From http://cnn.com:80/TECH/computing/9906/29/y2k.atm.deadline/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fears of Year 2000 financial meltdown or air disaster have kept thousands of inspectors busy to make sure U.S. banks and air traffic control systems are fully Y2K compliant by a June 30 federal deadline.

Every banking institution backed by the U.S. government has been visited at least twice by one or more of 3,000 inspectors from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC).

"After more than two years of close regulatory scrutiny, our exams show that more than 98 percent of all federally insured institutions are prepared for Y2K," said FDIC Chairman Donna Tanoue. ....

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 30, 1999

Answers

"After more than two years of close regulatory scrutiny, our exams show that more than 98 percent of all federally insured institutions are prepared for Y2K," said FDIC Chairman Donna Tanoue. ....

--Ah, two visits in two years constitutes close scrutiny? I'd hate to have these guys as my doctor. (And what about the banks NOT backed by the U.S. Government?)

-- (AtlantaAS@aol.com), June 30, 1999.

Notice the use of the term "fully Y2K compliant". What ever happened to that "mission critical" yarn? Guess they figured if they were gonna pull a fast one, may as well go for the gusto, eh Hoff?

-- a (a@a.a), June 30, 1999.

Well, lets see. FAA...done. Banks...done. Utilities...done. Federal govt...done. How about that! Now nobody has to miss their summer vacations!

-- Yeah right (done@my.ass), June 30, 1999.

We aren't "inspectors," we're examiners. And based on my personal experience, that 98% figure is questionable, at best.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), June 30, 1999.

Hoff,

Although the document you posted did say "all" systems, I can tell you from first-hand experience that the federal regulators are ONLY looking at mission critical systems (as defined by the banks).

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), June 30, 1999.

In 1997 the Fed was just waking up to this problem (infered from their discussion in press quotes). Now everyone is OK. = LOL

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), June 30, 1999.

98%DONE. Good, I take that to mean that everyone will only lose 2% of their money/investments....lolololol

-- CygnusXI (luppotreb@aol.com), June 30, 1999.

Let's see. They're 98% done (with 'what' we're not exactly clear about). I'll consider placing 2% of our live's savings and retirement back into a bank......naaaaahhhhh. I've heard some first hand examples of banking contingency plans. Say, Hoff, what's the % on the global scene, before I move my 2%?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 30, 1999.

I was in my CU cashing a paycheck last Thursday. About a year ago the bank installed automatic money dispensers for the tellers. My teller walked away to verify the checking account. While she was gone, her dispenser stated shooting out cash. When she returned, the following exchange occurred between her and the teller next to her:

Next Teller: You've got money in your chute.

Teller: That's not mine.

NT: Yes it is.

T: What's wrong with this thing?

NT: I don't know...its been doing it all day. Just put it in your drawer.

T: No, I can't! I'll come up 83.00 short.

Now, this is anecdotal evidence Hoff. Use some of Westergaard's "inferential analysis" and see if you can find anything wrong with that 98% ready figure.

-- a (a@a.a), June 30, 1999.

I guess that explains Wells Fargo's insistence on applying "sweep accounts" to checking accounts... (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000e1Q)

-- Norm Harrold (nharrold@tymewyse.com), June 30, 1999.