HeartView posted:
JD_HOGG posted:
HeartView posted:
You'd be starting out over $100 million behind from the payment method. Are you going to make that back over 26 years considering you could still invest your yearly payments and get the same interest/dividends?
Dividends tend to grow over time. That fixed payment won't.
My point is that you would be investing the payments just like you did the lump sum. After 26 years, you'd essentially end up with $100 million more in "interest" by not choosing the lump sum. You'd get that $100 million bonus even if your investments were doing poorly over time.
I look at it this way. I would not use the entire lump sum amount in the first year, I'd only use some of it. If I only intend to use a portion that is less than the yearly payout then then the yearly payout gives me one distinct advantage. I get 25 more payments even if I screw up badly the first year. Screwing up badly is VERY likely for someone not used to handling that kind of money (which would be everyone on ACF).
I know how to invest. With the lump sum if I invest 200 million, I get 79 million left to play with and give to family and charity.
Now, onto investing 200 million versus investing 15 million per year.
After one year, at 5 percent (and I'd likely pull closer to 10%), I'd have 210 million. That's an extra 10 million.
On the other hand, I'd only have 15.75 million. And, if I invest all of it, I have no play money.
Now for the later years. Let's forget my play money. We're only talking investments now. Calculations are (lump * 1.05) vs (total annuity * 1.05 + 15 mill)
in millions:
year 2: 210 vs 30.75
year 3: 220.05 vs 47.29
year 4: 231.05 vs 64.65
year 5: 242.6 vs 82.88
year 6: 254.73 vs 102.02
year 7: 267.47 vs 122.12
year 8: 280.84 vs 143.23
year 9: 294.88 vs 165.39
year 10: 309.62 vs 188.66
year 11: 325.10 vs 213.09
year 12: 341.36 vs 238.74
year 13: 358.43 vs 265.68
year 14: 376.35 vs 293.96
year 15: 395.17 vs 323.66
year 16: 414.93 vs 354.84
year 17: 435.68 vs 387.58
year 18: 457.46 vs 421.96
year 19: 480.33 vs 458.06
year 20: 504.35 vs 495.96
year 21: 529.57 vs 535.76
So, it would take 21 years for the annuity to beat the lump sum at 5%. However, in this scenario, the lump sum person got 79 million to play with up front. The annuity person didn't get anything. This would look a lot different if the annuity was reduced for play money.
-----signature-----
Overlord of Wei-Britain
"Woooo, threesome with me, Cao, & Lynea!" -Poit-Narf