B
Bob
Guest
"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BB03472F.3B4A8%[email protected]...
> in article [email protected], Rik Van Diesel at
> [email protected] wrote on 06/03/2003 06:15 PM:
>
> > [email protected] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >
> > I hope he wins the suit just so I can KICK HIS ASS when he doesn't give ALL the money to the
> > Reinhart foundation. That was the suggestion at the time, and to say different would be a lie.
> > Later I guess him and Wordin thought it would be better have the cash. What is even worse is if
> > they had won the cash he would probably received less than $10k (If you believe Lance only got
> > $30K of a million payout). And now if they get the $250k do you think they are going to send a
> > check to
>
>
> With Lance's $1M payout for winning the Triple Crown in 1993, there was an option ... an annuity
> paying $50,000.00/year for 20 years, or an immediate payout of ~$650K (which would have been
> expected to appreciate via investments to meet the $1M).
>
> Since the pay-out was to be split amongst all members of the Motorola team at the time, the
> election was for the $650K ... so it's not surprising
that
> Lance's share of the prize money was only $30K.
>
> Most state lotteries operate in this manner as well ... annual payouts
over
> a lengthy period of time totaling the "big money", or a whopping big immediate pay-out of a
> smaller sum of money.
>
> You'd be surprised how many people go for the big money. I think I'd go
for
> the annuity ... I'm still young enough that the annuity makes more sense from an investment and
> tax perspective.
>
>
>
>
Well, the lottery pays out half. So, if you "win" 1 million, you'll get half for 500k. If you invest
this at 3.5% interest, you'll get 1 million over 20 years (ignoring taxes). For the taxes, that's a
hard calculation. It used to be that 3.5% was peanuts, so most advisers recommended lump sum.
news:BB03472F.3B4A8%[email protected]...
> in article [email protected], Rik Van Diesel at
> [email protected] wrote on 06/03/2003 06:15 PM:
>
> > [email protected] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >
> > I hope he wins the suit just so I can KICK HIS ASS when he doesn't give ALL the money to the
> > Reinhart foundation. That was the suggestion at the time, and to say different would be a lie.
> > Later I guess him and Wordin thought it would be better have the cash. What is even worse is if
> > they had won the cash he would probably received less than $10k (If you believe Lance only got
> > $30K of a million payout). And now if they get the $250k do you think they are going to send a
> > check to
>
>
> With Lance's $1M payout for winning the Triple Crown in 1993, there was an option ... an annuity
> paying $50,000.00/year for 20 years, or an immediate payout of ~$650K (which would have been
> expected to appreciate via investments to meet the $1M).
>
> Since the pay-out was to be split amongst all members of the Motorola team at the time, the
> election was for the $650K ... so it's not surprising
that
> Lance's share of the prize money was only $30K.
>
> Most state lotteries operate in this manner as well ... annual payouts
over
> a lengthy period of time totaling the "big money", or a whopping big immediate pay-out of a
> smaller sum of money.
>
> You'd be surprised how many people go for the big money. I think I'd go
for
> the annuity ... I'm still young enough that the annuity makes more sense from an investment and
> tax perspective.
>
>
>
>
Well, the lottery pays out half. So, if you "win" 1 million, you'll get half for 500k. If you invest
this at 3.5% interest, you'll get 1 million over 20 years (ignoring taxes). For the taxes, that's a
hard calculation. It used to be that 3.5% was peanuts, so most advisers recommended lump sum.