Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 6, 2016, 11:05 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

a poll about annuities and lump sum

Topic closed. 58 replies. Last post 10 years ago by JackpotWanna.

Page 1 of 4
31
PrintE-mailLink

should annuities no longer be an option and lump sum an only choice?

yes lotteries should offer only lump sum [ 8 ]  [16.67%]
no the lotteries should offer annuities too [ 31 ]  [64.58%]
i'm cash only and of course annuities suck [ 3 ]  [6.25%]
not sure at this time [ 6 ]  [12.50%]
Total Valid Votes [ 48 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 2 ]  
LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
Tennessee
United States
Member #7853
October 15, 2004
11338 Posts
Offline
Posted: September 29, 2006, 2:56 am - IP Logged

how do you feel about annuities and lump sums?

do you think annuities are a waste.

    justxploring's avatar - villiarna
    Wandering Aimlessly
    United States
    Member #25360
    November 5, 2005
    4461 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: September 29, 2006, 3:17 am - IP Logged

    Choices are never a waste.

      Rick G's avatar - avatar 1766.jpg
      FEMA Region V Camp #21
      United States
      Member #520
      July 27, 2002
      5699 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: September 29, 2006, 1:35 pm - IP Logged

      I think if more people took the annuity option, the better their money will be handled, the longer it will last, the less chance it will be stolen or mooched, and most important of all, the less chance of a lottery win ruining your life.

      Posted 4/6:  IL Pick 3 midday and evening until they hit:  555, 347 (str8).


        emilyg's avatar - cat anm.gif

        United States
        Member #14
        November 9, 2001
        31347 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: September 29, 2006, 1:42 pm - IP Logged

        I think if more people took the annuity option, the better their money will be handled, the longer it will last, the less chance it will be stolen or mooched, and most important of all, the less chance of a lottery win ruining your life.

                  I Agree!

        love to nibble those micey feet.

         

                                     

          four4me's avatar - gate1
          MD
          United States
          Member #1701
          June 18, 2003
          8360 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: September 29, 2006, 1:48 pm - IP Logged

          if people understood how annuities worked they might fare better in the long run and example would be if you won 10 million or more and took the annuity.

          Take the first check minus say 100 grand and put the rest in the bank. do not touch any of the money for the first year. longer if you think you could. After the first year set up a portfolio with the second check and live off the interest on the first check you kept in the bank. There are many ways an annuity could work out better than a lump sum. Especially since your practically losing half the proceeds by taking cash.

          Taking an annuity is best especially if you have a spending problem. with cash you could go thru it in no time. Whereas with an annuity you have to plan to spend. you will have a check coming in ever year to handle most of any expenses you might have if you continue to live within your means. You can still build some really strong investments with a yearly annuity.


            United States
            Member #379
            June 5, 2002
            11296 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: September 29, 2006, 1:51 pm - IP Logged

            "i'm cash only and of course annuities suck"

            Right from the horse's mouth LOL

              floridian's avatar - DiscoBallGlowing

              United States
              Member #45802
              August 28, 2006
              335 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: September 29, 2006, 1:57 pm - IP Logged

              how do you feel about annuities and lump sums?

              do you think annuities are a waste.

              This is one of my pet peeves.  How did this idea ever come about that annunities are bad.  I know in the short time I have been here this subject has really been discussed in great detail. 

              This is what I know speaking for Florida only!!

              The Lottery Commission in Florida wants desperately  to buy back annunities from folks that have choses to go that way.

              In the fine print it states that if a Lottery winner makes more in interest during the life of the annunity (the anticipated return on investment produces more) the winner is entitled to the extra proceeds.

              Correct me if I am wrong but Lotteries are in business to make huge profits.  The configuration of the house advantage is much higher than say Vegas.  I believe currently in Vegas the house is entitled to a profit of somewhere in the 20% range.  Meaning for every dollar they take in they can make as much as 20% profit.  This is a number that has been legislated by the State Of Nevada Gaming Commission.  So what the Casions do is to give back at least 80% plus of everything they take in.  It takes on the form of free shows, free lodging, free meals, free trips and all sorts of other comps.

              However, guess what has happened?  Because of competition by all the Casinos trying to one up the other one with the best freebies, that profit margin has decreased to somewhere in the 5 to 7% range.  I salute competition.

              Now, back to our state Lotteries, there is no competition and they are entitled to make in the 50% plus range.  This is a totally unreasonable amount.  If they want to buy back annunities by using fuzzy Lottery math calculating the present value of a future amount, in my mind, there must be something good about annunities.  I also think annunities provide a way to safeguard your money, control run-a-way spending and taxes.  I have run many tests on this process and found to my dismay that many times you fare a lot better with the annunity over time.  We at LP look at winning combination history and many times base our predictions based on the draws over time.  Why should we not collect our winnings the same way?

              Floridian


                United States
                Member #379
                June 5, 2002
                11296 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: September 29, 2006, 2:00 pm - IP Logged

                This is one of my pet peeves.  How did this idea ever come about that annunities are bad.  I know in the short time I have been here this subject has really been discussed in great detail. 

                This is what I know speaking for Florida only!!

                The Lottery Commission in Florida wants desperately  to buy back annunities from folks that have choses to go that way.

                In the fine print it states that if a Lottery winner makes more in interest during the life of the annunity (the anticipated return on investment produces more) the winner is entitled to the extra proceeds.

                Correct me if I am wrong but Lotteries are in business to make huge profits.  The configuration of the house advantage is much higher than say Vegas.  I believe currently in Vegas the house is entitled to a profit of somewhere in the 20% range.  Meaning for every dollar they take in they can make as much as 20% profit.  This is a number that has been legislated by the State Of Nevada Gaming Commission.  So what the Casions do is to give back at least 80% plus of everything they take in.  It takes on the form of free shows, free lodging, free meals, free trips and all sorts of other comps.

                However, guess what has happened?  Because of competition by all the Casinos trying to one up the other one with the best freebies, that profit margin has decreased to somewhere in the 5 to 7% range.  I salute competition.

                Now, back to our state Lotteries, there is no competition and they are entitled to make in the 50% plus range.  This is a totally unreasonable amount.  If they want to buy back annunities by using fuzzy Lottery math calculating the present value of a future amount, in my mind, there must be something good about annunities.  I also think annunities provide a way to safeguard your money, control run-a-way spending and taxes.  I have run many tests on this process and found to my dismay that many times you fare a lot better with the annunity over time.  We at LP look at winning combination history and many times base our predictions based on the draws over time.  Why should we not collect our winnings the same way?

                Floridian

                Anybody can take a lump sum and use some or all of it to purchase an annuity. But some lottery games (Lose for Life in GA) still force "winners" to receive periodic payments, with no cash option.


                  United States
                  Member #16612
                  June 2, 2005
                  3493 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: September 29, 2006, 2:19 pm - IP Logged

                  LOTTOMIKE, my vote is yes in the future. I hope in the future all jackpots will have cash option only.

                    Coin Toss's avatar - shape barbed.jpg
                    Zeta Reticuli Star System
                    United States
                    Member #30470
                    January 17, 2006
                    10351 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: September 29, 2006, 3:14 pm - IP Logged

                    I voted yes, only for this reason, if any lottery offered nothin but cash option I'm afraid that the prizes would be juggled with so they'd be mush less than any current annuity or cash system. 

                    I'm thinking of a lot of threads I've read here. Since I've been a member here Powerball has lowered the amount of the cash prize.

                    I wouldn't even be surprised to see a ceiling on a cash option only lotto.  

                      Rick G's avatar - avatar 1766.jpg
                      FEMA Region V Camp #21
                      United States
                      Member #520
                      July 27, 2002
                      5699 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: September 29, 2006, 3:33 pm - IP Logged

                      if people understood how annuities worked they might fare better in the long run and example would be if you won 10 million or more and took the annuity.

                      Take the first check minus say 100 grand and put the rest in the bank. do not touch any of the money for the first year. longer if you think you could. After the first year set up a portfolio with the second check and live off the interest on the first check you kept in the bank. There are many ways an annuity could work out better than a lump sum. Especially since your practically losing half the proceeds by taking cash.

                      Taking an annuity is best especially if you have a spending problem. with cash you could go thru it in no time. Whereas with an annuity you have to plan to spend. you will have a check coming in ever year to handle most of any expenses you might have if you continue to live within your means. You can still build some really strong investments with a yearly annuity.

                      4-4-me,

                      This is absolutely the most intelligent thing I've read on LP considering this subject.

                      Lottery winners should do exactly as you suggest.  Protect the principle, be guaranteed the total amount of the jackpot, and gamble (invest) from their annuity payments.

                      Very good post. 

                      Cash Only, I love ya' but you cannot argue with this reasoning.

                      Posted 4/6:  IL Pick 3 midday and evening until they hit:  555, 347 (str8).


                        Avatar
                        Coastal Georgia
                        United States
                        Member #2653
                        October 30, 2003
                        1866 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: September 29, 2006, 3:39 pm - IP Logged

                        Cash Only, I love ya' but you cannot argue with this reasoning.

                        Rick, Yes he can and yes he will...There is no reasoning with him. He still calls the games names of his choosing rather than their real names. He has been challenged to prove his rant, and the silence was deafening.

                        DD

                         

                                                       

                                      

                         

                         

                          justxploring's avatar - villiarna
                          Wandering Aimlessly
                          United States
                          Member #25360
                          November 5, 2005
                          4461 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: September 29, 2006, 4:47 pm - IP Logged

                          I agree with the value of an annuity. Having a guaranteed stream of income is very comforting to many people and often a wise investment. However, I still think we need to have a choice. For me, if I won the lottery, it would depend upon the amount of the jackpot and the interest rates at the time. Also, my age at the time of the win would matter. I've read a lot of press releases where the winner was 75 or 80.

                          When FL changed from a 20 year to a 30 year structured annuity, I got very annoyed. This changed the interest rate considerably.  For example, if you win $6M and it's divided by 20, that is $300K a year for 20 years. It's like getting around 5% for your money.  If you divide $6M by 30 you only get $200K a year.  The rates dropped for a while, but now that the interest rates have increased, a $6M win should pay at least $240K x 30 years = $7.2M.  I'm not sure how each state calculates the annual payments, that is, if they simply divide the jackpot by the number of years or they use the current rate of return. Of course they are in the business to make money, so they must shop around for whatever costs the State the least.

                          A smart investor can make a heck of a lot more money than 3.3% but everyone has their own comfort level. Although the State tells you they guarantee the payments, I might be a little uncomfortable having my entire life being controlled by one entity like the State Lottery & desire some diversification. I'm not agreeing with CashOnly that a lump sum is the ony way to go, but I'd always want to check out my options. There should be a lump sum option. The Lottery shouldn't dicatate to people how to manage their finances even if someone wants to blow it all and ends up homeless.

                            weshar75's avatar - Lottery-042.jpg
                            Mcminnville, Oregon
                            United States
                            Member #3013
                            December 13, 2003
                            3047 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: September 29, 2006, 5:02 pm - IP Logged

                            I think that the Lotteries will always have both annuity and Cash value to give to its winners.  The big hook is seeing $300 million up on a billboard instead on $145 million cash.  Not every lottery player is that into their games so they would wait to play a cash value game longer.  But once they here $200 million or $300 million they have to get at least one ticket.  It is just a shine hook to reel in the suckers.  I only pay attention to the cash value myself.  Then I turn into a sucker when the jackpot gets high and I get more tickets.-weshar75

                              Avatar
                              Morrison, IL
                              United States
                              Member #4657
                              May 13, 2004
                              1884 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: September 29, 2006, 6:41 pm - IP Logged

                              I voted yes, only for this reason, if any lottery offered nothin but cash option I'm afraid that the prizes would be juggled with so they'd be mush less than any current annuity or cash system. 

                              I'm thinking of a lot of threads I've read here. Since I've been a member here Powerball has lowered the amount of the cash prize.

                              I wouldn't even be surprised to see a ceiling on a cash option only lotto.  

                              Powerball really didn't lower their cash prize amounts. The cash value is what it is. They only inflated their annuity. If they didn't change the annuity structure, the annuity would just be lower instead of the cash being higher.