Selected messages from the Cryonics Institute Yahoo Group Forum and occasionally Cryonet http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cryonics_Institute/
From: Ben Best
Subject: Pay on Death Accounts
Joseph Kowalsky wrote:
My understanding regarding Pay on Death (also known as Transfer on Death) accounts is that a spouse may be completely barred from the account with their written (and, I think, notarized) agreement. My company offers such accounts and I am fairly sure that is how it goes.
If this is the case, I would suggest that CI be on the account to receive duplicate statements. Further, if this is a savings account or CD it would be more difficult to remove prior to suspension. Also, we could make acceptance of the body contingent on a statement of assets at death. If death were to occur on a weekend, I presume that most banks -- and certainly my co. -- offers computer real time access to the account balance. There would be no way for the deceased to take the money after death, and at that point the beneficiary would be entitled so the bank would allow no one else to take it.
I have T.O.D. accounts for clients who are members of CI and one has specifically authorized me to give CI info about the account. This provides a final "check" (as in "Check and balance") as if money were removed it could only be by request to my office and I would immediately inform CI that the account is no longer.
Joe has made a powerful sales-pitch for POD (TOD) accounts which appear to be reasonably secured against spousal interference or insufficient funds. So effective, in fact, that the case in question has been short-circuited. Andy has referred the Member seeking a POD to Joe for service. I cannot object.
As was pointed-out to me, another potential problem with PODs is that any debtor or relative could probably put a freeze on the account and force it into probate. Again, I am worrying about things that could wrong without a real sense of how probable a POD is likely to fail as a funding method.
Bob's comment indicates again his high tolerance for risk, just as my concerns reflect a lower tolerance. If I thought the incidence of failure was as high as one in three I would oppose PODs, but I could tolerate a default rate of one in ten. I also have a hard time tolerating not knowing what the failure rate would (will) be.
Yes, ownership of insurance policies almost guarantees that there will be no failure -- which is why I am requiring ownership of policies for CI Members who want service from Suspended Animation. There is also no CI risk allowed for Suspended Animation standby -- all standby time from SA is on prepayment alone (or SA's risk, if they decide deanimation is near and certain). I think that John's suggestion about CI owning investment accounts and giving the dividends to Members would almost certainly put CI in violations of financial industry regulations.