IMO Jackpot this big, you take the annuity

BvillePoker

All-Conference
Dec 29, 2004
6,818
1,579
0
If the math I rounded and did in my head considering 40% tax rate and 5% return on investment and increasing annuity payment amounts, you leave about 100 million dollars on the table if you take the lump sum. The annuity payments are large enough each year that I could live an extravagant lifestyle on the yearly payments, and they get bigger each year. 100 million is a huge sum of money to leave on the table by taking the lump sum.
 

Been Jammin

Heisman
Jun 26, 2003
66,122
49,031
113
If the math I rounded and did in my head considering 40% tax rate and 5% return on investment and increasing annuity payment amounts, you leave about 100 million dollars on the table if you take the lump sum. The annuity payments are large enough each year that I could live an extravagant lifestyle on the yearly payments, and they get bigger each year. 100 million is a huge sum of money to leave on the table by taking the lump sum.

Aren't you assuming that there will be only 1 winner? How does your math shake out if 2 or 3 individuals have winning tickets?
 

Been Jammin

Heisman
Jun 26, 2003
66,122
49,031
113
Along those lines, I am curious if anyone will pay the price to buy every number combination. I bet someone does it for this drawing. Maybe more than 1 person.
 

hollywood

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
50,693
3,319
0
jammin, you couldn't physically accomplish that goal, you would have to purchase 295,000,000 tickets and it's not like the thing is automated. Besides, the numbers sold will apparently cover at least 80% of all possible combinations, so you would be SOL if someone else had a winning ticket (which a near probability) and you had to split the jackpot, which would make you a net loser.

BTW, I've read an article or two by people who won big, took their money in a lump invested it and compared it to what they would have under the annuity. Apparently, you only need a return of about 3%/yr to offset the loss in taxes and account for the loss in present value. So, I would go with lump sum and put that money to work for me. There's plenty of long term investments which have little risk but which would pay dividends in the long run.

But the number one thing anyone should do if they come into that type of money is go to the best estate, trust and wealth law firm you can find and have them set up a trust (or multiple trusts) and let the trust(s) hold all of the wealth, investments and property. It will be well worth the money spent, and if you're the compulsive type who thinks they would blow it, you could actually set up a blind trust which would pay you, while your money continues to grow, without the fear you would blow it on coke and ho's. (Why the dirty mind?: I'm talking coca cola and ho-ho's.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: shortbus

EvilPOKES

Heisman
Apr 23, 2008
109,384
17,970
113
No way! There is over a $400mm difference in overall payout between the two. Yes, you can invest your lump sum, but that is still a risk. I will take my first $20mm payment and live happily until my next 29 +4% payments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OSUIvan
Dec 22, 2013
32,013
40,042
113
Assuming you have the discipline to save (and investment result being equal either way), lump sum produces a greater terminal value.
 

hollywood

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
50,693
3,319
0
Evil Pokes,

Over the last 20 yrs, the annual return on the S&P 500 has been 8%+ (gain).

For every $1, you could invest, hold for 30 yrs, at that rate it would be worth $10.08.
 

Air_Thurman

Heisman
Jan 16, 2003
32,329
31,295
63
If you take the payments and die what happens? Does your family keep getting the money? I would think the lump sum would be a lot better as long as you don't go MC Hammer with the money.
 
Dec 22, 2013
32,013
40,042
113
Assuming a 38% discount on the lump sum payment up front and an 8% annualized return, you would end up with 14.6% more money taking the lump sum, after 20 years, all else equal.
 

Windriver

Heisman
Jul 7, 2008
10,311
15,085
113
Sorry, would have to take the lump sum payout and move to Costa Rica or Belieze. Boom! No more freakin snow or cold weather and could by enough land to keep everyone away from me and the family. Definitely would have to include some oceanfront property as well.
 

Been Jammin

Heisman
Jun 26, 2003
66,122
49,031
113
Sorry, would have to take the lump sum payout and move to Costa Rica or Belieze. Boom! No more freakin snow or cold weather and could by enough land to keep everyone away from me and the family. Definitely would have to include some oceanfront property as well.


You could mine the water off your beach to help with that "keep everyone away from me and the family" thing. You wouldn't want anyone bothering you while you are enjoying your private beach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Windriver

gipraw

All-Conference
Aug 10, 2003
17,033
3,954
113
The other issue with taking the annuity on a large payout is that depending on what state you live in, you may have concerns about long term solvency and the state's ability to pay their share. For instance, Illinois has been issuing IOU vouchers for lottery winnings.

Take the lump sum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shortbus

OSUIvan

All-Conference
Dec 10, 2002
9,079
2,058
0
If the math I rounded and did in my head considering 40% tax rate and 5% return on investment and increasing annuity payment amounts, you leave about 100 million dollars on the table if you take the lump sum. The annuity payments are large enough each year that I could live an extravagant lifestyle on the yearly payments, and they get bigger each year. 100 million is a huge sum of money to leave on the table by taking the lump sum.

That was Mark Cubans advice for who ever won the jackpot... but he also said "because you won't know what to do with that much money" which he's not wrong.