news

The easiest thing financially to do would be to take the annuity and set up a trust as the designated payee for the annuity, so that even if you die before collecting all of the money it will still be paid out to your descendants.

That said, the annuity is not inherently more money if you take the lump and then dont spend much of it per year and manage it properly. $800M could generate more in interest or other returns than the annuity payments would. The initial annuity payments are about $30M a year ratcheting up to $60-$70M a year towards the end of 30 years. Properly managed and well spent you could likely generate more than $30M in the first year off of $800M. Even if you stuck the $800M in a savings account with 4.5% interest that would be $36M returned in the first year. You could spend $6M and still beat the annuity payment, and it will keep growing each year probably returning more than the annuity payment would increase by. 4.5% is on the far low end of what you could feasibly get in returns from more complex wealth management strategies also, rather than shoving it all in a savings account

Realistically though, most people take the lump and then outspend themselves making lavish purchases and bad investments. At least the annuity protects you from that

With safe'ish returns of 3-5% or so a year via CD's and bonds, a lump sum beats out a annuity in 30 years. If you go into the market and take a bit of risk, the gulf widens noticeably.

My older friends will straight up tell you, that if they won big on the lotto, they'd just as soon go ahead and cash out, because they know their current age and know they won't live long enough to collect all their winnings from annual payments anyways.

Now if you happen to win big at a younger age and still expect many more years to your life, sure go ahead and take the annuity, but the elders know they ain't got time for all that anyways, they just want their money while they're still alive.