Banking Industry Question : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

"Mark" started a thread that was quickly dismissed as trollish below and I wanted to give fair play to one question I raised in response.

Back in December of 1998 I wrote my bany a letter about their Y2K compliance. They said that they were totally compliant, but since there was "an enormous volume of paperwork" they couldn't send it to me to prove they were in fact compliant. They said it was equivilant to a room 10'x12' and ten feet high stacked with papers? I don't know about all that, but that isn't the question.

This is from SouthTrust's Y2K compliancy page:

"This statement contains Year 2000 Readiness Disclosures as defined in the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act, P.L. 105-271 (October 19, 1998). This disclosure, in whole or in part, is not admissible in any state or federal civil action to prove the accuracy or truth of any Year 2000 statements contained herein.

Now to me that says,

"We cannot prove that any of the statements regarding Y2K compliance are accurate, that we reserve the right to tell you outright lies, and that whatever we DO volunteer telling you cannot be used against us in the future"

Now, does that seem strange to anyone but me? When I buy a car, I get a Warranty that says this automobile is certified to be in working order. They do not issue a little sticker on the lower left hand side of the windshield that says in case the motor blows up, or the it drops the transmission, or it just konks out you can't sue us (the makers) for damages because we have this little document that says so.

In my opinion that is exactly what the bankers are doing. I feel that if you go to your bank's web site there will be a similar "Warning".

Now I ask you, does this ring with confidence or does this say, "in case you are reading this Y2K compliance disclosure beware of falling bullshit".

-- (, June 29, 1999


Atlanta, I agree. I have seen exactly ONE bank claim to be 100% y2k compliant in their literature (and no disclaimers except to say we are--how about you?). That's the Bank of Travelers Rest in SC. I deal with six other banks as well in business and NONE will say anything but 'we are working...". As a note, the stuffer from B of TR stunned me so much that I did a considerable amount of follow up to verify. Yep, they're right as far as I can tell. (I'm not a prorammer...just suspicious). I think my thread announcing this fact is still somewhere under Banking in the Archives. Of course, you are taking your email life in your hands by actually questioning the veracity of the banks. Rest assured, the trolls/pollies will be out in force rapidly. MY GOD!! THIS ONE ACTUALLY THINKS THE BANKS ARE LYING!!! QUICK, WARM UP THE POLLYMOBILE!!

Good luck and join us often. Although if you are located in Atlanta, might want to be somewhere else on 12/31. The city hasn't even started their remediation yet (as per Atlanta Herald stories).

-- Lobo (, June 30, 1999.

AtlantaAS, back in October the Year 2000 Readiness and Disclosure Act became law (also known as the "Good Samaritan" Y2K Law). It was intended to encourage businesses (banks, utilities, etc.) to give an accurate accounting of their Y2K progress without fear of being subject to subsequent litigation if something that they claimed turned out to be wrong. Essentially, as long as they are not knowingly being untruthful, they are protected to a high degree, as the law requires a plaintiff to show clear and convincing evidence that they were knowingly untruthful. The main requirement of having a statement legally considered to be an official Y2K readiness disclosure statement is to have that very legalistic label.

So, in theory, this law should have resulted in everyone "coming clean" about their Y2K status. My opinion is that all that happened is the Y2K Readiness Disclosure Law became an extra "layer of armor" that was used, with actual Y2K information still kept locked up.

-- Jack (, June 30, 1999.

I think we gotta wait for the new "law" to get past the Senate, House, and BJ to see what this means. Hummm...

Any bets on when the Y2K law passes? Pre or post Y2K?? Anybody??? <:)=

-- Sysman (, June 30, 1999.

IMO, it would be a fair question to ask any bank that claims compliance if ALL data echanges are compliant also. What kind of firewall is in place to reject non-compliant data from other banks? How will the worldwide banking industry police itself for non-compliant data?

-- dlc (, June 30, 1999.

dlc You`re assuming the banks are even going to try to carry out international "business as usual" If wrong data IS a threat the world- wide banking community will HAVE TO preempt and act first before the roll-over. It is this statement that i`d like to get an opinion on.

-- bud (, June 30, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ