Well, Lou Gerstner says the magic word ("Y2k") and it's like watching the duck fall on the old Groucho Marx show. Only the only thing that's falling is IBM and the dow. I usually have Headline News or CNN FN on in the background of my office, and today, all I've heard is "IBM" and "Y2k" repeated about 10,000 times.

What does this have to do with electric utilities? Maybe nothing. I think it has to do primarily with disclosure, and predictions of what would happen to any publicly held company company if they say the magic word, including the electric industry. We've carped ad infinitum about disclosures, or lack thereof, or general lousiness thereof. IBM is now a poster child for why a company *can't* say that their profits may be impacted by Y2k, or why they could have problems related to Y2k.

And so, any hope of disclosure of Y2k risks by any publicly held company (including electric companies) just went to basically zero.

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

Answers

Rick,

Could you explain more-

All I saw was earnings down in 3Q because everyone is busy with Y2k and not buying product. I didn't see anything on disclosures.

I'll keep looking...

TM

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

TM,

You're right. IBM did not disclose any problems with IBM equipment related to Y2k. What they did disclose was that their earnings are likely to drop about 20 cents a share in the fourth quarter because computer users are opting not to buy as much equipment in front of the rollover. Aparently this revelation surprised some brokerage house analysts and they downgraded IBM's stock (I don't know what cave they've been living in). Presto! In one day investor's in IBM stock have lost a total of roughly thirty billion dollars.

I think Rick's point is that people and corporations are not going to go that deeply into this. They are just going to hear that IBM said something about having problems because of Y2K and Boom! It's stock dropped 15% in a day. This is not the type of thing that is likely to encourage other large companies to tell us all about their Y2K problems (not that they would have anyway).

The bottom line is that we have to make decisions that could affect the well being of our families without having sufficient facts upon which to base those decisions. This is not going to change between now and the rollover. As far as I am concerned, in such a situation it is far better to be 'too' prepared than not prepared enough.

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

Rick,

Yeah, I've made this point many, many times, & I believe you have in the past as well (ie, stocks sell off sharply on bad Y2K news, so companies prefer to keep it quiet). There were some other factors beside Y2K in IBM's whacking, but it was most amusing to watch Maria Bartiromo on CNBC this morning as the market was opening (and IBM was being slaughtered) saying "Y2K is *real*!" Of course, this phenomenon has manifested itself with other stocks in the past (ie, announce Y2K- related earnings problems, and subject yourself to a vicious haircut in your share price realllll quick). And it should be pointed out that earnings-related stock price slaughters are not uncommon, whether tied into Y2K or not.

But there's another important point here: this selloff typifies public reaction in general. That is to say, if and/or when one or two serious Y2K failures ever occur, and cannot be hidden from the public, then the whole "no big problem" public mentality will go away realllll fast. The government's credibility (such as it is) will go away equally as fast. People will *then* start to panic or worry or get irrational or whatever. Of course, by then, it may also be the case that the worst will be over- but the whole "let's tell everyone not to panic and roll the dice and hope things are really under control" scheme will have collapsed. Anyone who knows jack squat about public psychology (which, to a large extent, is what the stock market really is anyway) knows that this is true. Let's hope it doesn't happen, but this is the risk that the government's strategy clearly entails...

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

Jeff nailed it. It's not about disclosures, per se. It's about perception.

CNBC: yadayadayadayada "IBM" yadayadayadayadayada "stock whacked" yadayadayadayada "Y2k" - and, voila, IBM stock tanks.

All across America, CFO's (the corporate officers responsible for preparing SEC filings), are running for cover. The legal folks will really be sharpening their pencils for 3rd quarter 10Q Y2k disclosures.

(BTW - looks like the dow and NASDQ are bouncing back a bit.)

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

Rick,

I have to give IBM credit for taking the plunge. Kind of like a politician who faces up to some skeleton right off the bat and gets it behind him. Sure, initial reaction was negative for IBM (which could work in their favor if they're planning to do some insider stock shuffling) but once the idea settles down, who are the investors going to put their money on? IBM who has been a kingpin for so long, and seems to have their house in order (perception) or some other IT outfit that is still stonewalling the issue? I have to believe that IBM knew exactly what the short term reaction would be, and are putting their bets on long term reaction when the dust settles.

Now, regarding that Groucho Marx comment. I used to love that guy and his show. The best part was when he asked that consolation question, "Who was buried in Goldman Sachs basement?" errrrr...no, wait a minute, I think it was "Who was buried in Grant's Tomb?" Yeah, yeah, that's it. You can see my mind is getting mixed up with all this current Y2k, Fed, and other financial black comedy going on. ;-(

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

Just in case anyone didn't watch the news:

http://www.cnnfn.com/1999/10/21/technology/ibm/

IBM stock tumbles Computer maker hard-hit after profit warning tied to Y2K problems October 21, 1999: 11:43 a.m. ET

NEW YORK (CNNfn) - IBM stock tumbled Thursday -- pulling the rest of the market with it -- after the world's biggest computer maker warned profits for the next two quarters will fall short of analysts' forecasts due to Year 2000 bug-related issues. Shortly after 11:30 a.m. ET, shares of Dow component IBM (IBM) sank 14-1/2 to 92-1/2, or about 14 percent, on the New York Stock Exchange. After the market closed Wednesday, International Business Machines Corp. reported that Y2K issues will prevent it from meeting Wall Street's forecasts of $1.33 a share for its fourth quarter. It also said it expects first-quarter 2000 earnings to miss consensus estimates. Many large corporations are hesitant to commit to large-scale technology purchases until they are confident that their Y2K- remediation programs are complete. Big Blue's bad news shook Wall Street in early trading, prompting the Dow industrials to sink 184 points in morning trade and the tech- heavy Nasdaq composite to drop more than 50 points. "The cat's out of the bag here with IBM," said Barry Hyman, senior equity analyst at Ehrenkrantz King Nussbaum. "It's going to affect more than IBM, because Y2K is a concern and it's going to affect many different sectors of the market. And analysts have already switched from just looking at earnings to quality of earnings." Prior to Wednesday's announcement, IBM had told analysts that its business would not be affected by Y2K concerns. But the company's warning has investors spooked about the prospects of other big companies in the technology sector. Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW), which competes with IBM in the computer server market, plunged 5-9/16 to 90-3/4 on the Nasdaq stock market. Fellow Dow component Hewlett-Packard Co. (HWP) lost 2-7/8 to 73- 11/16. Several analysts cut their ratings and forecasts for IBM following the company's warning. Lehman Brothers downgraded its rating on IBM's stock to "outperform" from "buy." Merrill Lynch cut its rating to "near-term neutral" from "near-term buy." Morgan Stanley Dean Witter downgraded its rating to "neutral" from "outperform." The brokerage also cut its 2000 earnings estimates to $4.53 a share from $4.66

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

When it comes to some of the major software and computer hardware suppliers, I don't see how in the world anyone could have expected that they would NOT have sales affected by Y2K. With many systems upgraded or replaced this year, and a number of companies putting a "freeze" on new software installations until after the rollover, there's bound to be an effect.

Dell and a few other companies have been saying for many months that they would be affected by purchasing patterns due to Y2K. Not sure why IBM was hit so big, maybe they waited too late to start saying this? I haven't been following their financial statements, so maybe someone else can shed some light here. Perhaps also this kind of news is just starting to sink in with the investors as Y2K approaches.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

Factfinder,

Your last sentence says a ton. Gerstner's delicately worded admission cost his company 15% of it's value. Mistake? Soften the landing? Maybe, but you know nobody owns a stock out of love of anything but gain. Wonder who's next?

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

When it comes to some of the major software and computer hardware suppliers, I don't see how in the world anyone could have expected that they would NOT have sales affected by Y2K.

Duh.

Caterwauling smearmongers have been screaming Y2K IS A HOAX for years. Or, haven't you been listening the way most Americans have been.

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

Several factors at work. One, IBM was indeed remiss in warning the Street of Y2K $$-related problems. Two, IBM is IBM- they have a profound effect on the technology food chain- ie, a ripple effect. Three, the Street is largely expecting Y2K to bring only minimal problems, not something like this (this is a function of point one, to a certain extent).

As I have said on the air a couple of times, the overall stock market- particularly the "big caps"- is priced for perfection. IE, any "exogenous shocks" - translation: anything unexpected- can let the air out the balloon reallll fast. That's all that really happened with IBM today. Unfortunately, when you combine that "priced for perfection" status with the utterly dreadful underlying technical condition of the broad market (as measured by the decline in the Advance-Decline line for the last 18 months, combined with the ongoing bear market in the overall market)- well, I don't have to tell you the obvious, ie, that the market in general could rapidly suffer IBM's fate should Y2K "unexpectedly" start to take a toll on the US & global economy.

-- Anonymous, October 21, 1999

FactFinder,

That IBM's stock tanked after its' Y2K earnings warning is graphic evidence that many stockbrokers and mutual fund managers who invest the public's money are sadly uninformed about Y2K issues. Possible problems caused by Y2K just don't seem to be on their radar screens.

We really can't blame them. With the notable exception of Ed Yardeni, every major American economist has concluded that the economic effect of Y2K will be negligible.

The large brokerage houses have passed this 'advice' along to their clientelle (for example, Merrill Lynch published a fifty page four color report which basically concluded that Y2K would be a non-event).

The effect of all this, plus Koskinen's masterful manipulation of public perception and the constant drumbeat of positive press releases from corporate America has led the people and investors to expect a very positive outcome to the whole Y2K situation. The stock market has priced itself accordingly.

If Y2K does turn out to be a non-event the market will get what it 'expected' (although there may be a 'relief' rally in January). However, if just a few of the possible problems mentioned in the Senate Committee's September report do become realities next year, they will come as nasty 'surprises' to the American public and the stock market. It will be time to be short both stocks and Al Gore.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 1999

Umm, before everyone gets TOO exited about this bad news, lets make it clear that IBMs misfortune was related to an expected decline in SALES, and not due to Y2K problems...earlier quarters were HIGHER due to increased sales because of Y2K...

All in all, the last quarter for software/computers will be a minus, but for the year its probably a wash. All in all, Y2K won't impact the stock market the way ...some would like...

Regards,

-- Anonymous, October 23, 1999

uh, factfinder...

let me see if i understand this. you are saying that when the cost of remediation is factored into the overall cost of doing business and the resultant negative impact on the bottom line has a negative impact on earnings... this is *NOT* going to have an affect on the stock market?

and i'm confused... what impact do you feel/think that the people on this board would like to see occur? perhaps, it is not what they would *like* to see happen... but, what they fear *might* happen to an over inflated, unaware, and uninformed market.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 1999

Some fair questions: "let me see if i understand this. you are saying that when the cost of remediation is factored into the overall cost of doing business and the resultant negative impact on the bottom line has a negative impact on earnings... this is *NOT* going to have an affect on the stock market?"

I'm not a stock market expert, but the market looks ok right now, and a lot of bucks have been spent - keep in mind that many companies are funding part of y2k out of their IT budgets, and then spending x amount above normal.

I would expect some effect, however nothing as severe as Gary North or some of the nuts that Drew and Pat Roperson have interviewed on CBN who predict a major recession, millions of lost jobs, etc. (Drew, are you still pumping that nonsense?). As far as "as some would like", I was thinking of those mentioned above....

Greenspan thinks Y2K isn't a signficant market threat by the way.

Regards,

and i'm confused... what impact do you feel/think that the people on this board would like to see occur? perhaps, it is not what they would *like* to see happen... but, what they fear *might* happen to an over inflated, unaware, and uninformed market.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 1999

FactFinder,

You never cease to amaze me! You say you are not an expert on the stock market but then go on to say it all looks just fine to you. What looks fine about it? The DOW? A couple of IT and Internet stocks? No problemo? Anywhere in that market? What an optimist you are. And do you really beleive that Greenspan doesn't think Y2k will have any real impact on the stock market? And now, just to keep the level of excitement up, you accuse Drew Parkhill of pumping nonsense. FactFinder, you aren't by any chance doing one of your Saturday afternoon party-party things right now are you????

-- Anonymous, October 23, 1999

Electronic Data Systems (EDS) is a major sub-contractor on IBM remediation projects. So far thier stock has not been impacted by IBM's announcement, but I think it is only a matter of time.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 1999

Greenspan on Y2K Hype: Greenspan Says Hype Is Biggest Y2K Risk

The Hype at CBN: Leading Y2K experts weigh the threat of the Millennium Bug

ALLOWAY: Well, the average person will be fine. Ninety percent of the systems will work. We're not talking about 90 percent failing. We're talking about 90 percent to 95 percent of the systems working. So we're looking at a slowdown. We're looking at isolated problems.

Alloway Forecast:

At 90% Mission Critical &

95% Compliant Systems Testing:

*3,000-point drop in stock market

*Federal budget surplus GONE

*Unemployment rises to 8%

*10% of small businesses fail

*24% of international trade lost

But the cumulative effect of that will affect your economy, will affect the stock market, will affect the supposed surplus in the federal budget. So the vast majority of people will find that it's okay. It was "overblown." But the cumulative effect of thousands and thousands of little failures will have big problems.

P. ROBERTSON: We've had a-- What is it? --a million and a half bankruptcies in this last year. And the times are the greatest prosperity of our nation, and the savings rate has gone down, I think, into negative territory, and people are leveraged up to their eyeballs.

ALLOWAY: Yes.

P. ROBERTSON: Home equity loans, credit card debt...

ALLOWAY: Yes.

P. ROBERTSON: A slowdown really hurts people like that. There'll be huge numbers of bankruptcies.

ALLOWAY: People who are highly leveraged, or because they've refinanced their home equity, as soon as things slow down, they stop spending very quickly because they are extended. And that's where you end up with the unemployment and the economic slowdown. This particular boom economy is consumer driven, and when the consumers pull back, this boom economy will slow down rather dramatically.

P. ROBERTSON: Well, gentlemen, I want to thank you so much, Dr. Bob Alloway and Bruce Webster, for your very cogent remarks and, of course, always Drew Parkhill, our expert on the subject.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, October 24, 1999

FactFinder,

Funny you should mention Alan Greenspan. Didn't he say that stock market investors were "irrationally exuberant"? That was when the Dow was at 6500. Wonder what he thinks of market valuation now that the Dow is above 10,000. Is Greenspan also one of the people who would 'like' the stock market to go down?

A couple of weeks ago he caused a mini-panic by warning a meeting of bank officials that they should increase their reserves just in case there is a sudden sharp drop in the stock market. Can anyone guess what possible 'surprise' on the horizon could ( not necessarily will ) cause the stock market to drop sharply?

The Fed has stored an extra fifty billion dollars in cash just in case it's needed for Y2K purposes. They've also recently significantly expanded the types of financial instruments they will accept as collateral so that banks can borrow much more easily from the Fed should they have a sudden need to do so.

Not being a member of the Federal Reserve Board, I have no idea what the Fed 'expects' the market reaction to Y2K to be, but five will get you ten that they've got major contingency plans in place just in case things do go wrong.

I place no particular import on the fact that Alan Greenspan said that Y2K would be no big deal, or words to that effect. If he ever said anything other than that about Y2K there could be a run on every bank in the country the next morning. He's smart enough to know that.

By the way, Ed Yardeni, who is no 'nut', is still forecasting a serious recession because of Y2K repercussions. His October 11, 1999, Y2K Reporter #43, available at: www.Yardeni.com explains why. You might find it interesting reading.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 1999

Oh my, where do I begin.

I believe that Rick's original point is that no matter what the true story is, IBM and Y2K problems were linked. Yes, it was an earnings warning and not "glitch" related but IBM/Y2K were linked bigtime. Other companies, who obviously watched what happened, may very well stay as far as legally possible from such disclosures. I will say that any earnings warning is taken very seriously by Wall Street. Take a look at the charts for SRV who have announced warnings twice this year. The April drop was not an opening bell GAP DOWN, it just crashed midday. Kaboom. Each of the 2 announcements are obvious on the chart. Look at HB who also announced an earnings warning. There are many other examples of how Wall Street treats those that announce such warnings. This does not take away though, the fact that IBM and Y2K were linked. Daytraders, marketmakers, and fund managers are sure to have noticed.

PRICE DROP/GAP DOWN One of the scary things about this market and earnings warnings is that an investor doesn't stand a chance to get out if they chose to. Namely daytraders. What happened to IBM is what is called a GAP DOWN. IBM didn't tumble 15%, it "crashed" 15%. It closed one day at $108 and opened the next day at $93.00(or there abouts) IF the market starts down in a big way. This is what could happen. A couple of days of GAP DOWNS like that and there is going to be alot of pain and a major panic.

Gap downs like that are a DayTraders nightmare. Keeps em up at night. In my humble opinion, daytraders are ready to pull the trigger on this market do to Y2K. I believe that this scares the market makers and fund managers to death. There is one thing that may hold this daytrading segment of the market together and that is the fact that Daytrading is addictive. Not much different than gambling. I am speaking from experience though I have broken away from it.

FACTFINDER,

I would agree that on the surface all looks well with the market but there are a couple of things that disturb me. The advance/decline line is deplorable and stocks of companies losing huge somes of money are still selling at prices way out of proportion to true or even (IMHO) expected future value.

I would also agree that there are those that would love to see the market crash. I hope it doesn't but I am of the opinion that it will at least drop by a large percent. My guess, not that you asked or that it has any value, is that we will see the DOW in the 6500 range by year end. And uh..... 3500 to 4500 by March. This is bad but doesn't have to be tragic. Look at many charts from last summer/early fall (1998). Just as look for example at the chart for JPM (J.P Morgan). I believe that this was the proverbial Asian flu. I don't believe that too many people who owned JPM in June, jumped off buildings between June and October. So I do believe that the market will drop, crash, tank or whatever do to what might be called the Global Y2K flu but it will return. And return it will, someday, with a vengence if the Lord tarrys.

GREENSPAN

Don't anyone kid themselves about Alan Greenspan. He understands. He understands from the perspectives of earnings, glitches, import/exports and productivity He understands.

PLEASE NOTE THE DATE ON THIS LINK. I had another link to a speech he made but I cannot for the life of me find it.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctc207.htm

01/26/99- Updated 08:09 PM ET Greenspan warns of year 2000 glitch WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Wednesday that the year 2000 computer bug is already hurting the economy and warned of bigger damage ahead.

"Inevitable difficulties are going to emerge," he said. "You could end up with . . . a very large problem."

He said the Fed was ready to lend banks tens of billions of dollars if the bug causes their computers to break down in the year 2000 and they can't make payments.

The year 2000 software bug, commonly referred to as the Y2K problem, arises from computer codes that can't comprehend dates beyond 1999.

Greenspan reckoned that several hundred billion dollars will be spent trying to fix the computer glitch before the turn of the century. Much of that could have been put to better use improving efficiency.

"Before we reach the year 2000 there is economic loss," the central bank chief told the Senate Banking Committee.

Even if most firms fix the bug, it will only take a small number to trigger big problems, he added.

David Wyss, chief economist of consultants Standard & Poor's DRI, says the computer bug could reduce economic growth by 0.3 percentage point in 1999 and 0.5 point in 2000. That's a loss of $65 billion. But it won't trigger a recession.

Greenspan also voiced worries about Europe, where technicians have been focused on retooling computers for the 1999 introduction of a new currency, and not on Y2K.

"The Y2K problem is a very serious threat to the U.S. economy," says Edward Yardeni, chief economist of Wall Street broker Deutsche Morgan Grenfell. By Rich Miller, USA TODAY

68 days 20 minutes to go.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 1999

By the way,

Regarding the USA Today story above. Greenspan in my opinion not only sneezed but blew his nose bigtime. No one seemed to have picked up on it. There certainly wasn't a market hiccup.

Very, very strange.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 1999

Re FF:

You make so many errors it's hard to correct them without an encyclopedia. However, for the benefit of the rest of the forum, to set the record straight:

>>or some of the nuts that Drew and Pat Roperson have interviewed on CBN

Bruce Webster & Bob Alloway have been *highly* respected in their fields for years and years (and they don't hide behind pseudonyms, by the way). They also have access to far more Y2K information than you even know exists. They have been widely quoted in the media & are *certainly* respected in Y2K circles (Bruce being co-founder & co- chair of DCY2K Group; Alloway worked with Rep. Horn). By the way, both have personally congratulated me for CBN's approach to Y2K. For that matter, so have a lot of other well-placed people in government positions at different levels.

Alloway's bio: >Director of the National Leadership Task Force on Y2K;

>Dr. Alloway's previous consulting clients include IBM, KLM, Sun Oil Company, 3M, Unilever, Hughes Aircraft, Fujitsu, the Dutch Home Office, and many others. Dr Alloway has extensive experience in Information Technology research, teaching, and consulting. His primary research contributions at MIT include the User Needs Survey for practical IT strategic planning, Temporary Management Systems for successful project design, and Decision Support Systems (DSS) for effective support of judgmental decisions.

>Dr. Alloway was a senior IT manager before becoming a Management Professor at the Sloan Graduate School of Management at MIT in 1975. He also conducted research for the Center for Information Systems Research (CISR), until leaving MIT in 1983. His areas of expertise include IT alignment and strategic planning, organization of multiple IT departments and user relations, technology integration and architecture design, and transformations of business functions from both IT and business perspectives. He has lectured at MIT's Masters and Senior Executive Programs; C.I.S.R. conferences; Industrial Liaison Program seminars; Executive Summer Session courses; customized inhouse courses for major corporations; and major domestic and international IT conferences.

>Because of his considerable expertise in information technology management and strategic planning, Congressman Stephen Horn hired him out of retirement to analyze national government policy and management issues for his House Subcommittee. He is responsible for the oversight of the Government Performance and Results Act, the Statistical Consolidation Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act on Information Technology, the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration, and the growing Year 2000 Computer Problem.

>He has a B.S. in Mathematical Economics from Brown University, an M.B.A. in Strategic Planning from Boston College, and a doctorate in Management of Technology from the Harvard Business School.

Bruce Webster's bio: >A long-time, well-known software veteran. Co-founder & co-chair of Washington DC Year 2000 Group, largest (over 1600 members) & most active Y2K group in the world. Has testified before Congress several times on Y2K. Former Chief Technical Officer of Object Systems Group in Irving, Texas. Has appeared on various news shows, such as "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer"on PBS, "@ Issue" on MSNBC, "The 700 Club" on CBN, and more. He has been quoted on Y2K in Barron's & Newsweek, among other. Has also spoken at numerous Y2K conferences, including Dr Ed Yardeni's Global Action Conference (on the Internet), National Association of Securities Dealers Conference, Middle East Year 2000 Conference, Center for Strategic & International Studies, and many more, as well as private conferences held by the World Bank, US intelligence community, and the Congressional Research Service. He has also met privately or spoken over the phone with Y2K representatives from a number of foreign countries. He has written a book, "The Y2K Survival Guide," published by Prentice Hall.

These are not "nuts." Your statement says far more about you than them.

>I'm not a stock market expert, but the market looks ok right now

You're certainly right that you're not an expert, as you've demonstrated in the past (and just did again). The overall market has been weak since April of 1998. We have essentially been in a bear market since then. Only a few strong stocks have held up the popular indexes since that point, given the public the appearance that things are better than they are (but market analysts know better). This is actually rather common knowledge; it's discussed in Barron's almost every week, as well as other places, like John Murphy on CNBC's site. In addition to the problems in stocks, the bond market is a near- disastrous mess.

Intriguingly, the stock & bond markets are both acting almost exactly the way they would if we *were* going to get a Y2K recession. The AD line has set the stock market up for a potentially significant downside move (although we may get off with a sideways correction, a la 1994). The bond market is signaling higher CPI numbers (just what Y2K bottlenecks- like in global shipping- would lead to). So, in point of fact, the stock market is more likely arguing *for*, not *against*, a Y2K recession.

>Greenspan thinks Y2K isn't a signficant market threat by the way

That's what he says publicly. He has to. He may believe it, he may not. However, we were *three*months* into the recession of 1990 and Greenspan was still saying "Recession? What recession?" It was literally happening right under his nose and he didn't see it. Incidentally, I predicted that recession well in advance. I guess you would have thought I was a "nut" then too? I suppose you thought I was crazy when I said "Dow 10,000 is inevitable in a few years" not long after Greenspan's famous "irrational exuberance" speech at Dow 6300? I suppose predicting a market crash in 1987 was also "hype?" Or "nuts"?

One other point: a very great deal of what CBN on Y2K has done has been aimed quite specifically at *minimizing* its impact. I have personally sacrificed an enormous amount of time (including many, many, many late nights and horribly long hours) and even my health to do so. If you think we or I "would like" for Y2K to be bad, then... well, there are no words.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 1999

Drew,

Thanks for setting the record straight. I only wish I could gather together the words and facts the way you have just done. When I get challenged by some people in my local area, I find it very distressing when I see these people have obviously not done their homework on the broader landscape of Y2k in general, and the stock market, in particular. Again, thanks for your response to this matter.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 1999

Drew,

There are many many people who are more informed about Y2K and better prepared for it because of the sacrifices you have made.

Please accept our thanks, keep up your good work and take care of your own health ( it's essential Y2K preparation ).

-- Anonymous, October 26, 1999

Drew, thank you for you factual post. I believe Factfinder's last name must be "Naivete." Unfortunately, some people may not know that.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 1999