PDA

View Full Version : Different Perspective on Winning $10,000.


813wilson
12-07-2011, 11:39 AM
For those of us in the States..... Did you see this?:?


A trio of Connecticut money managers who split a $254 million Powerball jackpot say their new charitable trust is giving $1 million to five organizations that support veterans and military members who recently returned from deployments.
The trust created by Greg Skidmore, Brandon Lacoff and Tim Davidson took in a $103.5 million lump sum after taxes. They say they hope the trust's donations will become an example for other lottery winners nationwide.

Clarifying: the $1million is the total - not each to five organizations...

So let me get this straight; Money Managers, guys who are probably in the higher income brackets already, are giving less than 1% of their winnings to charity and they want that to be an example?

And to be clear - I have no issue with "the rich/1%ers" winning a huge lotto prize.

I just find it amusing that taking in $103.5 million after taxes; the "example" they want set is so small.

I think the charity is great. I'm just questioning the value.

thoughts.....

r2473
12-07-2011, 11:42 AM
These guys should be shot and then beaten.

jonnythan
12-07-2011, 11:43 AM
Questioning the value? Of a million dollars?

Fine. If you don't think it has value, I'll take it.

dlk
12-07-2011, 11:47 AM
I don't know, I guess I'm pleased with any money they donate. I aint playa-hatin' if they want to hook up their families. So no I'm cool with them donating whatever they want.

Pet peeve plug -- I can't stand tellemarketers. I'm on a no-call list, but they still find a way to call and beg for money.

813wilson
12-07-2011, 11:48 AM
^^^^ perhaps "value" was the wrong term. But I don't think giving that small percentage is anything to brag about....

Plenty of others who have one lotto have given more.

That is my point.

DLK - You're right. I'm not hatin' either. I just don't think it is an example to "shoot for"....

Damn tele callers - always find a way around the block

LeeD
12-07-2011, 11:48 AM
OCCUPY every rich person's home. Let him run his business.

813wilson
12-07-2011, 11:55 AM
OCCUPY every rich person's home. Let him run his business.

Huh? Not sure I get your point.

Stated previously - I think the charity is great. And the charities they've decided upon.

I guess I don't think they should have "grand standed" about it given the sum they won v the amount given away.

I certainly haven't taught my kid to give "less than 1% of her time/money" to a charity she deems valueable....

LameTennisPlayer
12-07-2011, 12:13 PM
Huh? Not sure I get your point.

Stated previously - I think the charity is great. And the charities they've decided upon.

I guess I don't think they should have "grand standed" about it given the sum they won v the amount given away.

I certainly haven't taught my kid to give "less than 1% of her time/money" to a charity she deems valueable....

I think he means we should live at their homes(the rich) while they actually do some work lol...

im wondering what any of this has to do with $10,000

813wilson
12-07-2011, 12:18 PM
^^^ Another thread was "what would you do if you won $10,000.

Saw/heard about this and thought there was a slight tie in - nothing else....

NickC
12-07-2011, 03:15 PM
I'm from the town where the winners were from. They're making a real statement indeed: "we're already filthy rich, and we just won over 100 million bucks. To celebrate, each of us is giving away a little over 330 thousand dollars to charity"

Class.

Bhagi Katbamna
12-07-2011, 04:02 PM
That's nice of them. They don't have an obligation to give any.

bulldawg
12-07-2011, 04:09 PM
I can't believe the arrogant attitudes being directed towards these guys. So they are rich, big deal. That fact in and of itself, does not make them "bad" people. Furthermore, they did not have to give any of the money to charity, or anyone else for that matter. That being said, what amount should they have given in order to earn the respect of others, and to be seen as compassionate human beings? Since there is not an objective answer to the question, I say give them a break.

Moose Malloy
12-07-2011, 05:14 PM
sounds like they are just acting on the behalf of the real winner. who knows what his situation is, but it sounds like a generous gesture regardless.

Three wealth managers who won a $254 million Powerball jackpot in Connecticut Monday deny reports that someone else hired them to claim the ticket.

"To be clear, there are a total of three trustees, and there is no anonymous fourth participant," the men said in a statement released by a representative, Gary Lewi, today.

Earlier, two sources told ABC News that Greg Skidmore, Brandon Lacoff and Tim Davidson were not the "real" winners of the lottery but rather a front for an anonymous winner.

The three men appeared with their attorney, Jason Kurland, at the Connecticut Lottery offices Monday to accept their winnings. There, Kurland announced that the trio had formed a trust, called the Putnam Avenue Family Trust, to manage the money.

All three work for wealth management firm Belpoint Capital in Greenwich, which manages $82 million, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Skidmore is president and CEO of the company.

Thomas Gladstone, a friend of one of the men and the landlord of their office space, told ABC News that a client had come to Belpoint Capital with the winning ticket and asked for their help. A relative of one of the men, who wished to remain anonymous, confirmed the story to ABC News.

"These are smart guys. They want to turn the $100 million into ... $400 million. The plan was to keep all this private. You've seen people pry into other people's lives. They want to protect their client," Gladstone said.



The attorney said that Davidson had bought a single Quick Pick ticket for $1 at the Shippan Point BP gas station in Stamford. A computer chose the random numbers of 12-14-34-39-46, Powerball 36. The jackpot was the largest ever won in Connecticut and the 12th biggest in Powerball history.

The three remained almost entirely silent at the press conference while Kurland answered questions, though he declined to describe the threes relationship to one another, how they came to purchase a $1 ticket together or what they would do with the money, except to say that Connecticut charities would benefit from the windfall.



http://news.yahoo.com/connecticut-lottery-winners-deny-reports-hidden-client-163844740.html

seems rather strange that 3 rich guys just decided to split the cost of $1 quick pick lotto ticket one day.

LeeD
12-07-2011, 05:31 PM
When you win 200 mil, donating 1/200th is NOT a generous gesture. It's the least requirement.
Winning the money is not earning the money. Pure luck, no work (except lots of losing tickets, but that's entertainment value).
Winning 3 mil and donating a third might draw near the "generous" line.
You had nothing. Now for free you gots more than you need. Donating is part of the equation.

813wilson
12-07-2011, 06:16 PM
Two things:

Bulldawg - "That being said, what amount should they have given in order to earn the respect of others, and to be seen as compassionate human beings?"

I want to be clear - I'm glad charities are benefiting from their winnings. However, and this is my only point: don't call attention to your "charity" claiming you hope it will set an example for others when the example being set is so small in terms of the percentages.

If I win $100 in a church raffle/charity fundraiser/lottery, should I "set an example" by giving less than $1.00 of those winnings and, in some way, brag about it?

Lee - I feel like you were calling me out previously....when you commented about OCCUPY... Are we now agreeing that this is less than "great" in terms of their giving?

bulldawg
12-07-2011, 06:23 PM
When you win 200 mil, donating 1/200th is NOT a generous gesture. It's the least requirement.
Winning the money is not earning the money. Pure luck, no work (except lots of losing tickets, but that's entertainment value).
Winning 3 mil and donating a third might draw near the "generous" line.
You had nothing. Now for free you gots more than you need. Donating is part of the equation.

"...the least requirement....part of the equation." - according to whom?? They are not under ANY obligation to donate the money to anyone or anything. Furthermore, because they didn't give enough (which is a completely subjective measurement), they should be ridiculed? You win...I'll subscribe to your views of fair play...send me 1/3 of your assets (your standard of measure), and I'll consider thinking of you as generous.

Big_Dangerous
12-07-2011, 07:00 PM
For those of us in the States..... Did you see this?:?


A trio of Connecticut money managers who split a $254 million Powerball jackpot say their new charitable trust is giving $1 million to five organizations that support veterans and military members who recently returned from deployments.
The trust created by Greg Skidmore, Brandon Lacoff and Tim Davidson took in a $103.5 million lump sum after taxes. They say they hope the trust's donations will become an example for other lottery winners nationwide.

Clarifying: the $1million is the total - not each to five organizations...

So let me get this straight; Money Managers, guys who are probably in the higher income brackets already, are giving less than 1% of their winnings to charity and they want that to be an example?

And to be clear - I have no issue with "the rich/1%ers" winning a huge lotto prize.

I just find it amusing that taking in $103.5 million after taxes; the "example" they want set is so small.

I think the charity is great. I'm just questioning the value.

thoughts.....

That's pretty pathetic on their part. I just feel like when you've already achieved wealth beyond a reasonable amount and then to top it all off, you win a 250 million dollar powerball lottery... You should give back and help people... How ****ing selfish are these miserable pieces of shit? And all during the holiday season? Wow, just wow.

And they must not be very smart "money" managers because everyone knows you get more money over time if you opt for installments. The tax rate on one lump sum is beyond ridiculous. They ended up keeping only 40% of the total....

angharad
12-07-2011, 07:28 PM
That's pretty pathetic on their part. I just feel like when you've already achieved wealth beyond a reasonable amount and then to top it all off, you win a 250 million dollar powerball lottery... You should give back and help people... How ****ing selfish are these miserable pieces of shit? And all during the holiday season? Wow, just wow.

And they must not be very smart "money" managers because everyone knows you get more money over time if you opt for installments. The tax rate on one lump sum is beyond ridiculous. They ended up keeping only 40% of the total....


There's a very good chance that they're acting on behalf of another party and are just the "front men" for whoever actually bought the ticket. I'm also guessing that, as money managers, they have a better idea of how to reinvest that money to keep it working for them, instead of accepting installments.


And as someone who works for a non-profit organization, I'll point something out: Very few "normal" people (not celebrities) want to be recognized for donating huge sums of money. You donate a large amount to any given non-profit and you can end up being hassled by every other non-profit in a 100-mile radius. Nearly every large donor my organization has requests to have their name kept private in our annual report so other organizations don't have access to it. I'd be willing to bet that these guys are, in reality, donating quite a bit more or planning to donate regularly over time. They just want to avoid the hassle.

bulldawg
12-07-2011, 08:11 PM
You don't necessarily get more money with the annuity payments...basic time value of money concepts. The installments carried a 29 year term...by taking the lump-sum and investing over the same time horizon, they would only need to generate annual returns of 3.12% to equal the original $254 million. Plus, they could invest in muni bonds and avoid taxes on the interest payments they would receive. Another basic assumption is that taxes will increase over time, therefore they could mitigate their tax liability by taking the lump-sum and investing in tax efficient instruments.

Andreas1965
12-07-2011, 10:35 PM
Is there any law that forces you to donate anything in case you won in a lottery?

If I were lucky enough to win 200 billion $ I would "donate" all the money to car dealers, tennis shops, travel agencies, hotels, real estate companies, restaurants, bars and maybe some women. It might happen to some pretty hookers as well ;)
Guess I would call Vegas my hometown from then on.
Being 46 now I should blow away about 10 billion/year to be almost broke when I close my eyes the last time.

And I'd give about 5 billion to each of my tennis partners, so they can quit their jobs and play tennis with me any time.

Andres
12-08-2011, 12:51 AM
Is there any law that forces you to donate anything in case you won in a lottery?

If I were lucky enough to win 200 billion $ I would "donate" all the money to car dealers, tennis shops, travel agencies, hotels, real estate companies, restaurants, bars and maybe some women. It might happen to some pretty hookers as well ;)
Guess I would call Vegas my hometown from then on.
Being 46 now I should blow away about 10 billion/year to be almost broke when I close my eyes the last time.

And I'd give about 5 billion to each of my tennis partners, so they can quit their jobs and play tennis with me any time.
Unless you're buying ISLANDS after ISLANDS, how can you blow 10 billion a year?

I'm guessing you meant MILLION, not billion. That'd make more sense.

By the way, how much does an island cost?

Big_Dangerous
12-08-2011, 01:41 AM
You don't necessarily get more money with the annuity payments...basic time value of money concepts. The installments carried a 29 year term...by taking the lump-sum and investing over the same time horizon, they would only need to generate annual returns of 3.12% to equal the original $254 million. Plus, they could invest in muni bonds and avoid taxes on the interest payments they would receive. Another basic assumption is that taxes will increase over time, therefore they could mitigate their tax liability by taking the lump-sum and investing in tax efficient instruments.

I wasn't talking about investing the money.

The fact is, if you take the lump sum and don't do anything with it to make it accrue, then you get more money with the installments.

Of course, if you invest wisely you'll end up making just as much over time, but that wasn't what I meant.

jht32
12-08-2011, 06:52 AM
...
So let me get this straight; Money Managers, guys who are probably in the higher income brackets already, are giving less than 1% of their winnings to charity and they want that to be an example?

And to be clear - I have no issue with "the rich/1%ers" winning a huge lotto prize.

I just find it amusing that taking in $103.5 million after taxes; the "example" they want set is so small.

I think the charity is great. I'm just questioning the value.

thoughts.....

I don't know what these guys plans for the future are, but I would think that what they are doing is reasonable...so far.

I wouldn't want to donate say 30 million of 103 million right away. Take your time, find other worthy causes and donate a million or two each year. I wouldn't find a need to make a big statement immediately.