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