First thing I’d do is buy a pair of Birkenstocks …
30-year T-Bonds were paying 2-3/4% yesterday {Cite} … that seems good for those of us adverse to default risk …
From the government?
Yes.
It is extremely rare that a bank will have zero assets at the time it is shut down. Normally, the appropriate regulators will step in when the bank starts to get into trouble, seize its assets, and sell them off. Uninsured depositors get first claim on the proceeds.
So far in 2017 (Aug 26, 2017) there have been six bank failures. No depositor lost ANY money in these shut downs. All deposits, insured and uninsured, were placed in other banks where the depositors could access them. That’s as far as I looked. but if you care to search for the last bank failure where a depositor lost money, the list is here.
But yes, there have been bank failures where uninsured depositors lost money. As the assets of the failed banks are sold off, the FDIC pays what it calls “dividends” to the uninsured depositors. You can find a chart of dividend payments here. For example, the cumulative dividends paid to uninsured depositors of Granite Community Bank covered 86.11% of their uninsured deposits. (When the chart labels a dividend as “traditional” there may be more dividends to come.)
You don’t need 1500 bank accounts. You just need one “Payable on Death” (POD) account with 1200 beneficiaries. POD accounts get $250,000 per beneficiary. (To be technical, that’s assuming you have no other revocable trust accounts at the same bank naming the same beneficiary.)
I seriously doubt that your bank would go under in the time it takes to get the money and then turn it over to your investment people. Even then, your investment advisors are not going to instantly buy a ton of stocks and bonds and invest that kind of wad in a day or so.
Frankly, I would expect that kind of money to take over a year to invest soundly, and I would want to keep 15-20% of it in cash so as to be able to withdraw money or catch opportunities and bargains without scrambling to cash anything out to do it.
You can also park the 15-20% in a money mutual fund rather than buy treasury bills directly or make a straight demand deposit, unless you are really paranoid (but someone that risk-averse would not be playing the lottery, right?)
Playing the Powerball doesn’t require any risk-seeking mentality; it’s a $2 ticket, almost no meaningful financial loss whatsoever. It’s not like playing cards at a Vegas casino.
In a money market. I’ve been told for years that no one has ever lost money in a money market held by a reputable financial institution.
People who have hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions like large funds for a companies retirements don’t spread it between hundreds of banks. There is no reason to do that.
The first you’d do is hire an experienced accountant, a CPA, who can advise you on at all. Because what you want to do with the money short and long term might be completely different from what other people on here want to do. You also want tax advise to make sure you aren’t mishandling the funds and that whatever might be withhold is correct.
In some cases, people who don’t know how to handle money would be better after getting it as an annuity instead of a lump sum and going public with it where they piss it away with family and friends doing stupid “investment” ideas.
It’s sad to read people who have won that years later they lost it all and are in worse shape.
I actually suggested money market, but to be fair we can’t tell people no one ever lost money in a money fund. In the US it happened in 1978, in 1994 (that was an institutional fund though), and again in 2008 
You are right on the money that people who do not know all this stuff really need to hire a financial advisor and maybe consider getting a simple annuity. Lotteries are supposed to be just for fun and should not complicate or screw up anybody’s life.
From a practical standpoint, why does “rate of return” matter to me at that point? I’ve got more money than I can spend in a lifetime.
Have the lottery commission defer paying you until you have a long term place ready to put the money. Let the government hold your money for you; they’re not likely to go out of business. And I’m sure they’re not going to pressure you to accept the money.
You have a source for this?
1978: Kiplinger's Personal Finance - Google Books
1994: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/29/business/new-caution-about-money-market-funds.html?pagewanted=all
2008: Money-Market Fund 'Breaks the Buck' - The New York Times
Almost insanely and tragically absolutely true.
Maybe more money than you can spend, but I have some creative ideas…
Seriously, though:
It occurs to me that those people wouldn’t have been helped by making sound investments in the first place.
Seriously, though, I can’t imagine how I could blow through that kind of money without being grossly irresponsible with it. At my current standard of living, I’d barely touch a fraction of it. Even if I lived as richly as I can imagine myself doing so, I doubt I’d put a dent in it.
But then, I’m not the kind of person with the inclination to buy lots of sports cars and mansions and throw giant parties.
I’m always of the opinion these religiously cautionary tales are purposed to stop the poor getting above themselves.
I wonder how they’re defining “win a lottery” and “broke.” I’m guessing they’re defined to make that number as large as possible.