triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Y2K Compliant

To: ndc12@scasd.k12.pa.us
Subject: Re: Y2K Compliant
From: "Brad Kahler" <Brad.Kahler@141.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 23:15:53 -0500
Cc: triumphs@Autox.Team.Net
References: <l03130300b20a2eaeb172@[155.212.219.88]>
Nate, I think you might be jumping the gun when you made the 
following statement.  I've been doing Y2K inventory work now for the 
last 9 months for Raytheon and its come to our attention that many 
Power/Gas/Water Utilitiy companies haven't even started to look at 
the problem and many have stated that they don't plan on doing 
anything.  Many smaller companies still don't have a clue as to what 
they should be doing about it.  My sister works for an investment 
company that owns many small businesses.  They also haven't even 
started to look at what should be done.  Its true many corporations are 
on the right track.  I can say for certain the General Mills, Pillsbury, 
Kraft and several others that we are dealing with will be in excellent 
shape.  They are also spending a lot of money to ensure they are.  The 
dollar amount is staggering especially when you consider that most of 
the cost has to be expensed during that fiscal year and not capitalized 
over 5 or 7 years.  There are going to be a lot of stock holders 
disappointed when there aren't any dividents paid next year.



> 
> Actually, almost all businesses / education institutions / home computers
> / etc. are up to date.  For all intensive purposes, the government's
> systems are the only ones that are still (or will be when 2000 rolls
> around) succeptible.
> 
> --Nate


"Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot, either!"

Brad  (Lincoln Nebraska 402-464-1502)

1964 Spitfire4           BFC25720L (In "Teething" Mode right now)
1966 TR4A               CT72398L (Rebulding has commenced)
1951 Dodge Truck    82217766  B-3-B-108 (Spring shackle problems)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>