lump sum payes $3Billion?

Reply #6

Ronnie316 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:02:05 GMT

Reply #5

Ronnie316 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:01:38 GMT

Reply #4

Ronnie316 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:01:08 GMT

Not quite sure how you got yourself all lathered up over someone talking about a 10% ROI. People who are smart and have money get that and more all the time, and you don't need a new miracle product to get it.

Why do you think developers built housing tracts and apartment buildings and commercial buildings?

And what about land? When I moved to Phoenix land in Fountain Hills was about 1000 times cheaper.

Reply #3

POMAH — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:41:43 GMT

Mod erased link, thus I cant point to what in the world I was referring to. An economist was claiming you could get %10 for 26 years.How? I have no idea. Anycase, is it better to take lump sum and risk your own bad investments, or let the feds add 0.04 annualy with no risk to you

Reply #2

RJOh — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:12:01 GMT

At least a millions PB players will happy to win tonight's jackpot lump sum and it's less than $100M.

Reply #1

billionaire2bee — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:10:09 GMT

If I had won 570 million or rather lump sum 259 million.......Im not sure if I'd care if I hit 1 billion or not......like 259 million won't sustain me or anybody else for that matter....please oh please I want to have problems like that someday...today in fact Id love it....

lump sum payes $3Billion?

POMAH — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:26:12 GMT

lump sum of $259 million, earning on average 10% then in 26 years, you will have around $3 Billion.

How in the world do you get from $259m to $3B in just 26 years?! That is x11.58 growth. Not even the Trumpster is that smart. Or has he taken a page from a ponzi schemer who went to jail?

My calculations total about $1B, not $3B. Nevermind that $363m / 26 annuity is $14m annually. No one could match 4% the feds guarantee; thus annuity is a much better choice.Plus, if current investments are