X-Message-Number: 9866 Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 01:46:43 -0400 From: "Stephen W. Bridge" <> Subject: Alcor Grandfathering To CryoNet From Steve Bridge, Alcor Foundation June 6, 1998 In #9846, Jim Yount of ACS asks: >People often misunderstand the programs of other organizations, so will >those in Alcor who know this situation please correct me if I am wrong >about the following? A few years ago, as part of a recruitment drive, >Alcor grandfathered in its (then) present members, guaranteeing that they >would not be subject to any further price increase for suspension. New >people would have to pay an increased cost for suspension, the >"Grandfathers" would not. >I shudder to think of the possible problems ACS could have were it to >gamble on such guarantees. The risks would be unacceptable. >Of course, if a society grows at a leap-frog rate, then the percentage of >people paying the low price would be so small that there would be little >added cost to new people. I would be interested in learning the basis >for Alcor making this decision. What the assumptions were? Was this a >guarantee only under certain circumstances? What percentage of Alcor >members are covered under this grandfather provision? Is there a similar >guarantee of present suspension costs (assuming the same technology) for >people enrolling now? If not, is similar grandfathering planned for the >future? Is the fact of the lower price guaranteed to "Grandfathers" >disclosed to new members? In hindsight, was it a good idea? That was NOT what Alcor guaranteed, Jim. We simply guaranteed no raises before the year 2000. Alcor's Board agrees that a permanent guarantee would be an unnacceptable risk. We hope not to raise the minimums after 2000 either, especially for the early Alcor members; but we have not guaranteed that. The rest of your questions are based on that false assumption. Steve Bridge Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9866