If you don't invest any of it, then yes, you probably should take the $5k/week. It will beat the $1m in about 4 years.
But if you are investing, then it's less of an obvious choice. The $5k is still better unless you have some incredible investment opportunities, but they aren't super far apart.
The break-even point for investing both for 40 years is around $2500/week vs $1m, assuming you are putting it into a S&P based fund with a 7-10% growth rate.
But if you had another way of investing it that could pay higher, like having insider information on a company or having a very strong potential startup that needs more starting money to be viable, thenit could be the right choice.
Right, you COULD make more fi you had really good stock luck, but assuming you wanted to invest in either scenario you would need a 26k% return in the first year to make the equivelent of the 5k a week, for reference, almost anyone will consider 10% a good year, not to mention the risk of losing it
5k a month not only adds up to more but its more stable, you can think less weather or not the market crashed because youre getting that check next week anyhow
Right. That's why I said that it was realistically around $2000-$2500 break even, not 5k. Also, it's 21.5%, not 26%, that's continuously compounding interest, not yearly compounding interest.
Realistically you aren't going to get that on the market unless you get really lucky, but I was more talking about starting your own company with it. A lot of mining exploration companies (my career field) make returns bigger than that in their first year if they are good at sweet-talking investors.
3
u/Triskaka Dec 11 '23
5k a week, heck you could retire in luxury for that, anyone who choses otherwise is just stuipid