Dick, Marty et al, To make certain I wasn't smoking pot while attending an A&F meeting that discussed the financial aspects of Life Memberships, I asked Jim McCobb if he remembers the same thing I think I remember - i.e. we now lose money on Life Memberships. He said he has this same recollection. As is true of reviews and projections of financial matters of this type, conclusions of meager profitability, breaking even and small losses are based on more factors than I, as a simple, non-finance person fully understands. I accept that this means also that there will likely not be unanimity in thought among all experts who may review our LM situation. When it comes to fiscal health I am likely to be a "the glass is half empty" kind of guy, as I am on this issue. In this case I put more weight on the pessimistic side of the discussion than on the neutral side. My takeaway from this discussion may not mean the sky is falling; however, it certainly means we may want to carry sturdy, steel-ribbed umbrellas and prepare for rain. Thinking strictly of my contribution to ARRL dues through life membership, I feel pretty certain that the LM dues I (and many of my friends) paid have been spent quite some time ago. With the exception of donations we make to the League, we and many others are drags on the budget. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je@arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! _____ From: Marty Woll [mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:56 AM To: K8JE; arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:16864] ARRL CONTEST UPDATE Dear Jim et al., I have heard nothing up to now about the League losing money on life memberships, and I find it difficult to believe that would be the case. When a member pays a lum sum of 25 times the annual dues rate, that money is earning a return every year. At today's $39 annual dues amount, that lump sum of $975 is earning about $49 annually - more than the annual dues amount - using our recent average return rate of around 5%. Even if dues later go up 20%, we're still better off with the up-front lump sum. A higher investmet return would only make this an even better deal for the League. We should also consider the actual incremental cost of serving a life member. Most of ARRL's overhead and operating costs would be the same whether Joe Ham is a non-member, annual member or life member. Our added out-of-pocket cost for a member - life or otherwise - consists primarily of printing and sending twelve issues of QST per year. I recall Harold estimating that cost to be less that one dollar per month, or under $12 per year. I saw a much higher cost-per-member number in an actuarial study done several years ago, but I never saw any basis for that cost number. If, as I suspect, it included allocated overhead and general operating costs rather than true incremental cost, I believe that's the wrong basis for decision-making unless we risk having the majority of our members becoming life members, which is not the case. In fact, an evaluation using incremental costs would likely support the introduction of a discounted life-member rate for seniors. [And no, I don't buy the argument that younger members would be subsidizing older ones; actuarial calculations don't work that way.] By the way, the same member-cost assumption affects the amount transferred from the Life Member reserve to the operating account each year, probably another matter that warrants revisitation. Finally, consider that a life member is a guaranteed set of eyeballs for our advertisers, a guaranteed part of our constituent count when we go to Capitol Hill, a member who does not require our incurring the cost of annual renewal solicitation, and possibly a more loyal supporter of ARRL. Let's promote the heck out of Life Membership! 73, Marty Marty Woll N6VI Vice-Director, ARRL Southwestern Division ADEC, ARES-LAX-NW BCUL 15, LAFD ACS CERT