I’d take the $20M.
Not to hijack the thread, but let me ask a related question:
You’ve been accused of mopery, and the prosecution has enough evidence to convict. You’ve been offered two deals by the prosecutor: a month in jail or no confinement but 10 years’ probation. Conviction of any crime while on probation means you serve out the ten year sentence in prison.
What do you take?
It’d depend whether my dear old granny needed an emergency operation requiring $1 million at the time of the offer, but otherwise I’d wait.
“Mopery”? I say, “WTF? Do you really have a charge for that?” and take my month in jail.
Since I’m currently comfortable financially with no immediate need for the money, I’d wait for the twenty million. I’d use the six months to make plans; I might make a few purchases in anticipate of the upcoming windfall, but there isn’t anything really expensive I want now that can’t wait six months.
I’d wait. Although I’m kinda conditioned to think of it as greedy to prefer 20 million over 3 million, because I keep hearing people complaining about things like 130 million jackpots on the EuroMillions lottery, saying it’s too much. I think they just lack the necessary imagination to be able to put a vast fortune to good use.
I’d take the $20 million: I can wait 6 months, easily, and my retirement would be a lot more comfortable with the $20 million. (I’m planning to retie in about 18 months.)
I wonder also if this hypothetical question were to be asked in, say, India where the socio-economic and cultural behaviors are different than in, say, more opulent area using the U.S. as the reference, would their answers be reversed from what the majority of posters here have said? Or not?
(If the question makes little sense, I’m sorry. I’m tired.)
I don’t have any $20 million right now. I don’t have any $3 million right now. I’d definitely wait. If I wait, and it’s false, I’m where I started. If I wait and it’s real…suddenly I have $20 million.
I wait.
Well, to me it makes sense in terms of what seems like fabulous wealth to you. My wife and I probably have assets worth $1 to $1.5 million in total (that includes real estate & superannuation that would be hard to measure exactly). So $3 million doesn’t seem like fabulous wealth to me, and $20 million would make me significantly better off.
However, clearly to the poor in many countries $3 million would be beyond their wildest dreams. So, for me, if it were a choice between $300 million now and $2 billion in six months time, I might say, “$300 million would let me do everything that I’ve ever dreamed of, and I’d be no happier with $2 billion, so I’ll take the money now.”
I have fairly serious impulse-control problems, and I still think the answer to this question is too easy. Of course I’d wait six months. It’s not like I’m on the brink of starvation or anything.
I’d take the 3 since I can live the rest of my life without working on it. 20 mil wouldn’t change my life any from the 3 except I’d have to tell people that I’m not giving them any. At 5% interest I can walk away with 100K a year after taxes. I don’t want more then to have my time be my own.
On the other hand if the numbers were halved to 1.5 and 10 mil I’d wait the 6 months since 1.5 wouldn’t change my life appreciably and I’d still have to work. If I needed any more money over the 100K I could just get a job easily take care of any short term problems.
If it were an absolute guarantee I would wait the 6 months. If I thought that there were any chance that the 20 million wouldn’t be available 6 months from now (the person giving it to me died and it got wrapped up in probate, the economy tanked and the money was lost in the stock market, etc.) I would take the 3 million and put 2/3 away for retirement and spend the rest to buy a place outright. I’ve found several lovely places here in Manhattan for $300,000 so 1 million would be plenty for me to buy a really awesome place and then I would just continue my life exactly the way it has been, just in a much nicer neighborhood.
The problem with taking the 3 and living on interest is that at some point inflation will erode the buying power of that income.
Maybe 100K a year sounds like a lot now but what about 20-30 years down the road?
I’m all about considering utility value, but 6 months is nothing. I could wait 6 months just for the hell of it.
True, but even assuming 5% inflation over the 30 years and that the interest rate on your money didn’t change to reflect the inflation you’re still looking at 32K a year before taxes. Considering in 30 year I’ll be retired either way 32K on top of my retirement income won’t be bad. If I contribute 6% of that 100K over the years to a retirement plan then I’m have a similar retirement to what I’d have if I worked the whole time. It just means the kiddos wouldn’t get jack, which I’m ok with for never working again at 27.
ETA: Not to mention there is always the option of tapping into the principle in which case you could get 200K for another 15 years so in 45 years from now I would have a problem.
No brainer. I’d take the 20 mil.
If you take the three mil, then in six months time do you think about all the money you left on the table? You had three mil, you bought a house, you bought a couple of cars, you paid off your debts, you had a nice trip, etc. etc., and now you have one mil left. Does it start to come home to you, the consequences of your decision?
Well, it depends on whether or not I felt likely to commit any future crimes.
That having been said, I know what choice my clients make, and it’s ALWAYS the wrong one.
Definitely wait for the $20 million. It would have to be something like 10 years to make me even pause to consider.
Ill hang for 6 months an get the 20 million … I’m not in a hurry.