Many bank branches were fully open for business today, without any glitches... looks like they will be fine.

-- Realist (don't@want.spam), January 02, 2000

Answers

Most bank branches in the SF Bay Area were closed today. They'll be closed tomorrow too. Maybe because it's Saturday, January 1, 2000. It's really odd, but I think they're closed every Saturday and Sunday, not just this particular rollover weekend.

-- Truk (truk@loa.moc), January 02, 2000.

Realist you are a complete ASSHOLE.

Go read VISA is toast in the banking archives - in fact read the whole banking archives.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

Many banks were fully open today??? What planet do you live on?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

Sure they will. An ATM just ate my husbands card within the last 20 minutes.

-- pilotrn (pilotrn@hotmail.com), January 02, 2000.

I said "many bank branches were open". Some were open just to prove they could handle Y2K. I know that most of them were closed. But the fact that they did so with no major glitches makes it unlikely that the banking system will collapse.

-- Realist (don't@want.spam), January 02, 2000.

Over the last year, quite a few banks announced they would be open through the New Years Weekend. This was part of the big banking PR campaign to prove they were ready, but nontheless they are open as announced.

The first few announcements showed up here, but there was no good way to reconcile them with the presumed hopelessness of banking software, so people stopped posting them.

And Hawk, didn't you already learn your lesson on another thread? Even banks that aren't *fully* open are busy transacting away all the same. AND without problems. You seem to have airtight learnproofing.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 02, 2000.

opening a freaking bank door in Safeways does not mean the freaking international payments system will work - numbskull.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

Flint you asshole they are not clearing and settling internationally yet.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

No Flint, since you took off from that other thread I thought maybe you finally got it through your thick gubmint shill skull. Gawd, when you aren't constantly being fed new information it becomes painfully obvious just what a dimwit you really are. Hang in there, as soon as the party is over in Washington they should start telling you what to say again soon. I just wish you would find somewhere else to sell that crap, because I ain't buying it for a minute.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

Amazing. I actually predicted this in my comments "About time I told you this (inside scoop on banks?)".

But the speed with which pollies have declared banking to be "o.k." startles even me.

-- Me (me@me.me), January 02, 2000.

But the speed with which pollies have declared banking to be "o.k." startles even me.

That's okay. They don't mind if you're slow. After all, the pollies can only financially benefit by the doomers' slowness.

-- Truk (truk@loa.moc), January 02, 2000.

truk you're one-linerts are wearisome

can't you go play with the traffic instead?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

Andy.......go away.....permanently.

People have actually been fairly civil making points on both sides of the equation the last day or so......

And then you appear with your vulgar idiotic crap, insulting people......

You likely have the worst track record of any regular on this forum with regards to your Y2K predictions, stock market, gold prices etc.

You should be embarrased, quietly sitting on the sidelines with your mouth shut........

Of all people that post here, you have been the rudest, stupidest and most obnoxious person. No doubt many have already lost a lot of money by actually taking your advice! Do yourself a favor and go and hide.......quickly......please!!

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), January 02, 2000.

But I am playing with traffic (well, TCP/IP packets). Besides, the automobile traffic has been pretty light today (it is, after all New Year's Day).

-- Truk (truk@loa.moc), January 02, 2000.

Craig, why don't you just reverse your truk over my cyber-buddy.

Craig - this is a y2k forum, what the hell are you doing here?

it's all over, right?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

Well, for the Jews, Chinese, Mayans, etc., Y2K was over centuries ago. Shouldn't we be chatting about Year 2038 now?

-- Truk (truk@loa.moc), January 02, 2000.

Andy, Yes it is over...you lost, not even an ATM or single power grid in the US, no the world went down.

Give it up...you were wrong(although I did see your point once in a while) but take craigs advise and start worring about something else. Maybe you could be the first to sart a Y10K forum, ya lets start telling everyone how shortsited they are and have no regard for those who are going to go through this in 8000 years....

You "are" an idiot.

-- danny (dan@symoatico.ca), January 02, 2000.

Danny - please reply to the following.

Please tell us how banking will cope in the forseeable future.

Even though 10% of the world is experiencing minor glitches randomly in the basic infrastructure now, it should be noted carefully by all IT professionals and computer experts that the other 90% of the system hasn't yet been fired up in real-time testing. As people will go back to work on Monday fire up those systems and then we will soon see what kind of interconnectivity problems surface as the whole system is then put into full operation. If we start seeing snowball effects happening over the next few weeks we wil soon know how far the system can cope without collasping on itself.

The small glitches that we think are 'minor problems' now can easily at any time start escalating through the infrastructure, so its a waiting game to see how many of these glitches will surface. If there is enough of those little tiny glitches or outages happening all at once this can clog up or collaspe the infrastructure and grind it to a halt, but only time will tell if the glitches start increasing in their accelerations or remain at a stable level that the system and the programmers are able to cope with, for this is the big hidden danger of the y2k issue now.

I am sure there will be an increase in the amount of glitching when the other 90% of the code is put into operation when people go back to business as usual and with those systems that couldn't get their embeds upgraded because not enough time, in the meantime last minute fixing is probably being done during the holidays to try to turn back the glitch bomb before people go to work. We must also take into account that this is where the "non-compliant or incompleted systems" around the world start to play the part in provoking a interconnecting glitch snowball effect for nearly half the world's computer systems did not make it to the deadline of 31st Dec 1999 and so technicians hope to try to fix things in 2000 after the glitching starts for the danger is far from over, if the glitches snowball, it may outdo the number of technicians and programmers to fix it, it's just the beginning, wait and see.

Now it all depends if there is enough glitching to outdo the number of programmers patching the systems up, this will be quie interesting. The bomb has gone off, but it hasn't quite detonated fully yet, its a Year 2000 Timebomb, not a Day 2000 Timebomb. So many think that because everything in the basic infrastructure is still operational so far with only minor glitches that this y2k bomb is only a fizzler.

We will know if the infrastructure stands once it starts going into full real-time testing, we can't know if the system is going to pass the test until the whole thing is tested. Before we celebrate thining the y2k bug has been beaten, not everything was put in full operation on New Year's celebrations, because we see the power and phones still working or basic utils, this don't mean that the whole system has jumped the hurdle over y2k.

TO SUM UP =========

The immediate effects of y2k are not really immediate but over time, its a timebomb, not a daybomb. Not until the whole system is put into full real-time operation will be begin to know of the ramifications of y2k over the next few weeks. y2k is not a day event, its a year event, possibly even longer. Pollies can gloat all they like about the rollover event, for it dosen't matter to the billions of glitches and unfixed systems around the world, they don't take day events. If there are problems with embeds, they might take a while to show up. The non comp ones though would probably crash as soon as they are fired up. But the y2k in the software code plus the billions of glitches will prob slowly detonate over time.

(Brent N)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

Andy,

Even a doomer like myself has had enough of your BS and abuses. Please take the advise of so many others and just go away so the rest of us can continue to discuss issues like mature adults. Please go away.

What if banking fails???

Right. What if the moon comes crashing into the earth on Monday?

Ill tell you what Andy. Ill bet you 1000 Oz of gold coins (thats if you even have that much) that a miniscule number of banking transaction might fail, say less than one in a million transactions. Ready to put your money where your mouth is? I thought not.

Unfortunately, I also bet that youll just keep cussing and not go away

-- Don (donald@duck.com), January 02, 2000.

Mr. Duck - fail when? Where? You are not serious about any sort of bet. The possibility is there. It won't happen on Monday as you expect Ducky, it will be cumulative. BTW take a look at my inbox and then wonder why I cuss out some pollies.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

To early to say about banks or any business system

I explain why in the following (with exerpts below).

Yes embeds are "non-issue" BUT IT will have its real rollover test TONIGHT here's why

and I gave my opinion with respect to the embeds in this thread:

Why nothing was ever going to happen with the embeds

But with respect to IT/database systems etc. The real test for them will be TONIGHT when the first day of overnight processing happens. You see if you done any programming you know that must of the bugs occur at what are known as boundaries. Now 1/1/2000 is a boundary. It is a boundary when you rollover and it remains a boundary until you use it. WE HAVE NOT FINISHED THE FIRST DAY SO THE BOUNDARY IS STILL LIVE AS IT HAS NOT BEEN CROSSED YET. IT will use it very heavily tonight when they process today's transactions. Yesterday night the processed transactions that were checking dates for work between 30.12.99 and 31.12.99. Today they will be processing dates for work done between 31.12.99 and 01.01.00 and will use new date seriously for the first time.

Boundaries cause errors just prior to the boundary, at the boundary and just after the boundary. That is just a fact of programming.

So you can expect the potential for the most errors at the following times (amongst other times) for IT systems:

Begining of first month before boundary. Begining of first payroll (etc.) before boundary. Begining of first week before boundary. Beginign of first day before boundary. After boundary has crossed. Begining of first day,month,week,payroll etc. after boundary. End of First day after boundary. End of First week after boundary. End of First payroll after boundary. End of First month after boundary. End of First quarter after boundary. End of First year after boundary.

The vast majority of potential errors come where the vast majority of the date calculations can occur. These occur in the After periods when we reach the End of xxx time.

So hang on folks the ride in IT BEGINS TONIGHT (1/1/2000).

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 02, 2000.

Andy,

"Mr. Duck - fail when? Where?"

Say over the next two weeks, anywhere in the world? Do we have a bet?

-- Don (donald@duck.com), January 02, 2000.

Don,

Are you serious about betting over $250,000 that less than one in a million transactions will fail? What kind of time frame are you talking about on that? Heck they probably have more failures than that on a normal day, so I guess it doesn't matter. How do you think we'll be able to verify this?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

Are you Don Moody?

-- Hawk (flying@high.again), January 02, 2000.

Duck - be serious please.

Just be aware of the banking possibilities. remember what Schultz wrote last Aug/sept about Banking.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

Hey Andy, is he that Don Moody guy? He's not serious is he?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

No your thinking of Dick Moody.

DeutscheBank nearly took the show down 4 weeks ago, LTCM before that.

Banks are on shakey ground as is, it won't take but one serious FUBAR to topple things.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

Andy,

Yes, I do read HSL, and yes I am serious. You are right though, it would be difficult to verify such a miniscule amount of failures, but my point is that if we do have some banking failures, they will be so few that they will effect nothing in the grand scheme of things! Wanna bet?

-- Don (donald@duck.com), January 02, 2000.

Hey Andy, this guy says he's serious! Hey Don, if Andy doesn't want to bet, is it open to anyone? Let's hear the details of how you want to handle this.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

Mr Duck... this seems to be your view of Banking...

If bank A is non-compliant and sends compliant bank B non-compliant data, then B will simply reject the non-compliant data. This has worked for the last 40 years of data transfer between computers, and I expect that it will remain in force until at least 1/1/2000 - or do you know of some reason why Visa (or any other company) would start accepting "bad" data?

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

This is the misguided, unsupported Gary North idea of "corrupt" data spewing forth from computers on 1/1/2000, and "corrupting" computers that the data is transferred to. Anyone who has worked with communicating computers knows better and realizes that both the transferring and receiving machines have agreed on the data edit rules in advance, and I'm surprised that Andrew here feels otherwise. Anyone who has worked with >communicating computers knows better and realizes that both the >transferring and receiving machines have agreed on the data edit rules >in advance, and I'm surprised that Andrew here feels otherwise.

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

Hmm. I work with "communicating computers" and must say that Andrew is precisely right. Date-dependant calculations have nothing to do with data-interchange validations routines. What Andrew is pointing out is that non- complient programs will produce data that is wrongly calculated; these errors will spread magnitudianlly throughout the global financial system. Validation routines between data interchanges simply verify that the parameters are correct: not the calculations forming the data. This is the meaning of corrupt data: bad information, not bad parameters. Andrew (and Gary North) are precisely correct. You are espousing the "misguided, unsupported idea of "corrupt" data " equalling bad parameter transfers. That is incorrect and a straw dummy. Corrupt data = data correctly parametered yet wrongly calculated. Wrong calculations beget wrong calculations ad nauseum. Within 24 hours of the turnover, the Global Finacial System will either A)be completely corrupt B)be completely shut down so as to avoid A. The result is the same in either case; even if we don't go Milne, you are going to see a mess bigger than you can imagine. Alan Greenspan was entirely correct when he stated that 99% is not good enough. We will be nowhere close--not even in the ballpark. The engines have shutdown; the plane is falling--we simply haven't hit the ground yet. Scoff if you must; as a professional working with professionals, I know the score. It's going down. This is why at least 61% of IT professionals are pulling their money out before it hits--of course, in 10 or 11 months, that number will rise to 100%; but then, it will be to late. We know for a fact that that 50% of all businesses in this, the best prepared of countries, will not perform real-time testing. As a Programmer/Test Engineer, I can therefore assure you that at least 50% of all businesses in this, the best prepared of countries, are going to experience mission-critical failures, Gartners new optimistic spin not withstanding. Remediation sans testing is not remediation. The code will still be broken, just in new and unknown ways.

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

I don't want your gold, Ducky, I have enough of my own.

Watch the banks over the next few weeks.

It will be cumulative.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

Yes Hawk, this bet is open to you as well (if you have 1000 Oz to bet with). How should we verify a miniscule amount of banking failures? I'm not sure. Perhaps I'd win if 99.99% of all US bank branches remain open over the next two weeks and all stock exchanges remain open. Perhaps you can define what a miniscule amount of banking failures would constitute? Surely fewer failures than the banking doom and gloom that you and Andy are predicting!

-- Don (donald@duck.com), January 02, 2000.

Actually, the banks convinced everyone not to take their money out, so they took the extra cash from the feds and bought up short term debt... go figure...

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), January 02, 2000.

Don,

No, you didn't say anything about banks staying open. You said that out of a million transactions at any bank in the world there would be less than one failure, right? So if I find any bank in the world that has more than one failure out of a million transactions, you slide me the gold. Deal? How do I know you have that kind of money? Does Andy know you on a personal basis?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

Nope Hawk I don't.

Duck you're on a loser.

Transaction fail every day at every bank, that's what the back office systems are for.

Clearing and settlement throws up exception lists that are generally manually chased up - I used to do this sort of work.

The crunch comes in the situation as described in detail above which, even if found, swamps the back office folks.

Remember 100+ thousand banks/entities data transferring all at the same time in myriad patterns of complexity...

Put your gold away Don, like candy from a baby.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

"I don't want your gold, Ducky, I have enough of my own."

Hmmm Andy... I thought you wouldnt dare to put your money where your mouth is. I also predicted correctly that you wouldnt go away... looks like I'm batting two for two... alot better than your predictions.

I must say, however, Andy that I have been following your posts over the past few months, partly because I am a gold bug like you (and yes, I do believe that gold is heading up), but your attitude over the past couple of days has been very immature. I also prepped, and I also believed that parts of the infrastructure would fail miserably. But the non-events of the last couple days have proved me wrong and I'm delighted to admit just how wrong I was. Sure we'll see many failures over the coming weeks, but nothing to disrupt our comfy way of life. So rejoice with us Andy and get over it!

-- Don (donald@duck.com), January 02, 2000.

Hawk,

"You said that out of a million transactions at any bank in the world there would be less than one failure, right?"

No, that's not what I said. Read my post carefully. I said less than one in a million transactions.

"How do I know you have that kind of money?"

Oh, I do, and a lot more than that. My Monex rep will gladly verify that for you, whenever you're ready to take the bet.

-- Don (donald@duck.com), January 02, 2000.

Has anyone noticed how Andy always responds with a cut & paste of someone else's thoughts and/or abuse of a fairly crude order? The abuse is getting worse.

The reason? Andy gambled, and it looks like he lost. Big time. (see my thread below, "We were wrong. Perhaps Andy could apologise on our behalf, etc")

I for one am starting to feel just a bit sorry for Andy. Underneath the bravado and abuse, he's probably an ok sort of guy. Just makes more lifestyle/financial errors than most. And right now, he's probably scared s----less.

In the spirit of the new era, I suggest that we support, rather than criticize, poor Andy. As he is (or soon will be) desperately short of money, (what with gold, his tax situation and everything), what about passing around the cyber hat for him? I'll kick off: Here's five bucks, Andy. Another 10 or so of those and you'll soon be able to buy an oz of gold, the way its going.

Anyone else? Or what about a small gift? Any ideas what Andy would appreciate? A sack of unwanted rice, or some beans maybe. Over to you.

-- Asking (Asking@aquestion.com), January 02, 2000.

Assking I realise you are infatuated with me dearie but this is getting ridiculous.

Go and take a cold shower darling.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

Soap 'n water to wash out his bad mouth

-- Dizzy (Dizzy@oal.com), January 02, 2000.

Don

partly because I am a gold bug like you (and yes, I do believe that gold is heading up), but your attitude over the past couple of days has been very immature

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

some of you folks have no sense of humour at all I can see that...

now this puerile ***bet*** is not gonna happen.

just watch wwhat happens with banks and please could you all stop worrying about my financial status, assking you'll be please to know I'm a ***big boy*** and have made my bed.

Don - go ahead with your fantasy bet with Hawk if that's how you get your jollies.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

(Reuters) The millennium bug may have failed to crash this weekend's global party but it could still be carrying a sting in its tail, several governments and experts warn. They say the reopening on Monday of markets, banks and other businesses will provide a big test for computers, which were not put under any real strain over the holiday weekend. But regulators of leading Asian stock markets say they are confident their systems are Y2K-compliant and ready for an expected bumper year of trading.

US and Asian stock and bond markets are expected to open Monday with no technical problems related to the Y2K bug. In industrialised and developing nations across the world, stock and futures exchanges, electronic currency and data systems, regulators and vendors all say systems are go for the year 2000 But Wall Street officials cautioned that their evaluations were still not complete.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

World markets avoid Y2K digital meltdown (Updates; adds details from U.S. Securities Industry Association news conference)

http://www.pbs.org/reuters/articles/Y2K2/01_01_2000.reulb-story- bcy2kmarkets3rdld.html

By Daniel Sternoff

NEW YORK, Jan 1 (Reuters) - Financial markets around the globe reported on Saturday their electronic trading systems had not succumbed to Y2K computer hitches or glitches on the first day of the millennium.

In industrialised and developing nations across the planet, stock and futures exchanges, securities dealers, banks, clearance houses, regulators, electronic data vendors and currency dealing systems said all systems were ``go'' for 2000.

But while markets were spared digital disaster on the first day of the year, securities industry officials warned the world would not return to capitalism as usual until the first trades of the millennium had been conducted, processed and settled.

``We're A-OK,'' said Don Kittell, executive vice president of the U.S.-based Securities Industry Association. ``But this is, in a way, early days for us...we have not yet traded anything in the year 2000.''

The world's largest markets open for business only on Monday or Tuesday after a long holiday weekend.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

"You said that out of a million transactions at any bank in the world there would be less than one failure, right?"

No, that's not what I said. Read my post carefully. I said less than one in a million transactions."

Sheesh, playing games with semantics are we? OK, if I prove that there has been one failed bank transaction, which occurred within one million or less consecutive transactions, then that meets the requirement, correct?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

"go ahead with your fantasy bet with Hawk if that's how you get your jollies."

No Andy, I'd rather not take your gold or Hawk's gold in a bet. I like to earn my gold. I just want to see you calm down or go away so the rest of us can have civilized discussions without your cussing and name calling everywhere.

-- Don (donald@duck.com), January 02, 2000.

Well Mr. cartoon character you'd better invoke your delete key.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

"OK, if I prove that there has been one failed bank transaction, which occurred within one million or less consecutive transactions, then that meets the requirement, correct?"

No. But if over the next two weeks more that 0.0001% of all banking transactions fail due to Y2K bugs than you win. Otherwise I win. Surely that's much fewer failures than the banking doom that you and Andy are predicting, right?

-- Don (donald@duck.com), January 02, 2000.

You said "anywhere in the world," not "everywhere in the world." So when you say "less than one in a million," that doesn't mean less than one millionth of ALL transactions. Looks like you're the one who isn't willing to put your money where your mouth is.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

Don't you people have anything better to do with your time? Like figure out what actually happened? Possibly come to some conclusion on what systems will fail? From what I've read, most of the posts are just petty arguments between a few people. Most of which are completely off the subject. Do any of you even remember what you are fighting about? Quit your name calling and post something that may help or at least inform people of the true situation.

-- ~kyle~ (incubus8@excite.com), January 02, 2000.

Whatever Hawk. I'll tell you what. Do define what a miniscule number of Y2K related banking failures is and I'll go along with that. BTW, do you even have a 1000 Oz to bet with, or are you just wasting my time?

-- Don (donald@duck.com), January 02, 2000.

Do define what a miniscule number of Y2K related banking failures is and I'll go along with that.

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

Why not just use Alan Greenspan's requirement -

nothing less than 100%...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

"The second area where USA Today deliberately lied about Y2K status is in its comments about Deutsche Bank. Further research shows(the bomb thrower Gary North has a link in his banking section, "Deutsche Bank suffers a Computer Breakdown" dated 12-8-99) that the "excellent" German banking system suffered a catastrophic failure December 1, several days before the USA Today article. Either they admit they are incompetent or liars. How can you write that German banks in general are Y2K ok when one of them nearly takes out the global trading system five days before? Either they didn't know, which means they didn't do their homework, or it means they knew and deliberately lied in order to deceive their readers. That's two unpardonable journalistic sins in a single one page article. The Deutsche Bank is Yardeni's bank in case you didn't know. It's ironic that the only "official" economist who is predicting a Y2K recession almost had a banking collapse started by his employer fully a month before Y2K."

Doug McIntosh Dec 31st 1999

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

Andy is perfectly correct. Banks do manually handle (i.e. fix) failed or suspect transactions every day. The point is that the staff levels have been cut back so far that there is no, repeat NO slack in the system.

One in a million is tolerable. One in a thousand isn't. If it's somewhere in the middle, we might muddle through. Why not wait and see rather than slapping your... billfolds... on the table and comparing sizes? ;)

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 02, 2000.

From what I can see on this thread, Andy isn't worried about the compliance of local banks...his concern is Herstatt Risk:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001VM0

Anybody know when international markets re-open?

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), January 02, 2000.