Areivim USA - Coronavirus

[Euclid]

If the vast majority of funds are collected for unmarried children, then not sure this is true.

Pretty common for people to still have unmarried kids into their 50s

[S209]

I don’t see any provided reason or logic backing that prediction. What will go wrong?

I and others already had this debate upthread several times. Check it out. Chiefly, I think that they’re too close to the edge at their current collection date and the selection only grows more adverse with time.

 (There is a reason they’re constantly looking to sign up new young couples, and I highly doubt too large a percentage of people who had been signed up earlier have already become ineligible.)

[yuneeq]

Pretty common for people to still have unmarried kids into their 50s

In other words, it’s pretty common for them to have married off many/most of their kids into their 50’s.

[Euclid]

In other words, it’s pretty common for them to have married off many/most of their kids into their 50’s.

What's the difference between a 32 year old with 4 single kids and a 52 year old with 4 single kids?

[yuneeq]

I and others already had this debate upthread several times. Check it out. Chiefly, I think that they’re too close to the edge at their current collection date and the selection only grows more adverse with time.

 (There is a reason they’re constantly looking to sign up new young couples, and I highly doubt too large a percentage of people who had been signed up earlier have already become ineligible.)

If they’ve been around at least 17 years I’d expect there to be many ineligibles by now, in addition to the natural attrition they’ve always had.

[yuneeq]

What's the difference between a 32 year old with 4 single kids and a 52 year old with 4 single kids?

32 year old will usually have more unmarried kids, and will usually increase in the next 10 years, while a 52 year old will decrease. 52 year olds are quite easily more beneficial to Arevim.

[Euclid]

32 year old will usually have more unmarried kids, and will usually increase in the next 10 years, while a 52 year old will decrease. 52 year olds are quite easily more beneficial to Arevim.

But 52 year olds are way more likely to die than 32 year olds

[avromie7]

Why is the comparison a 32 y/o with 4 kids? Many have more than 4 at 32, and the biggest liability is the 40 y/o with 11 kids.
To see if it's viable, you need to take a hypothetical group that doesn't change, will it work from 20 all the way to 60. If the answer is yes, it's not like a Ponzi scene and it is entirely sustainable. If not, they will always need a bigger pool of members.

[Baruch]

They survived a pandemic, just saying...

[dovy2]

Possible solution.. only cover kids up till certain age (20-25). If they want to be covered afterwards, they'd need to start their own membership then (that would bring in many new members, and have a nice sized pool of members who are paying to the fund w/o potential liability)

[AsherO]

They survived a pandemic, just saying...

That mortally affected a different demographic than their standard membership. They also raised their monthly maximum which means they “didn’t survive” at the old maximum.

[avromie7]

That mortally affected a different demographic than their standard membership. They also raised their monthly maximum which means they “didn’t survive” at the old maximum.

They raised their monthly maximum at the same rate they increased the payout. That in no way means their model was failing. They expanded to catch up with inflation.

[AsherO]

They raised their monthly maximum at the same rate they increased the payout. That in no way means their model was failing. They expanded to catch up with inflation.

Fair enough. My other point still stands.

[imayid2]

They raised their monthly maximum at the same rate they increased the payout. That in no way means their model was failing. They expanded to catch up with inflation.

However in regards to the pandemic, they did need to mandate an extra couple hundred dollars from each member to pull through..

[S209]

They survived a pandemic, just saying...

No they didn’t, they raised a special collection of a few hundred dollars over and above the regular (maxed out) monthly contributions (which they’ve since raised). Not to mention this particular pandemic primarily affected the elderly.

[S209]

They raised their monthly maximum at the same rate they increased the payout. That in no way means their model was failing. They expanded to catch up with inflation.

By the way it’s a little crazy how they went from $28 to $42 overnight, it would have been a lot more normal to do it incrementally over time.

[aygart]

Why is the comparison a 32 y/o with 4 kids? Many have more than 4 at 32, and the biggest liability is the 40 y/o with 11 kids.
To see if it's viable, you need to take a hypothetical group that doesn't change, will it work from 20 all the way to 60. If the answer is yes, it's not like a Ponzi scene and it is entirely sustainable. If not, they will always need a bigger pool of members.

This is the big question. Do they need a steady influx of younger members or not?

[LNS]

By the way it’s a little crazy how they went from $28 to $42 overnight, it would have been a lot more normal to do it incrementally over time.

crazy circumstances but most people understood and had no issue with the increase plus they did give you a option to pay over time in payments

[AsherO]

They raised their monthly maximum at the same rate they increased the payout. That in no way means their model was failing. They expanded to catch up with inflation.

But:

However in regards to the pandemic, they did need to mandate an extra couple hundred dollars from each member to pull through..

I thought I remembered something like that.

[LNS]

But:

I thought I remembered something like that.

crazy circumstances but most people understood and had no issue with the increase plus they did give you a option to pay over time in payments