.

Actually, Stephen, this has been hashed out (courtesy of Tom Benjamin) in c.s.y2k. It's a self-reported survey with only 200 or so respondents.

-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines (dtmiller@nevia.net), May 19, 1999.

Unspun, you MIGHT want to check the date on that Power number. 44% was the number in, oh, Nov, DEC(??), I think.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 19, 1999.

From today's David Eddy column, which features analysis of recent testimony in Canada,

"Dr. Fellegi has conducted an impressive telephone survey of 10,000 (!) organizations that produce 85 percent of Canada's GDP (gross domestic product).

The single best nugget is his observation that when polled in May 1998, between 40 and 42 percent of large organizations reported they expected to be finished with Y2K by the end of 1998. Their latest reporting is that only 18 percent expected to be finished by April of 1999.

In perhaps one of the most remarkable cases of specious deductive reasoning I've ever seen, Dr. Fellegi asserts, "We seem to be in basically good shape if the plans are realistic. That's one area. How realistic are the plans? We don't know that, of course. We are simply collecting information from very reliable sources.

"We seem to be in...good shape if the plans are realistic." Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you to the theatre of the absurd. There is a dead body on the floor and everyone simply steps over it."

Hello (sound of rapping on the skull)? Anybody home?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 19, 1999.

Big Dog,

Compliance is no longer a goal of the polly's but rather "y2k ready"(whatever that means). Alot of SEC 10Q reports are stating the mission critical systems will be y2k ready vs compliant.

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), May 19, 1999.

I have to say, Big Dog, that this is an extremely insightful observation and one that I'll bet most of us didn't consider. I have no intention of starting a flame throwing contest, but I would like to hear some responses to your argument from some of the Pollys. Some of them are fond of recalling statements made earlier by Doomers that *apparently* haven't come to pass ... JAE, April 9, etc.

-- Vic (Rdrunneris@compliant.com), May 19, 1999.

Hey, BigDog. When you decide to have dinner at 6, do you sit down to the table at 2?

-- cd (artful@dodger.com), May 19, 1999.

In response to the InformationWeek article, Dean said:

Actually, Stephen, this has been hashed out (courtesy of Tom Benjamin) in c.s.y2k. It's a self-reported survey with only 200 or so respondents.

The above is correct. But again, y'all seem to have no problem with the Cap Gemini survey, based on 152 respondents.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 19, 1999.

BigDog -

I've seen that play. It's a British one-act comedy called The Real Inspector Hound and centers around a couple of theatre critics who get involved in an actual play, with dire results.

Dead body onstage the whole time. People walk around it, step over it, pull couches around it, don't even notice it. Finally a cop actually steps onto it, stands there, looks down at the body, studies it for a second, then looks up and says (with classic British understatement), "Is there something you've forgotten to tell me?"

Hysterically funny on stage. Not so funny when people's futures may be at stake.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 19, 1999.