1139

Lotterule (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 days ago by nifty@lemmy.world to c/196

119 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 days ago

But then how much utility can you get out of the lump sum early on with those calculations?

There has to be some break even point, if your burn rate is high enough the annuity is better.

[-] f314@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago

For a smaller amount this would be a much more important question. However, 550 million dollars is such a large amount that the gain in utility up to 2 billion is questionable. You could buy a private jet and still have half a billion to invest. That half a billion nets you 25 million a year (with 5 % interest/roi) without ever shrinking.

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

The usual math goes something like

Annuity: $2B paid monthly over 30 years is $5.5M/month; $3.5M after taxes.

Lump sum: $1B, $670M after taxes. Invested in index fund at, say 8%, can be expected to earn $4.5M/month, $3.6M after more taxes, which are lower for capital gains & dividends.

There's more complicated maths, if you want to model taxes, future values, and variable market returns, but they all say pretty much the same thing. They have to: the annuity works because They put the lump sum into escrow, pay a trustee to manage it well enough to pay the annuity and pay the trustee's salary. That means the trustee will invest said lump sum (before taxes) in low-risk, low-return assets, take his vig, and pay out the annuity from what's left.

[-] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago

I didn't think about risk management on lump sum vs annuity from the management side, that changes things.

Much better to take the lump sum, and manage it as aggressively or conservatively as you want. Unless it's government insured, and the government will step in to continue paying you if the fiduciary goes tits up.