-Caveat Lector-
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Edward Britton wrote:
>
>>And banks have had extensive 'disaster recovery' plans for years,
>>covering the range of relatively minor disasters (such as burst plumbing
>>in their main branch wiping out their computer system) up to a major
>>nuclear holocaust...
>
>Are we just to take your word for it, or perhaps you can elaborate on these
>fantastic 'disaster recovery plans.' You might be able to convince me
>yet--if you can be (A) more specific, and (B)--the more difficult--direct
>your efforts toward rebuttal as opposed to attacking your opponents. :-)
I've never attacked you, just your ideas.
As for 'convincing' you, it is not my job. If the subject interests you,
research it yourself. It is a matter of public record. Banks were
required by the feds to come up with extensive disaster recovery plans,
and had to fill out reams of paperwork to submit to the government to
prove that they not only have disaster plans, but routinely carry out
disaster drills.
You see, the feds want to make sure that even if your domocile has been
reduced to a radioactive hole in the ground, that tax bills on your
property still get mailed out to you on time... ;-)
>You still haven't answered my question about guaranteeing your employer's
>losses if you are wrong in any case.
I don't see my current employer (who is not a bank) incurring any
losses...
>>Y2K is just an additional 'disaster' which they've drawn contingency
>>plans for, with the hope of never having to utilize it. But rest assured
>>that if banks can restore their records in the event of a direct nuclear
>>hit, the worst case scenario of Y2K is a cakewalk...
>
>Interesting; some have referred to Y2K as the IT equivelant of the atom bomb.
No reputable IT person that I know refers to it as more than an
annoyance...
>>The thing banks fear most is a run on the bank,
>
>What!?! You mean that banks fear having to honor the demands from their
>customers for their own money?!
Yes, if all the customers come in at once and demand it all at the same
time....
You see, dear boy, you'd be hard-pressed to find any bank that could
honor all those demands coming in at the same time...because banks as SOP
'float' their customers funds within the Federal Reserve system as a way
to make money....
Let me spell it out to you...ABC Bank opens up today with one branch, and
1 million dollars as reserve. Before they even open the doors to
customers, that 1 million is 'lent' out to the Fed, which pays the bank
interest. On the first day of business, say this new bank got $500,000
in deposits....perhaps something like $300,000 is immediately 'lent' to
the Fed to generate interest to the bank. This happens every day. The
actual cash on hand that any bank has is a fraction of what is actually
on deposit.
If necessary, the bank could get back all of it's cash reserves from the
Fed, but it would take a couple of business days...because the Fed, in
it's turn, takes that money it was 'lent', and sends it to where it
determines more cash is needed....perhaps it determines that the southern
California area is running short on funds, so it will send an influx of
cash to that area....
If it knows that an area with many large firms will be having paydays at
about the same time, it will send more funds to the banks in that area to
make sure the banks can meet the increased demands as customers either
deposit their paychecks and take out cash, or if they have automatic
deposit, those customers hit the ATMs to withdraw cash...
The Fed releases more money to banks when they know there will be a need,
such as the week of Thanksgiving, especially the Wednesday before and the
Friday and Saturday afterwards (the 3 biggest banking days of the
year)...the Fed will continue to send more money than usual to banks
throughout December, to meet the increased need as depositors withdraw
more funds than usual for holiday shopping, also as most banks payout
Christmas Clubs....
But even when the Fed increases funds to banks, there is still no bank
that could meet the need if all (or even a sizeable number) of it's
customers suddenly demanded all of their funds at the same time.
>>No, what banks routinely do (SOP, nothing to do with Y2K) is print paper
>>registers of customers and their balances....
>
>Are they required to do this by federal regulation? Do ALL banks conform to
>this practice?
A qualified yes, and yes. Banks are required to remain functional if
their computer systems are not functional, but those are as much STATE
requirements as federal. Check with your state's Banking Commission.
Banks may not function EFFICIENTLY in such a scenario, but they WILL
function.
>>Most of them have been compliant for years,
>
>Most!?!?! There seems to be a lot left unsaid for those institutions which
>are NOT compliant.
You're reading more into my words than I said. I don't know for sure
but that ALL are compliant, but I can't speak for ALL, just the ones I'm
aware of (which is MOST).
>What about the depositors in THOSE banks? :-)
They have nothing to worry about. Even the most uncompliant bank (if
such an entity exists) would still have complete records of all
depositors funds, because of the full system backup done on the 31st.
Even if such a bank was fully offline on Monday the 3rd, customers could
still walk in and get their money.
Where banks are noncompliant is NOT in the software that handles
customers funds, but in internal processes like payroll and accounts
payables and receivables...
>Are you looking for a job, June?
No, are you?
>> Where banks are possibly vulnerable is
>>in making sure that all the PCs at all the branches are Y2K-compliant
>
>Now, you propose to say that, despite the fine work you coders have done on
>the mainframes, it all may be for naught because the individual work
>stations may not be able to 'talk' to the mainframes.
I'm saying 'possibly'...from what I've seen, that is the main
vulnerability.....a lot of desktop systems that may not be compliant, and
may not have been tested. I'm not saying it's probable, only possible.
Any place I've worked in the past 3 years has had a program of
systematically testing all PCs to assure their compliancy...but it's hard
to guarantee them all 100 percent, because the main office has little
control over what people in their own offices install on the computers.
Even if the company has a policy of 'no software can be installed by
anyone except from the IT department', it's hard to enforce. So a branch
PC could have been checked for compliancy, and passed the test, in
November of 1998. But since that time, the user of the PC could have
installed a favorite program from their home PC (which perhaps is NOT
compliant), and it's that 'rogue' program that perhaps may cause their PC
to fail on Monday the 3rd.
But as I pointed out in my prior post, such a situation would mean only
SPORADIC PC outages at branches, I did NOT say I foresaw ALL PCs at a
branch failing.
Besides, I don't know of one bank that doesn't have at least one 'dumb
terminal' at branches...even if ALL the PCs at the branch failed, tellers
could still access the main computer thru the 'dumb terminal'...
Again, the worse case scenario would mean long lines, but it would NOT
mean customers couldn't get access to their funds.
>>...perhaps there may be sporadic cases of individual PCs at
>>branches not working, but there would still be other PCs at the branch
>>working...
>
>Doesn't it seem to you that you are using far too many qualifiers (such as
>'perhaps,' 'some,' 'most,') to be as sure of compliance as you seem to be?
Unlike you, I am not omniscient....I can't say with absolute certainty
that 'this WILL occur', or 'that CAN'T happen'....all I can say is that
the chances of any of YOUR worse case fears occuring is extremely slim.
>>Banks have been specifically working on the Y2K issue for the past couple
>>of years...with the priority on the software that effects their
>>day-to-day operation, which means that which effects their customers,
>>including individual depositors...
>
>They MAY have been working on it, but have they FINISHED the task?
Every financial institution that I'm aware of have had a completion date
for Y2K analysis and design/coding early in 1998, with the rest of 1998
used for testing, with the final 'order' being that all systems had to be
fixed and up and running by the beginning of 1999...
>>The same thing as all the coworkers of your supposed friends who are NOT
>>playing the Chicken Little game, and in fact laugh at the 'sky is
>>falling' panic...
>
>Wrong; most are (reportedly)
Hearsay.
Every programmer I know, plus any journals devoted to programming, think
the 'head for the hills' attitude is hilarious....and the only plans
they're making are to attend various New Years parties....
>>Let's see....you want people to withdraw all their funds from banks in
>>the next 2 weeks, plus sell out everything in the stock market.
>
>Please provide a quotation from me when/where I said I wanted people to
>withdraw their money and bail on the market within the next two weeks.
Your first post that started this whole discussion encouraged people to
do just that.
>I
>made the suggestion that they might consider it if it were in THEIR best
>interests, but I proffered no timeline.
Okay, you're telling them they better do this because of the Y2K bug, but
you claim you're not telling them WHEN to do it? Are you saying that
people should wait until AFTER the new year to do it? ;-)
>Again, I do not expect 'everyone' to follow my suggestions (there were more
>than two), and I am not sure whether these institutions going bankrupt
>would not be a good thing in the long run.
Well, when millions are out of work and starving, when families lose
their homes and are living out of their cars (IF they even have a car),
you come back and tell us a major economic crash caused by all the banks
and the stock market failing, is a good thing...
But hell, you won't be able to then, will you? Because if there is such
a catastrophe to the financial industry due to Y2K, then you won't
have computer access, as neither electricity nor phones will be
available, will they? ;-)
So you won't be able to have the satisfaction of sending a post to the
list where you can gloat and say "see, I told you so!"... ;-)
>WARNING! Stay OUT of America's cities on 1/1/2,000!!
This is NOT a prediction? ;-)
BTW, years are not written with commas in them....unless you've been in
the habit of writing the current year as 1,999?
June ;-)
|=======================SEASONS===GREETINGS======================|
| \ / |
| *~o) )_ )_ )_ )_ - * - |
| |`--) , ,_) ,_) ,_) ,_/ / \ |
| ``^^^`` /~\ /~\ /~\ /~\ |
| |
| / / / | |
| \ / (( (( (( -+- |
| - * - .-#------. .-#-----. .------#-. | |
| /|\ /__________\ /_________\ /__________\ /-\ |
|__//|\\____| [] [] |____| [] [] |____| [] [] |___/---\___ldb__|
artist -SheDragon (Laura) (ldb)
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
revcoal AT connix DOT com
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
It is UNLAWFUL to send unsolicited commercial email to this email
address per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I assess a fee of
$500.00 US currency for reading and deleting such unsolicited commercial
email. Sending such email to this address denotes acceptance of these
terms. My posting messages to Usenet neither grants consent to receive
unsolicited commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial
email.
*========================================================================*
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
