X-Message-Number: 10836
From: "Olaf Henny" <>
Subject: Thomas Nord & John de Rivas;  Trust Funds
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:49:00 -0800

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00E2_01BE1861.35EBE920
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  

Thomas Nord wrote about trust funds.  

>I've worked on this for years by studying the Swedish fund/trust-law
here, >registered 3 here and interfered in politics when the law was
upgraded. In >Germany its called Stiftung, Swedish Stiftelse, in English
Trust or Fund in my >books. Sweden have one very open register supervising
most of them, Lichtenstein >are very closed and secret.  

The English translation of the German word "Stiftung" is "endowment".
Setting up an endowment to yourself appears to me a workable solution to
part of the problem on how you can ‘take it with you’, at least in
Liechtenstein and possibly in some other reputable tax havens. However the
big problem I can see is one of identification. Since at the time of
suspension we have really no idea of what we will have with us, when we
are survived. If we reappear in a construct, we are not very likely to
have our retinal pattern or our hand prints handy. A certified printout of
our DNA leaves the question of who does the certifying. Since the amounts
in question could be quite substantial (The relatively modest sum of
$20,000 would, compounded at 10%, grow to over 6 million over 60 years*),
the temptation for fraud could be extreme.  

*My personal assessment as to when the aging process can be reversed is in
about 50 to 75 years. Eugene Leitl, whom I respect greatly for his
knowledge in nanotec appeared to set a much shorter time-frame, when he
stated on the subject something to the effect as ‘give it 30 years and you
will be surprised’ (not a direct quote, but as I can best remember) while
others appear to think more in a time-frame of a couple of centuries.  

My apologies to Eugene, if I misunderstood.   

If I understand both, Thomas Nord and John de Rivaz correctly, John is
addressing an entirely different subject, namely that of a fund, which is
set up for the express purpose of funding the revival of the suspendees.
Such a fund would best be administrated through the cryonics
organizations. As long as the annual number of suspensions remains as low
as it is now it may, due to the relatively low sums involved, only be
feasible to "group" the investments for such a fund once every 5 years.  

Per example: Relatives of all those presently suspended, as well as those
presently signed up could pay a set amount ($1,000.- appears reasonable),
which will be in vested in the year 2000.  

All those who sign up after Jan. 1st 2000 and before Dec. 31st 2004 will
be invested in 2005 etc.  

This will have the effect, that the revival funds for earlier suspendees
will be generally larger, that those of later ones. Such a discrepancy in
funds available for revival would probably be quite justified, since
generally the revival process will likely become more simple as suspension
methods become more sophisticated.  

I wish to thank John for his analysis of investment alternatives, although
I believe his estimates of returns to be rather optimistic, especially for
the long term, as it will be extremely difficult to achieve optimum
returns from the dewar, because of re-direction difficulties.  ;-)  

Best,  

Olaf  

 


[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 
------=_NextPart_000_00E2_01BE1861.35EBE920
Content-Type: text/html;

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10836