Glad you caught that. I was about to post that Ralph quoted you out of context
and missed your meaning.
BTW, I appreciate your insightful comments, but it would be nice to have a real name to award them to. I would like to see people more open with their identities on this forum.
southbay wrote:Yes, Ralph, that's what I wrote. $300/year in underfunding contribution, plus the other $800 in fees makes $1,100 in annual fees. Over triple the fee from the 90s of $360/year. (Somebody from the 90s would be even more underfunded, actually.) And the $300 underfunding fee is not, as I understand it, applied to reducing your underfunding, but rather is there to handle underfunding losses for all the underfunded. Even if you should live long enough so that your underfunding fees exceed your underfunding, which is 33 years at a 6% interest rate, a duration that many members should expect to exceed.
Somebody should confirm if that's the plan -- that after paying 1% of my underfunding for 33 years, enough to fully pay the underfunding, I would still be considered just as much underfunded, in fact probably more underfunded because the price would have risen?
Since the fee is not invested but merely used up to add to the funding of underfunded cryopreservations as they take place and Alcor only counts on 2% interest on their investments (hardly enough to maintain the real value - which is a major reason why they now appear to no longer accept paid up cryopreservations), the answer to your question is definitely yes: the extra yearly fees required from underfunded members have no effect on the reduction of the underfunded amount no matter how many years paid
southbay wrote:On to stock questions: While you can try to establish a trust to manage things after you die, there's a big difference with bequests. Today Alcor has received several large bequests. The suggestion is that the party who would consider doing that would instead create a trust, and bequest the money to it, and instruct the trust to buy stock in Alcor with it. While that could work I could see a lot more potential for other heirs to challenge that, where it's harder to challenge a plain old bequest to a non-profit for research. It looks a lot more like trying to take it with you via a perpetual trust.
You may be right here, but I don't see why that would be the case if the will is clearly made out with some token amount to family heirs and bulk of it to the Patient Advocate as an organization (which does not need to be and probably should not legally be a trust). (The Patient Advocate idea does indeed require that the patient have total trust in its members - which is why they need to be both good friends of the patient and each other, as well as all be cryonicists.) The contract of how the Patient Advocate should handle that bequest is quite separate and the idea of investing some in the cryonics org was only a possibility if that org were to be a for-profit. In any case, my method in general is (similar to green-light thinking) to always first attempt to determine the optimal methods of action before
then examining how government regulations might affect those methods.