X-Message-Number: 33068
Subject: Re: Alcor funding minimums / "in good shape"
From: David Stodolsky <>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:26:26 +0100
References: <>

On 22 Nov 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> Unofficially, I think it is clear from this chart that members should
> plan on at least doubling their cryopreservation funding for each two
> decades of remaining life expectancy.  Officially, it impossible for
> Alcor to predict future inflation or future technology costs.



In the past, there have been periods of raging inflation, which made any 
preplanning impossible. Currently, the Feds 'printing press' is running at full 
speed. China is already moving to isolate itself from dollar problems:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/5/new_600b_fed_stimulus_fuels_fears


The Federal Reserve will pump $600 billion more into the US economy and keep 
interest rates at historical low levels. The short-term impact of the Fed's 
move, known as quantitative easing, has been a jump in stock prices across the 
globe. Many nations, however, have accused the United States of waging a 
currency war by devaluing the dollar. We speak to former Wall Street economist 
and University of Missouri professor Michael Hudson. "The object of warfare is 
to take over a country's land, raw materials and assets, and grab them," Hudson 
says. "In the past, that used to be done militarily by invading them. But today 
you can do it financially simply by creating credit, which is what the Federal 
Reserve has done."



There is already about 50 trillion dollars floating around outside of the USA. 
If confidence in the dollar fails and people decide to cash in their dollars, 
the situation could get out of control.


>        While some say that Alcor's response to the grandfathering
> problem hasn't been strong enough, others have harshly criticized
> Alcor's recent discussion of grandfathering for the opposite reason.


Previously, I suggested a 'pay as you go' plan for suspension funding. This 
would have the advantage of being able to raise rates to adjust for inflation or
new technology, without triggering the disputes mentioned. It also would 
enhance growth, and with a pay as you go plan, that would mean many 'new' 
members paying for the suspension of a much smaller number of 'old' members. 
This approach would effectively cut costs, while ensuring suspensions would be 
provided, even under monetary instability.


If we could get back to the growth rates we were seeing up to 2004, it would 
mean that prices could be cut sharply:

http://cryin.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$52


Assume that the average membership lasts for 30 years, before the person is 
suspended. Given that the membership doubles every 3 years, costs could be cut 
by over thousand. (30 years / 3years = 10; 2 to the 10th power = 1024.)


So, if someone is paying 30,000 for a suspension now, they could pay a thousand 
a year for the average thirty years of membership to fully fund their own 
suspension with a pay as you go plan. However, since the membership would have 
grown by a thousand after 30 years, each new member would pay only one dollar to
fund an old member's suspension. This is over optimistic, but I think the only 
important variable is the growth rate. Can someone set up to run these type of 
calculations give a more precise figures? I would set the starting rates to 
limit the risk of financial failure to one percent -based upon the Gambler's 
Ruin formula- and assume the organization could insure itself against that risk 
for a 'small' amount. 


dss


David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33068