"Things can't be all that bad" Flint has stated on a recent thread below making reference to an IV&V on 60 million lines of code.

But our beloved Flint forgot to mention the following:

(a) The IV&V only referred to 60 million LOC voluntarily submitted by financial institutions that had (obviously) done a good remediation job already (the cream of the crop) or otherwise they would not have undergone (expensive) IV&V just to run the risk of being caught with poorly remediated code. Thus, as these 60 million lines of code are NOT a statistically representative sample (Flint, how on Earth did you miss this point? Wassamatta with ya lately?), the results are biased and skew any type of generalized assumptions for the good, such as Flint has unequivocally done once again.

(b) Now then, perfection is not a Y2K remediation attribute we know. So, notwithstanding the supposedly 'good news', a solid 8% of these voluntarily submitted programs STILL had an average rate of 141 errors per MLOC. Unimportant errors? Show stoppers? All of them put together my friends which means that out of the 141 we can all safely assume that some pretty UGLY ones are still alive and kicking. Regional banks (there are literally thousands in the USA alone) typically have more than 10 million LOC so we again can safely assume that the cream of the crop (don't forget) still have roughly 1400 errors in their supposedly remediated code. Could we have some show-stoppers there you think Flint? You are supposed to be good at this type of statistical analysis, c'mon! Maybe "100%-is-the-minimum" Allan Greenspan can help you out himself. After all, he was a mainframe programmer not that long ago.

(b) The rest-of-the-world code is definetly in worse shape because of late start (if they've started), because of pirated software, hardware, firmware, etc.

(c) Government sector results in this IV&V revealed that 20% of supposedly remediated code has much higher error rates still. And remember, we are always talking about "critical mission" code right? Any doubts? Ask Anita, she should know.

(d) Organizations outside the financial sector do not apply for IV&V services, so we may assume that their error rate should be higher 'cause otherwise they would be bragging about IV&V results like first semester freshmen.

So... all in all, "things can't be all that bad", should they Flint?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 17, 1999

Answers

Flint,

I too wonder why you would state that things can't be all that bad? Why not Flint? I know if you start with the presumption (like Poole) that this is not a catastrophy in the making, then of course the stories coming in must be incorrect, regarding errors in remediation. But that is not like you to take such a position is it? Unless, you find a nagging feeling creeping in that is pulling you back into the gloomer camp where you first started out. Unless, you suspect that perhaps the systemic premise that Gary North has been hammering on is in fact correct.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), July 17, 1999.

Gordon, thanks for the input as I didn't know that Flint first started out in the gloomer camp. Now that's interesting! He's intelligent you know, and probably the best wordsmith in this forum. And he is very knowledgeable and very patient too. Actually, I miss him when he ain't around. But the trouble with Flint is that he usually cuts it too thin and gets carried away with way too much philosophy, d'you know whatta I mean? and then he can't get from third base to home even if you give'm a map. So, despite his intelligence, he blocks himself out most of the time. And then he swaps sides. That kills me, 'cause I can't follow him. Sometimes I've doubted whether Flint was one or many. I still have a hard time trying to figure out if he is the polliest doomer or the doomiest polly! He probably thinks this is a virtue on its own. No sir, it ain't. The Y2K bottomline is simpler.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 17, 1999.

IMHO Flint is here to assuage the seriousness of y2k. To my knowledge he did not start out as someone who thought y2k was extremely serious.

I asked Hoffmeister if he was receiving any remuneration for participating in this and any other forum and he politely declined to answer. Maybe Flint would be kind enough to disclose this inof.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 17, 1999.

While I don't personally know Flint, I have had a couple of email exchanges and have received information from others that have exchanged opinions with him. I have been told that he started out in a very pessimistic position regarding Y2k. Did I get that right Flint? Also, I think he is a basically very nice person. (Will Continue can disagree with me on that point) He does have a passion for philosophical probing into any issue, including Y2k, and I think that on an intellectual level he just loves to consider all sides, as long as there is any possibility that it could come out as a moderate or better effect. But, on the emotional level, as with most of us, I suspect he has grave moments of doubt about how really bad it could all turn out. One thing I do know, if you ask him his opinion or to detail some thinking, he will courteously oblige. And for the most part, he does not get angry or lose his temper even when he is being treated to the biggest flame thrower available. When I first started lurking here, Flint used to tick me off a lot, but not anymore. I have come to understand and accept his personality and approach. I think it was Diane who said her husband is a Pollyanna Wannabe, which is what I am (wishing it could all be OK) and I think Flint is one too. But that is a far cry from being an actual Pollyanna.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), July 17, 1999.

True enough Gordon, I also believe that Flint is very patient despite... and he also "courteously obliges" to respond to any and all requests. But I'm not yet all that clear on Flint. He behaves funny. It's rather hard to try to figure him out without speculation (he would hate that I'm sure). Still... the subject matter at hand goes far beyond Flint ole boy. I just got Flint into the act so that my thesis would be subjected to his famous Flint ACID TEST. Decker, Poole, Anita, Marma, Hoffmeister are welcome to join us too if the they have the guts...

'Cause ladies and gentlemen, not only is remediation time OVER. I am also proposing that remediation has basically FAILED, as proven by the IV&V results of my original post. Would all of you agree? Flint, would you agree? In the event we do agree, isn't this VERY important? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 17, 1999.

OK, let's take this slowly.

First, banks are required to undergo audits for y2k. It's not optional. Your statement that they would not have undergone IV&V if they weren't confident is simply wrong. They have all been subject to at least two audits already, *not* counting the 6,000-8,000 tests that have been done with the FCC environment, nor the international interface testing, nor the interbank testing with major customers, nor the ACH testing now going on. Bankers are conservative, and the testing in this industry, both legally required and highly advisable as a practical consideration, has been (and continues to be) extensive.

I should also point out that Gary North is a known, admitted enemy of the banking system (and has been for decades). He feels that fomenting public panic about banks is the fastest shortcut to his theocracy. What you have done here is take the very worst figures that Gary North can find, selected the worst *part* of those figures, and called it "the cream of the crop"! You have taken the worst case of spin available and spun it further! Shame on you. Can't you even *see* this? Has your fanaticism blinded you that much? Pitiful.

I admit I've become a lot more optimistic over time, for many reasons. For one thing, predicted problems (by the very geeks who wrote those problems) haven't come to pass. Yeah, yeah, *after the fact* this is well-explained. Before the fact, *no* geeks claimed nothing would happen. We have Sysman now claiming he never said these pre-2000 dates would cause problems. Of course, before the fact he didn't say they wouldn't either!

For another thing, we are really seeing evidence of solid progress. Despite Robert Cook's position that all known data points are anomalies, and valid conclusions can only be drawn a priori from what we don't know, the truth is we don't *know* anything bad yet. We've heard that not all (and I predict *zero*) projects will finish on time, but it's not a question of finishing on time, it's a question of manageability of what we missed for whatever reason.

Yes, you can argue cogently that the testing we've been reading about is selective -- it only includes code that has reached the stage where it's ready to test, and that isn't a whole lot of it. But just how much real, valid testing is being done to which the press has not been invited? Since we don't hear about this, we can't know. I would be astounded if we've seen press reports on as much as one-tenth of one percent of this testing. The company where I work (fortune 250) has been testing internally and with key customers and vendors for over a year. Comprehensive tests. Not ONE WORD of this testing has appeared in the press. I suppose you could argue that my company is unique. How would I know? But permit me to doubt it.

Beyond this, our numbers have no controls at all. To my knowledge (anyone who knows, *please* jump in), nobody has ever submitted unremediated code to IV&V to get a baseline. Capers Jones has numbers about developed code being first put into production, and as I recall this code was ultimately found to contain about 750 errors per million LOC. NOTE that this is *running, production code*. Over time, of course, this number of errors is reduced as each error is encountered and repaired. We really don't know what the residual error rate is, but at worst (the 8% where errors were found) we are adding substantially fewer errors per million LOC than were there originally.

Are these serious errors? We don't know, except that we know that much of this code has been returned to production, where it is working satisfactorily. Some (no idea what percentage) is being subjected to time-machine testing. In that case, we know that these 141 errors can't be showstoppers. The UGLY ones are gone.

As a comparison, I work often with PC BIOS code bases. For a given PC, this might be 80,000 lines. About 50 errors are found in these 80,000 lines each month. And the BIOS works just fine 99.999% of the time. Not all errors are created equal.

IV&V simply isn't available in areas where it hasn't existed. The claim that code that hasn't been subjected to IV&V must therefore be much worse is illogical on these grounds. Outside the financial world, we've been operating with unverified, uncertified code ever since it first existed. And things work fine. Lack of testing is worrisome, no question. Lack of certification is a different story.

Finally (I'm wearing out here), I have certainly never claimed there will be no problems. I've worn out my fingers claiming there will be many problems, and many bankruptcies, and macroeconomic impacts y2k at least contributes to materially. Your problem is the all-or- nothing mentality. You just can't seem to understand 'some'. Think of the cliches describing how equivocal reality is. Every cloud has a silver lining. It's an ill wind that blows nobody good. One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

If you think y2k will bring universal catastrophe, you are wrong. It never had that power to begin with, and remediation has demonstrably pulled most of its teeth anyway (even if you refuse to credit all the evidence that says so). Now, if you think y2k has the potential to make your life totally miserable, I agree entirely. The problem may be systemic, but the impacts will be personal.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

Flint commented:

" It never had that power to begin with, and remediation has demonstrably pulled most of its teeth anyway (even if you refuse to credit all the evidence that says so)."

Flint, this is why I believe you are here to assuage ones concerns about y2k. This statement basically says most of the fixes are in, leading one to believe that for the most part all is well.

Any possibility of you answering my question above??

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 17, 1999.

"If you think y2k will bring universal catastrophe, you are wrong. It never had that power to begin with, ..." spaketh Flint.

For all the praise heaped on Flint for his intelligence (read: long-windedness, hair-splitting, flip-flopping, miss-the-point-iness, vagueness, and, yeah, intelligence), he really does say some stupid things. You'll notice this from time to time, unless you're one of this people who can tell it's his post from the first five words, which causes you to scroll and scan.

The y2k attack on this civilisation has multiple redundancy. We can justfiably be optimistic that many aspects of the problem have been sufficiently dealt with, but still be justifiably pessimistic about the overall outcome. At this late stage it is OBVIOUS that not enough has been done. One could sit here and discuss at great length the successes of the remediation process, (such as they are,) but one would be missing the real story, which is the widespread failures of the remediation process, and their awful consequences.

"If you think y2k will bring universal catastrophe, you are wrong. It never had that power to begin with..."

So, Flint, what would have happened if no remediation had been done? Bump in the Road?

Give me a break!!!

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.

"If you think y2k will bring universal catastrophe, you are wrong. It never had that power to begin with, and remediation has demonstrably pulled most of its teeth anyway (even if you refuse to credit all the evidence that says so). Now, if you think y2k has the potential to make your life totally miserable, I agree entirely. The problem may be systemic, but the impacts will be personal. "

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

===================

This one blurb shows, categorcaly, that flint-boy has NEVER had the slightest understanding of the situation right from the beginning. He is completely, 100% CLUELESS. Sub-moronic, actually. Not only has Y2K HAD the power to render catastrophic consequnences, it has had that ability in SPADES.

I have never yet run across anyone in posession of the information that has unmistakably and flagrantly misapprectiated it in its totality.

That he could say that remediation has pulled most of its teeth, is clearly a ridiculous de jagerism.

People like flint will be responsible for untold numbers of deaths by having consciously dissuaded people from serious preparation.

flint-boy remains an unmitigated and 'unremediated' fool.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), July 17, 1999.

OK, chant how you will. You seem to see y2k as the Great Equalizer which will bring poetic justice against all those happy and successful people you hate. But the truth is, you are wallowing in misery of your own making. Y2K cannot cure the maliase of your soul. It will come and go, leaving whatever it leaves in its wake. And positive people will carry on and stay positive. The fearful will continue to tremble, and the hateful will continue to hate. And rotten people will continue to live in a rotten world (and I'll continue to subsidize them).

If you care to debate the points I raised, I'll be happy to do so. If you prefer to extract a sentence or two out of context to feed your self-righteousness, that's fine too. More and more, I feel sorry for what you've made of your minds and your lives.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

Flint, ol'buddy, glad you showed up as tired as you are!

Point one: Let's leave Gary North out of this. I never mentioned him, we don't need him for this analysis, it was you that brought him up twice, both now and in the previous thread, so let's not confuse the picture, o.kay? Right on.

(A) FRB and/or FFIEC and/or NYSE audits (all three exist as you surely know) NEVER EVER check out code per se as this IV&V does. So you are wrong in your first assumption Flint. These audits include all-encompassing chats, believe it or not, plus filling in of some pre-conceived forms, that finally end up in written reports that look official enough. No individual programmer, no officer, EVER gets to see a remediated or, for that matter, non-remediated line of code. Basic flaw in your line of thought Flint, and sure hope you have not bet your farm on this faulty assumption.

(B) FCC audits are for communication purposes only. Nothing to do with financial transactions code per se. You say that "thousands" of these audits have taken place? Common sense tells me there's something wrong with that Flint. Thousands?? Well, well, why so many? I mean, I'd think that dozens would be enough. Thousands???

(C) International interface testing (SWIFT) can't be done yet Flint as it's still non-compliant. No one country has finished remediation so what would they be testing anyway Flint?

(D) "Legally" Flint, NOTHING is required. There is no norm, no standard, no international ISO 9000 nothing, no ASTM, no DIN, no nothing Flint. That's Problem y2k 101 guy. So just how do you know that the UGLY errors are gone? No testing, no standards, no banks ready let alone compliant and you KNOW that the ugly errors are gone. Just how can you say that Flint, for Crissake!!

(E) Your company Flint may have tested as thoroughly as you've said, but they haven't announced it, have they? Just why, may I ask? Aren't they aware of the competitive advantage that would mean? Isn't your company conscious of how many people are waiting for such good news to be announced? Is your company un-American enough to hide such good news? They would throw a party at the White House for you if you did. (You see Flint, here is where you begin to act funny)

(F) The "unverified, uncertified code" we've been operating with has undergone and passed the test of time, with several decades of de facto debugging Flint. You just can't compare it with the current delayed y2k remediation/non-tested circumstances.

What about the Government sector code Flint?

What about the-rest-of-the-world code Flint? Should we just bomb them away again? You wanna talk about Brazil maybe ? (Who cares, they are only the world's ninth economy and the main Latin American business partner with the US) You'd sure like their soccer, their garotas, their sambas and their caipirinhas allright, but you certainly wouldn't like their code, I tella ya ! And you are right Flint, not all errors are created equal, as you shall see very soon .

Flint, I honestly thought you would do better than this.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 17, 1999.

Well George....ya thunk wrong. Flint NEVER disappoints. BTW Gordon...I have always believed him to be a kind person, which is not an excuse for tunnel vision.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 17, 1999.

George:

OK, maybe I misspoke. You are not simply wrong, because the situation is not nearly as simple as you try to force it to be. The fact is that banks are testing. Massively. Yes, it's true that existing requirements never extended to the point of banks proving their software worked, line by line. This was never before considered necessary.

Today, this IS considered necessary. It's being done. Banks must work properly internally, and also interface correctly with customers, other banks, and regulators. The FDIC set up a computer center for banks to test their regulatory interfaces. As of about 3 months ago (latest I've seen), the FDIC reported that about 6,000 banks had tested those interfaces. Varying reports tell us that anywhere from 200 to 500 major money center banks have undergone largescale interbank testing, worldwide. Bank compliance reports (there are many) usually mention testing with major customers.

Why you prefer to believe that banks (or any other industry) would choose to hide their problems and lie about them, rather than fix them and stay profitable, is beyond me.

Your false assumption that companies turn all successfully completed y2k work into press releases is amusing. The upper management where I work, as with most companies, treats y2k as just another project -- and usually not even the largest current project in the IT department, either. This is ordinary, day-to-day operational good sense. You see a need, you assign the necessary resources, you do the project, it's finished, you go on to the next project. No big deal.

In our case, our suppliers are major players in the semiconductor industry, and our customers are major manufacturers. We've done the due diligence required in the project description. They're OK, we're OK, project completed, move along. Just because Dumb George insists that the sky will fall if no PR hype is generated (which costs money, and that's money wasted) doesn't bother us a bit. Dumb George can go stew in his own juices, what difference does that make to us?

So I really don't know what to tell you. Banks are in the final stages of detailed testing. They have been testing steadily for over a year, in various stages. It has been a pretty massive project. It includes banks from all over the world. They saw what needed to be done, just like we did, and they DID it, just like we did.

Now, if you want to go running around trying to terrify the ignorant into believing you, I can't stop you, I can only laugh at you. I suggest you get in contact with our pay Ray, who has been reduced to sticking his fingers in his hears and shouting IT'S ALL LIES as loud as he can. I can only describe the effective reality. If you want to deny it, well, that's what losers do.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

How can you claim to address the "effective reality" of banks and y2k, without addressing 1. bank runs, 2. unrecoverable debt due to y2k induced bankruptcies among the less prepared, 3. major declines in the value of stock held due to 1 and 2 plus the impending market correction ("correction." Hah!), 4. the likelihood that even a medium-sized market correction would bankrupt the major banks due to their derivatives exposures, 5. etc.

I don't think I've ever noticed you lying Flint, but through your omissions you certainly manage to give the wrong impression of our situation.

(and don't take it personally, we're just disagreeing.)

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.

number six:

How cleverly you change the subject. What I was addressing was the current quality of banking software with respect to date mishandling errors.

The problems you mention are real, but have nothing to do with those errors. During the depression, banks went broke. During the S&L debacle, banks went broke. Now and then banks go broke even in good times, when their major customers fall on hard times (company towns and the company dies). And there might (I think highly doubtful) be bank runs, but these aren't due to software errors, they are due to fear of the possible effects of those errors, whether or not the errors exist in fact.

Yes, if we fall on very hard times economically, banks will suffer right along with almost everyone else. I never said otherwise. Surely you agree that such problems would affect banks even if there were no bugs in their software whatsoever, yes? So why do you complain that I didn't address a topic that was not raised? This is what I call the "look over there" technique of y2k denial. Banks are OK, well, what about power? Power looks OK, well, what about communications? Communications look OK, well, what about banks? Around and around we go.

Meanwhile, millions of people are remediating millions of systems in millions of projects, and testing and verifying to their satisfaction, and moving on with their lives.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

Wow! A y2lectuall Tyson vs Hollyfield! Makes me wanna go out and rent Rocky.

Flint, you really must be tired. I know you can do better than this. Even if we ALL put on those rosy glasses youre wearing (regarding US readiness), we do not live in a vacuum. America certainly has never, economically (remember the Stamp Act and Tea Tax, not to mention the Unions blockade of Southern ports during the Civil War, strangling the cotton trade) lived in any vacuum. My point here is that the world is like one big ship on the ocean of economy. Even if ALL y2k issues are resolved here in America we will feel the effects of the miltitude of failures all over the economical planet.

Also worthy of mentioning, the depression of the 30s was not, as some less than educated sheeple seem to think, just an American experience. The effects were felt all over the world. This depression led to the rise of Hitler, Mussolini and a multitude of other shameful characters in the western world. In the east, take China for example, many, many millions of people died of starvation and decease.

So, lets take off those shades and look at reality My friend Flint. (was that James Coburn?)

Tired, so tired..........

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.

Flint said,

"Meanwhile, millions of people are remediating millions of systems in millions of projects, and testing and verifying to their satisfaction, and moving on with their lives."

You gotta be kidding. You have no clue as to whether there is any factual basis to such a statement, yet you state it as though it were trivial and obvious. Then, you accuse doomers of not paying attention to facts. You're flying today, what gives?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 17, 1999.

I'm under no compulsion to address the exact things you were addressing. My point, though unstated, was that even if we were to agree for the moment with you overly optimistic assessment of y2k remediation by banks, y2k overall presents them with killer problems which may effectively be just as terminal for many (maybe all???) of them. And that this contradicts the tone and implied message of your post, where you say things such as ...."if you want to go running around trying to terrify the ignorant into believing you, I can't stop you, I can only laugh at you."

As for the "look over there" technique of y2k denial (??), ...although I've seen the odd doomer do that, it's not really evasive to discuss the broader context of a specific problem, nor to mention negative aspects of the problem which might well make the alleged positive aspects irrelevent. You're trying to argue that the computers aspect of banks will by and large be ok, and that therefore the banking system will manage ok with y2k. I'm saying that the banking system is probably fucked due to y2k, regardless of how their own machines handle the rollover. I hope you are right; it would suit my purposes.

you said "Surely you agree that such problems would affect banks even if there were no bugs in their software whatsoever, yes?" Yes!!! absolutely yes, BUT, they will have soooo many more financial problems because of everyone elses bugs, no?

I'd sincerely like to hear why you think bank runs are highly doubtful, (and I'm not going to nag you answer me like other posters do, just answer it if you feel like it.) Our resident y2k optimists seem to have given this angle of y2k a particularly wide bearth.

Be seeing you.

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.

Big Dog:

Your standards are certainly flexible. Look at this statement by number six, about banks:

"y2k overall presents them with killer problems which may effectively be just as terminal for many (maybe all???) of them."

Now, there's no basis in fact for making this statement either -- in fact, the overwhelming preponderance of information available supports my contention and contradicts this one. Challenges to doomies to describe even one such "killer problem" have gone unanswered. The existence of uncountable killer problems is taken for granted, gleaned by false implication from the failure of every economic actor to undergo (nonexistent) IV&V from qualified verifiers who don't exist. Reports of successful testing and "substantial" compliance flow in, only to be labeled "exceptions" to the general principle that everything we don't know must be bad.

Even you have seriously entertained the possibility that 80% of organizations might finish in time, although you imply that the 20% who don't won't be anywhere near close. Therefore we're "obviously" doomed. Certainly I cannot support with solid documentation the suspicion that very few will fall so far short as to become nonviable. But the technique of using (low) estimated completion percentages by those selling remediation services as gospel, and rejecting the notion of "completion percentages" as meaningless when they're high, is self-serving at best.

The concern that organizations express about y2k bugs is real, no question. But it's nowhere near the top of anyone's list of worries. Yes, you can argue that everyone else is clueless, that everyone else has misplaced their priorities, that everyone else has underestimated the problem, that everyone else is incorrectly assessing the available information. But the support for your case, never all that strong, is fading rapidly. Haven't you noticed that even here, sincere concerns based on documented cases are being replaced by strident assertions of doom, and debates on the merits are being replaced by personal attacks? Remember, a fanatic is one who redoubles his energy once he's forgotton his objective.

number six:

Peering into a very cloudy crystal ball, I see that public sentiments are a big battleship, and they don't turn on a dime. Even dangers much more clear and present than y2k have historically failed to get it moving. Look at hurricanes -- people can SEE them, yet wait until there's no choice before moving out of the way. When we've entered wars, it takes a couple of years of demonizing the enemy before public support is really behind it. On the other hand, once public sentiment *does* get turned, it takes a long time to resume course, which is why movie villians have German accents to this day, and the more ardent local loonies Germanize Clinton to Klinton. Slow to take, and slow to heal.

And whether you like it or not, the worry you treasure about y2k simply doesn't exist out there. It is compartmentalized -- people have heard of it, they're aware of the advice, but it doesn't cross their minds in everyday behavior. Get them focused on it directly, they admit it's a problem and maybe their money isn't as safe as they'd like. Remove that focus, they leave the y2k compartment and it no longer exists for them.

If a truly massive, publicly funded PR campaign were started tomorrow to get people to withdraw all their money, it might have some success. But this won't happen, and wouldn't happen even if there were some compelling reason why it should (which there isn't). So I expect cash withdrawals will probably rise above normal levels, but this is very unlikely to cause newsworthy dislocations anywhere.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

Re: Bank Runs

I agree with Flint that US banks are in a high state of preparedness in terms of their internal systems. I also agree with number six that Banks Runs may be irrelevant to a particular banks internal systems.

I see a probable scenario as:

Japan banks need to improve liquidity and call in foreign loans (rather than calling in their domestic loans and screwing their own economy right away).

One of the biggest borrowers from Japan is China, so to raise capital to pay off the Japanese loans China repatriates cash from the USA either by stalling principal on US loans with permission of US banks or but liquidating assets.

The chain snaps around the world as creditors call in loans and borrowers strive to avoid a default.

Eventually the whole system slows down significantly or worse collapses.

With or wihtout Y2K, the global economy (and the US economy) is overextended. Without Y2K there might be time to wind down the credit squeeze slowly for a "soft" landing. With Y2K it is all coming to a point at a very specific, very definite, very short period of time.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), July 17, 1999.

"Even you have seriously entertained the possibility that 80% of organizations might finish in time, although you imply that the 20% who don't won't be anywhere near close. Therefore we're "obviously" doomed."

Flint, go back and reread my "The Simplicity Of Y2K" and tell me what about it you challenge from your IT expertise and, particularly, software expertise.

I could say about you, "there you go again," What do the quotes implicitly attributed to me "obviously doomed" mean? I have never said that, ever. On a's thread, I give a 5% chance of BITR and 30% of a recession. Where is the "obvious" there?

I have also never said that the remaining 20% will have done nothing, nor have I said that the 80% are home free, by the way. And that is U.S., not global. But let's drop all that for this thread.

You find all the good news "good"; I find most of it to be BS. Saying that gives me no pleasure. Fine. We disagree. Get a life. We'll all know soon enough. Meanwhile, I see NOTHING to tell me that I was unwise in making extensive preparations and NOTHING that indicates anyone with a brain shouldn't STILL bend all efforts to do likewise.

If you have regrets about the judgments you made about preparation, fine. Deal with it. I have no regrets and will have none next year even if BITR. None. And I will be delighted that I had the guts to urge fellow citizens to prepare and invested my time in trying to help others. No waste, only gain.

If you're aiming to declare victory about Y2K, be honest and do it without all the crap about how there will be frustrations. Yada, yada, yada. Tell people NOT to prepare. But you are the one who is getting increasingly strident as the weeks go by and the only one who, apparently, hasn't noticed it.

You've tried to put so many of us into a "have you stopped beating your wife?" position that you fail to notice you are the one who can't stand others having their own opinion about Y2K without accusing them of any number of things: fanaticism, lack of integrity, etc.

FLINT, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS GOING OFF YOUR ROCKER. WAKE UP.

I was serious about urging you to take the weekend off and get some perspective. You're a decent guy but you are wound too tight over this.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 17, 1999.

If a truly massive, publicly funded PR campaign were started tomorrow to get people to withdraw all their money, it might have some success. But this won't happen, and wouldn't happen even if there were some compelling reason why it should (which there isn't). So I expect cash withdrawals will probably rise above normal levels, but this is very unlikely to cause newsworthy dislocations anywhere.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

My GOD Flint!!!

What the fuc* has happened to you?

You and me have been in disagreiment from the very first day I made a post on this site. But I have never, I repeat, NEVER have been witness to such bullshit from an intelligent GI wannabe. What the fuc* is goin' on with you?

Answer please

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.

Sorry BigDog, didn't mean to step on you're tail.......

Just really pissed..........

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.

It appears to me that two sides are tlaking past each other; each representing a different set of the facts:

I think Flint is correctly stating that a sufficient number of banking systems are now or will be soon compliant so that bank transactions in 2000 are routine and excessive 1999 withdrawals are unnecessary.

I think the rest of you are arguing from a bigger persepctive that the individual compliancy or noncompliancy of a bank is irrelevant.

Once a credit squeeze starts and whenever markets get ahead of sound business practices there is bound to be a correction - a reversal of recent practices. Y2K just brings this to a point. The need for increased liquidity is prudent for indebted governments and individuals.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), July 17, 1999.

Big Dog:

Very interesting, and probably true. I admit I'm amused that in one post you say "I can see NOTHING" and in another post, you confess that the suggestion of voluntary blindfolds is meaningless to you.

I don't regret my preparations -- in fact, I continue to beef them up when I get the opportunity. I'm not telling you not to prepare, I continue to encourage preparation. Life is a big forest, and y2k is only one tree in that forest. You have your nose pressed up against it, and think you see the big picture. I disagree, but don't by any means deny that that tree can fall on you if you're not prepared.

I submitted an entry to that poll as well, and gave a 70% probability to recession or depression. Nonetheless, I don't accept that focusing exclusively on every dire speculation you can find (while discounting all good news as exceptions) is the fast track to perspective. I continue to argue that you are trading accuracy for certainty. I'm sorry this upsets you so much.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

Flint,

"If you think y2k will bring universal catastrophe, you are wrong. It The problem may be systemic, but the impacts will be personal. " -- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

Isn't this the REAL issue anyway? If a problem is systemic that means it affects the whole system. The whole system being - in this case - modern civilization. Of course the impacts will be personal. What else could they be? This is a systemic problem that will effect LOTS of people on a personal level. If you can explain the difference between a universal Y2k catastrophe and a systemic Y2k catastrophe then the above statement will make some sense. I would not normally be such a stickler for semantics except that this one sentence seems to be the crux of your whole Y2k philosophy.

Main Entry: 1sys7tem7ic Pronunciation: sis-'te-mik Function: adjective Date: 1803 : of, relating to, or common to a system: as a : affecting the body generally b : supplying those parts of the body that receive blood through the aorta rather than through the pulmonary artery c : of, relating to, or being a pesticide that as used is harmless to the plant or higher animal but when absorbed into its sap or bloodstream makes the entire organism toxic to pests (as an insect or fungus) - sys7tem7i7cal7ly /-mi-k(&-)lE/ adverb

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

Main Entry: 1uni7ver7sal Pronunciation: "y|-n&-'v&r-s&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin universalis, from universum universe Date: 14th century 1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception 2 a : present or occurring everywhere b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions 3 a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of mankind) b : comprehensively broad and versatile 4 a : affirming or denying something of all members of a class or of all values of a variable b : denoting every member of a class 5 : adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements (as of use, shape, or size) - uni7ver7sal7ly /-s(&-)lE/ adverb - uni7ver7sal7ness /-s&l-n&s/ noun

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), July 17, 1999.

(SNIP)

Why you prefer to believe that banks (or any other industry) would choose to hide their problems and lie about them, rather than fix them and stay profitable, is beyond me.

(SNIP)

Sir Flint, you now fall victim to the same error I made on an earlier thread:

*Either-Or*

Why can we not also have companies who started out in what they thought was "plenty of time" (say, June, 1998, a date I hear somewhat frequently mentioned both to me personally and on the Internet).

They had the best of intentions to deal with this technically "simple" problem and move on with the real business of making a profit.

Darn.

A programmer found a whole new set of datefields.

The crackerjack systems analyst they depended on was recruited away to a consulting company where he/she could make 6X the money.

The source code was "gone" somewhere in the last two mergers/acquisitions.

They were bought out in the middle of the remediation and had to put most of their efforts into merging two basically incompatible systems.

Oops. Now we are 3 or 4 months behind. We'll have to work "real hard" to catch up. But, we are gonna make it. We are OK.

Flint, I'm sorry, but I've knocked around this world doing a LOT of different things. People are not real dependable as to deadlines. They can be trusted to tell you what you want to hear as long as they think there is ANY chance they can get away with it.

As you reminded me, it is NOT black and white (and I acknowledged the weakness of my title line). People routinely underestimate the amount of time most things will take, even familiar tasks. Things go wrong. Murphy ALWAYS gets his take.

Sadly, based on budgets spent vs declarations of increasing budgets, on company's admitted completion percentages (Bell Atlantic at 30% at the end of 1998, wasn't it? It could have been the 3rd quarter, but still far too late in the game to be less than half done), based on both horror stories I've been told by candidates and acquaintances (NOT off of the Web), based on the time line for successful projects I've been told of in person (350 person company, started in 1995, took until 1998. Full date expansion, tested, team disbanded. The IT manager had to trick the CEO into starting the project....), things are looking dicey. I know of a Fortune 200 company that did not start until June, 1998, for goodness sakes..... Their Y2K project manager told my father he doesn't even know if they will be able to run their assembly lines next year.

The scope of the project was underestimated. As so many projects of all types, too many were mismanaged. That is the human experience. We muddle through. This time, muddling through may cause everyone a lot of pain. I intend to spare my family as much of that discomfort as possible.

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), July 17, 1999.

Tyson vs Hollyfield? More like Terminator2 vs Ghandi...Flint man, you're not even putting up a fight.

Flint said: "Now, there's no basis in fact for making this statement either -- in fact, the overwhelming preponderance of information available supports my contention and contradicts this one. Challenges to doomies to describe even one such "killer problem" have gone unanswered." ...

I hardly know where to begin! Well, a good place to see painstaking descriptions of these killer problems would be that forum on the internet called "timebomb 2000", where dozens of people have collected oodles of research and analysed the situation and its ramifications till they turned blue in the face. I recommend the banking/finance section and the economy/jobs section. That should get you started.

Search for threads with "derivatives" in their title, a few of which have an article which shows official govt stats on the derivatives holdings of the major US banks, and explains why a 30% drop in the sharemarket, (as of late '98) would bankrupt all of these banks. That's only one example. I'm fairly certain that global y2k problems (Italy, Gazprom, oil, SME's, China, TeleBras, S-E Asia ETCETCETC..) will cause more than a 30% drop in overall stockmarket evaluations, and in a fairly short space of time. I guess I'd call it a killer problem.

Flint said :~) "The concern that organizations express about y2k bugs is real, no question. But it's nowhere near the top of anyone's list of worries." Yes, he really said that. I thought that Hamre guy sounded a bit worried. That Flint guy sounds a bit worried too!

Flint said " I see that public sentiments are a big battleship, and they don't turn on a dime."

I agree with this! But have you noted the direction in which that Battleship is headed? The FDIC's own survey shows it is going to smack full-speed into Greenland. They need an amazing PR campaign to make it change course, but you show that you understand the limited effect such an effort can deliver.

Flint said "And whether you like it or not, the worry you treasure about y2k simply doesn't exist out there. It is compartmentalized -- people have heard of it, they're aware of the advice, but it doesn't cross their minds in everyday behavior. Get them focused on it directly, they admit it's a problem and maybe their money isn't as safe as they'd like. Remove that focus, they leave the y2k compartment and it no longer exists for them."

This load of bollocks is contradicted by so many polls, on so many aspects of the problem, especially on the cash withdrawals front.

Enough of this.

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.

Jon:

I agree with all you say. I think the most important statement I made was along the lines of "Nobody will finish in time, but few will fall so far short as to become nonviable." This is muddling. A lot of delays and inefficiency, spiced with breakdowns like the Canadian phone fire.

I foresee (for what it's worth) a very wide spectrum of "organizational health" with everyone somewhere on that spectrum -- not everyone bunched at the wrong end. And yes, there will be a lot of interactions that make things worse, but I feel the overall system of systems has a lot more slop than people realize.

I expect a huge number of screwups, but I think the half-life of the average screwup will be only a few days. So I expect a month or two of interesting times indeed, and a recovery taking several years to complete. And of course events external to y2k will also interact, whether for net benefit or net loss I couldn't guess.

And for Riversoma, yes, I expect everyone to be affected to one degree or another. Yes, another spectrum. I think for the majority of us, we'll encounter inconveniences we can get through. For the small minority, it will be severe. Where do you draw the line on that spectrum and say, One this side is OK, on that side is Very Bad? I don't think this can be done.

I prepared early on for infrastructure failure (of up to maybe 6 months-1 year duration depending on type of failure), and now I'm adding preparations against unemployment. Because I don't know where I will fall on that spectrum either. From a macroeconomic standpoint, I don't expect a big blip. From a personal standpoint, I'm being as cautious as I can be.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

number six:

OK, I'm baffled. I said "get them focused". What do you think a y2k poll on withdrawal does? Doh! It focuses them on withdrawals. I said remove the focus, they leave the compartment. Doh! Are these withdrawals happening? Nope. Your example illustrates *exactly* the point I made, that you called bollocks. Good work proving my case, still need a bit of help with reading comprehension, though.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

Well, I was leaving the arena to the tune of "I am a real American", but seeing as you pearl harbored me with that two-by-four I think I'll turn around and pretend to fight some more. Firstly, the number of people who told the FDIC survey that they will totally cash out was approx 15%. 2 or 3% is sufficient to eliminate cash reserves. Plus another how many percent said they would make substantial withdrawals. Plus a lot more people will want their 3 day storm money. For your "focus" theory to matter, it will need to be the case that approx. only 1/10th of people follow through on their intentions they revealed to that survey, and that no visible run escalates.

Surveys can lead their targets towards a predetermined anser if that is the will of the surveyor, but I just don't see why FDIC would've asked Gallop to skew such a poll at all.

And FWIW, I think you generally underestimate the number of average Joes whose y2k prep understanding extends about as far as "gee, I better get all my money out of the bank."

(Is bank runs an "unwise" topic to discuss, anyone? I fret. e-mail me.)

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 18, 1999.

Hey!, all you doomers leave my pal Flint alone!!

Huh?...what?......oh chit....I really said that?........ZZZZZZ....

-- takin' a nap... (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 18, 1999.

Dear French Hamlet Flint,

You said "A fanatic is one who redoubles his energy once he's forgotten his objective". Well, that's you Flint, because you have forgotten the objective of disproving that IV&V has found severe remediation failures even in the cream of the crop banks that offered themselves for the validation process, and that everybody else, including government code and the rest of the world code is in worse shape yet (please see (a) (b) (c) and (d) in the original post above, at the very beginning of this thread)

So obviously enough guys, this thread has (A) passed the Flint Acid Test (pretty weak at this late stage of the game I'd say, pH 6.5 at the most, weaker than lemon juice) and (B) has swiftly disuaded the Deckers and the Pooles and the Hoffmeisters and the Anitas and the Marmas, meaning that they have NOTHING valuable to add and preferred to save face. BTW Flint, you can't trust these people can you? They left you all alone to bear the burden of this tough thread didn't they?

There are approximately 200,000 thousand banks world wide with some 1,000,000 interfaces to be reconciled daily, meaning several dozen b- b-b-b-billion lines of code to be remediated and IV&V tested in order for the international banking system to function as we know it or close to it. Obviously, this will never happen. BankBoston/Fleet knows it, the International Settlements Bank (Basle) --the bank of the central banks of the world-- knows it, and that's why they unequivocally, extensively and officially admit "serious risks and uncertainties" come Jan.2000 or even before. Bank runs is a pertinent subject that also affects the banking industry although not directly related to broken code per se.

I think this is a pretty good summary of the arguments we've heard so far on this thread. Do we all agree? Please correct me if I'm wrong. The importance of these conclusions is self-evident.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 18, 1999.

Number Six, on the subject matter of bank runs, please see my recent thread entitled "BANK RUNS, the mother of all analysis" which can be found under "Banking" category at the bottom of the main thread page.

Also useful is the following link which I truly recommend:

"http://www.y2knewswire.com/cashcomputer.asp"

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 18, 1999.

"Well, I was leaving the arena to the tune of "I am a real American", but seeing as you pearl harbored me with that two-by-four I think I'll turn around and pretend to fight some more."

number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 18, 1999.

Six, uh, sorry, Not six (six is not a number.....). Actually "six" doesn't look like a number at all does it? Looks more like a snack food.

But I regress, not six, I wanted to tell you how much I appriciated the quote above. Being a student of history, and knowing a bit about the "Pearl Harbor" attack I couldn't help but to fall off my chair...uh that is, chuckle at the humor in your statement. I wish I had your witt. Their are to many issues to discuss in reference to Pearl, Roosevelt's knollege, the Jap code being broken, inept RADAR operators. Whatever the method, Churchills ends were met. And a very good thing that was. The fate of all humanity really did hang in the balance over Britton.

GBA and GB Winston Spencer Churchill.............

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 18, 1999.

Hi Mike, sad to see you go - I'm sure you'll be back when things hot up. I was actually talking about professional wrestling so I'm flattered you'd think I was making some sort of highbrow historical allusion.

And why WEREN'T there any carriers in that harbour?

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 19, 1999.

"We have Sysman now claiming he never said these pre-2000 dates would cause problems. Of course, before the fact he didn't say they wouldn't either!"

Ahh, Flint, I've only been on this forum since Feb. April 1 was one of the first "key dates" that I commented on. Please notice the date of my remark:

What I think will happen on April 1

"Folks, they call it the Y2K problem for a good reason, not the various dates in 1999 problem. I dare to say that the number of programs that do look-ahead is very small compared to the big picture. How many embedded systems do look-ahead processing? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 31, 1999."

Now, you were saying, Flint... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 19, 1999.

Don't mean to get in the middle of this but George please stop making general statements as facts. Your point above only represent your opinion, nothing more. How much code have you remediated and have you done and IV&V? What do you know about these results? If you want to know of my personal experiences, e-mail me at maria947@hotmail.com.

This is just another example of the doomer crowd not wanting to see or hear any facts.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 19, 1999.

The "doomer crowd" has quite a lot of facts, thank you, such as 19 OUT OF 21 MAJOR CITIES NOT READY FOR Y2K!!!!

Honestly, Maria, do you see yourself doing this for the next five and a half months (actually less -- yikes!)? The news only gets worse, the time only grows shorter. The penalty for a prepared doomer being wrong about Y2K is miniscule; the penalty for an unprepared polly is disasterous. Why do persist?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 19, 1999.

Sysman:

OK, sorry, you called it right. Of course, by the time you did so, quite a few previously-burned prognosticators had backed off the spike date theory. They realized (sensibly enough) before April 1 that the lack of problems with 1/1/99 and FY00 on the part of big companies like WalMart meant these lookaheads weren't a big deal after all. But still, you are quite correct that you joined these people before April 1.

You will notice that quite a few (most) analysts who are predicting y2k problems are placing these problems (in one case a majority of them) as striking before 1/1/00. Gartner said things would really start heating up bugwise this month. Several have talked about one- quarter lookaheads, and 100 days, and 30 days -- a goodly rash of pre- 00 date bugs. Out of curiosity, are you saying these people are also wrong, and actual computer date failures will be zilch to minimal before rollover?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 19, 1999.

Good evening Flint,

I guess I am saying that failures will be minimal before rollover, but will increase in the late months, with inventory type programs and the like. But, this is still a small percentage, when compared to the big picture, including embedded. I still believe that CURRENT-DATE (for all you COBOL folks) is the real problem. Once it starts getting into files, and those files are sorted on the date, I think that's when the "fun" will start.

Just my $.02 <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 19, 1999.

Flint, with teeth knocked out, nose broken, and a bad gash pouring blood over his swollen right eye, refuses to call the fight. *DING* And the ninth round begins...

-- a (a@a.a), July 19, 1999.