/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11459982
you need to give us the risk free interest rate to calculate whats better you dumb fag.

>>11459989
>getting flustered about a fun questiom about an inaginary situation

Autism

>>11459982
I hate dumb people

>>11459982
I'd take the $3000 every day. I know that $3000 will halve in value every 10 years.... you'd probably make more money taking the lump sum now and investing properly. But I'm to much of a brainlet for that shit.

>>11459982
Retard

>>11460003
this

lump sum
inflation will eat 90%+ over your lifetime

>>11459997
>getting flustered about someone getting flustered on a board where it is normal to get flustered about minor things

Autism

>>11459982
3000$

>>11459982
I would take the two million and start my banana business

>>11459982

3k - hands down.

>>11459982
>get $3000 every week for the rest of your life
>die 2 months later

nice1 ;)

>>11460023
stuffing bananas up your ass isn't a business

>>11460013
>(You)

>>11459982
2.025MM is tempting, but $3,000 every week for life seems more comfy, and still gives you leeway to invest if you are somewhat frugal, so I will take that.

>>11460027
thats not what i would do

I'd take the 2 million, then all in on LINK and become the richest man in history and the new ruler of the world after the singularity

>>11459982
If you factor in an average of 2% annual inflation, then the lump sum is the better option.

>>11459982
Lump sum
>but anon in 12 years it starts being less than the payments!
Just imagine what I could make even with a very conservative portfolio on that lump amount in 12 years. And could continue to compound over that time. It’s a better deal. Annuities are for fags who can’t handle wealth and blow it all on lamborghinis.

>>11460064

>>11460027
kek

$3k per week for sure. That's $144k per year tax-free.

>>11459982
2 mil retire in the tropics comfy

>>11460153
It's actually $156k per year.

>>11459982

3k a week means 156k a year, in a decade it's only 1.5 million dollars.

2 mil lump sum gives you 140k a year invested in a standard 7% per anum interest.

I'll take the 2 million.

>>11460285
you can invest the 3k as well

Most people should talk the 3k weekly cuz they're fucking retards and would burn the 2 mill in a year

I'd take the 3k because its protection against being a retard. And it would also feel dope to be able to fuck up or spend all my money and know more money is coming.

If I had 2 million dollars, I would probably make a ton of bad decisions immediately. With the slower trickle of 3000 a week, I'd have time to digest my new wealth and adapt.

>>11459982
3000 duh


Retarded question

Can i have 1 mil in lump sum and $1500 per week pls?
If that's not possible then i'd take 2 million.
USD might just go to shit one day, better use it now when it still has some value.

i'd honestly take the 3k a week. less stress, don't have to worry about anything. also work my current job and i'd be super comfy

>>11460322

You'd be catching up.

>>11460381
Why in the world would you work if you get 3k/week?

>>11460153
The state of American education

>>11460012
>>11460097
>>11460285
Business & Finance board and not a single person knows finance

3k a week is a much better option, even if you assume you can get 7% returns on your lump sum

>>11460798

How the hell would getting 3k a week and having nothing in the bank and earning interest only on the 3k you have, be better than getting a lump sum of 2 mill then earning basically 3k a week anyways after investing it. Then you can also reinvest that 3k as well.

The 2 million option is just far better.

>>11460849
you'd bl0w that money in a year

>>11459982
if we are on the bottom I will take the 3000
if we are on the top i need the 2mil so I can pivot

We are at the very top !

I'd take the 2 mil and put the entirety of it into shitcoins and BTC/XMR

>>11460853

No I'm not a financially irresponsible retard. I'd invest it wisely into dividend stocks and also diversify the rest of the 2 mill into other areas that will give me interest or payouts.

Aren't securities legal in the US if you have over 1 mil? Why not put 1 million into a good security?

the lump sum of course, are you all idiots

it would take almost 13 years to reach the ~2 million value nominally
then consider inflation and it would be more like well i dont know 15-20 years to reach equal value
then consider the time value of the money over those 20 years and how much you could have grown 2 million in that time...

plus I'm not a zoomer I'm probably not even going to live for another 20 years

the lump sum payment is far superior

>>11460893
do you think you're some kind of a badass?

>>11459982
The latter.

Opportunity cost of inflation etc etc.

>>11460896
yeah im a badass fuck you

>>11459982
take the 2 mil, buy a commercial investment property, make 3k a week from rent

>>11460849
No it is not. If you actually want to learn look up online pdf of book "fundamentals of corporate finance" or something like that. It is the book used in most intro finance courses.

So you can either receive 2MM today
or 156k/year in perpetuity
present value of a perpetuity= cashflow/discount rate
If we use 7% as the discount rate
156k/0.07 = 2,228MM

if you use 8% or higher, then the lumpsum would be better

With the lump sum I can buy millions of Chainlink right now. With the weekly payments, it’ll only be 10-30 weeks until that 3k will only get me 2-3 Linkies each week. Obviously you gotta go with the lump sum.

>>11460923

The reason I said 7% is because it's the standard safe low rate boomers boast about. You can easily get more if you invest well. You think I would actually just keep 2 mil in a 7% per year thing. That was just to demonstrate that even with a super safe boomer tier investment strategy you are close to beating the 3k. Taking higher risk and getting something that is 10% are you are golden.

Imagining investing a million of your 2 million into Chainlink. Christ you'd unironically be a fucking billionaire.

a dump, because you can spend or hide it, otherwise child support and alemony

>>11460893
biz autists have never heard of time value of money.

people should take the higher value between ($3,000x52)/interest rate or $2,025,000.

so above circa 7,7% the lump sum is better, below 7,7% the weekly payout is better.

>>11460923
seems like we are the only 2 people here with finance knowledge

>>11460945
yeah well of course it depends what kind of returns and strategy (risk/return) you are looking for. Personally I would take the yearly payments because it would comfy and stress-free, and very low risk.

>>11460954
exactly this

>>11460044
Yes it is anon. Yes it is.

>>11460954
No you retard.

<7.7% interestrate the monthly interest is < the 3000$ but you fucking also got 2mio+ in the bank which you don't touch

Monglet

>>11459982
3000/week

>>11460965
No you're a retard as well.
you never touch the principle and you don't account for this

Get 3k each week and have 0 extra in the bank
Or
Get between 2725 usd a month (assuming historical market rr of 7%) and have 2025000 extra in the bank.

You don't get shit brainlet

>>11459982
$3000 a week, no way I can fuck up that way

>>11460923
You just take pv of perpetuity but you forget to take account the lumpsum you own. Read those fundamentals again

>>11460945
>You can easily get more if you invest well.

>>11461713
>>11461731
>>11461743
Why do you try to argue when you don't understand. The perpetuity is EQUIVALENT to having the Present Value of it today.

Also in reality it is not possible to withdraw 7% from a stock portfolio without touching principal

>>11459982
Lump sum because compound interest.

>>11459982
Lump some. Could make 3k a week and lose none of the 2mm off no risk cd's, bonds, whatever.

3k/week for life

we live long in my family.

I would take the lump sum and dump it into an index. 6% interest per year on 2 mil is 120k. Then coumpounded into the prinicipal would make you rich