X-Message-Number: 2232
Date: 11 May 93 01:56:59 EDT
From: Michael Riskin <>
Subject: CRYONICS:  More on the Coldroom Finances

     Brian Wowk argues that PCF investment in a coldroom benefits current
patients because future coldroom patients will be grossly overfunded due
to the vastly superior economies of lowered yearly storage cost. Two
comments: The final cost of the first functional coldroom  is simply
unknown, which by definition makes it an unacceptable risk for patient
care funds. It is perfectly reasonable for R and D type funding from
various other sources. Second, when the coldroom , with its' far lower
yearly storage costs becomes a reality, something interesting may occur.
Current funding minimums are in great substance a function of yearly
patient storage cost. That is, according to current blue book figures,
40% of neuros and 70% of wholebody suspension funding.  When yearly
storage costs is lowered by up to 80%, and of course the technology
becomes commonplace among competing cryonics organizations, then a
corresponding reduction in funding minimums will occur. This is of course
due to competition, and the ever popular price demand curve which will
allow lowered prices to attract more suspension members. Voila! The excess
-130 patient funding touted by Brian benefitting LN2s vanishes. Suppose 
whole body minimum funding drops to $70,000. (A reasonable number based
on Brians estimated cost savings). Wouldnt any suspension member with
minimum fundings of say $120,000 have the option to divert $50,000 to
other uses? It is probably in wholebody where the greatest price
reduction will take place since yearly storage is a far greater factor
than for neuros currently. So, the price differential between neuro and
WB becomes smaller.   The current 1993 differential is $120,000 vs $41,000
or $79,000. If whole bodies drop to $70,000, neuros wont drop to minus
$9000. More likely the number will be about $30-35,000 to cover cost of
suspension plus storage . I recognize that many neuros wouldnt pay one
cent more to be a WB.  However, this price change should attract a whole
lot more WB members but not as many increased neuro; the corresponding
price reduction is just not that significant.  Anyway, it is just as
possible for me that use of current PCF for coldroom construction will
have no benefit for LN2 patients (let alone possible losses) as it is
possible for Brian that the same proposition would be of great benefit to
LN2 patients. Not an OK risk in my opinion. Lets press ahead with
technological advances...just not use the patients money.
     Not that anyone is interested or will ask, but I am a wholebody
suspension member , and would personally benefit greatly from the use of
current PCF to get lower priced storage asap. 
     Once again, I am urging effective use of the Endowment fund. I can see
it being used for facility purchase and such as small or large scale
coldrooms. And, I continue to recommend use of the PCF for an improved
facility. This will not only help current patients, but provide space for
future large coldrooms. The current PCF, owning facility space could lease
it out to future patients thereby not only earning money on real estate
appreciation, but generating income as well, while saving rental expense.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2232