>Plus, if you want all the money in one lumpsum, isn't the payout less?
>Who would choose to accept x amount of dollars over twenty years as
>opposed to one large lump sum?
>I think most would go for the lump sum.
>
>Yes if you opt for lump sum the pay out is less. You receive what the
>lottery would have invested to cover your payouts over the next 20
>years. So the choice basically is do you think you are a better investor
>then the lottery company?
Lottery should be backed by government bonds. So can you be a better
investor then just putting all your money in government paper. Or more
accurately, will the private wealth investor be a better investor. Chances
are with 40 million to invest, yes. Although, I wouldn't really burn
anyone at the stake for investing it all in federal bonds. When you are
dealing with that amount of money you no longer need to take the risks
associated with anything other then government bonds, munis
etc. Essentially, your goal changes from making money to just out pacing
inflation.
The big argument for the lump sum is that the money becomes a life changing
amount. I also think that is the biggest reason not to take the lump sum.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
