April 25, 2024

Your Money: Win a Lottery Jackpot? Not Much Chance of That

This is exactly the sort of logic that, over the last year, led millions of people to spend $5.9 billion of their hard-earned dollars on Powerball alone. They spent nearly $69 billion on all lottery games in 2012, according to two lottery trade groups.

It is also precisely the kind of mental trap the Powerball people want you to fall in; they tweaked the game rules last year, doubling the price of tickets to $2 to raise more revenue and create more eye-catching jackpots.

And the state agencies running the games advertise heavily that it could be you making off with millions of dollars.

The odds of winning, however, remain infinitesimal: Powerball players, for instance, have a 1 in 175 million chance of winning. You have roughly the same chance of getting hit by lightning on your birthday.

Even though some people may be able to intellectually grasp what that means, the Multi-State Lottery Association can predict with clocklike certainty that on Saturday night, with a jackpot worth about $40 million, 13 million to 15 million people will buy tickets. Those ticket buyers are all thinking they have a shot of defying the odds.

That is why the lottery is called a tax on people who don’t understand math. Lower-income individuals who play but don’t win are hurt the most because they’re wasting a greater share of their income on the games. That’s also why the lottery is often called a regressive tax on the poor.

Sure, last year the games returned $19.41 billion to the states that sponsored them, according to the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries, which represents 52 lottery groups. But that’s not why anyone plays them.

What’s the big motivation to volunteer to pay this tax? Psychologists say it has more to do with our all-too-human propensity to run with the dreamlike possibilities it creates in our minds.

“For emotionally significant events, the size of the probability simply doesn’t matter,” said Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel-prize winning psychologist. “What matters is the possibility of winning. People are excited by the image in their mind. The excitement grows with the size of the prize, but it doesn’t diminish with the size of the probability.”

So ticket buyers allow themselves some momentary escapism since it costs only $2, thinking about what they would do with all that money. And they’ll ignore all of the well-known horrors and pitfalls that many lottery winners encounter, whether it’s a severe depression or blowing through all of the money in a form of self-sabotage that ends with them living in a trailer down by the river. This phenomenon of feeling anxious and undeserving, among other things, is what some experts call “sudden wealth syndrome.” It may afflict people who benefit from all sorts of success or windfalls, whether from the sale of a valuable business, signing an N.F.L. contract or inheriting a huge sum from a maiden aunt.

“Money that is much more than you’re used to sounds unlimited,” said Susan Bradley, a financial planner and founder of the Sudden Money Institute, who has worked with several lottery winners. “If you don’t have someone to help you, yes, you can go through extraordinarily large amounts of money, and, even worse, you can be in debt. It can really happen.”

Plugging some numbers into this dream provides some perspective. Winners wanting to be able to safely spend $1 million a year for 55 years (adjusted for inflation) would need about $36 million, after taxes, to invest, according to calculations by Northern Trust. (Those numbers also factor in annual taxes and investment expenses.) They would need to set aside nearly $15 million in high-quality bonds to know they would always have 15 years of spending in stable investments. To cover the remaining 40 years, they would need to put another $21 million in a diversified stock portfolio.

So in thinking about it, it’s not even worth playing unless the jackpot is more than $75 million, because the state and federal government take about half in taxes.

Part of that fantasy is that winners would start buying fast cars and big homes, not to mention stuff for all of your family members along with their children’s education. It’s easy to see how they could run through the money, as hard as that may seem to believe with $36 million in hand. Of course, if you want to live even larger — more homes, more cars, more ex-spouses, servants, accountants, lawyers, other lawyers to watch the lawyers — you’ll need far more. Probably more like $100 million, after taxes.

“If they make it to the fifth year with enough money to securely handle their life going forward and all of their relationships are intact, they are probably going to make it long term,” Ms. Bradley said.

So let’s get back to the probability of all of this ever even happening.

Buying more tickets improves your odds, but not by much. So if you want the fantasy, just buy one. Buying more doesn’t make the fantasy any richer.

It would take centuries of ticket buying before you even make a dent. If you purchased roughly 126,000 tickets a month for the next 80 years, for example, you could improve your odds to 50 percent, explained Gary A. Lorden, emeritus professor of math at California Institute of Technology (who, for the record, has bought a single ticket three times over the last decade; he split the last one with his grandson).

“The difference is like moving from a big house to a small house to make it less likely a meteor will strike your roof,” he said.

Good luck with that.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/your-money/win-a-lottery-jackpot-not-much-chance-of-that.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

You’re the Boss Blog: Putting a Dollar Value on a Facebook Fan

Dashboard

A weekly roundup of small-business developments.

Michael ScissonsCourtesy of Syncapse Michael Scissons

As noted in Monday’s Dashboard summary of the week’s small-business news, a social media marketing firm, Syncapse, has published a report that says the average value of a Facebook fan is $174.17. Seeking further details about the calculation and its potential impact on a small-business owner’s social media investment, we reached out to the company’s chief executive, Michael Scissons, and had the following conversation, which has been edited and condensed.

How can small-business owners figure out what their fans are worth?

The value of a Facebook fan is determined by comparing actual fans versus nonfans across key criteria that determine enterprise value. In our study, the fan value calculation considers: One, product spending within the past 12 months. Two, loyalty and purchase intent in the future. Three, the propensity to recommend the brand to other potential customers. Four, the media and messaging value that is inherent with fan membership. Five, the propensity for fans to organically lure more fans. And Six, the emotional draw felt by brands or brand affinity.

You surveyed 2,000 panelists. Would you recommend that small-business owners looking to understand the value of their fans undertake a similar exercise?

The scale and precision in our research requires an investment that is likely out of range of most small businesses. However, a small business could execute a lightweight version that attempts to measure the key value factors across its fans and nonfans. A benchmark is always helpful in understanding where you stand and if Facebook is a worthwhile investment for customer growth and loyalty.

Your survey found that 11 percent of Facebook brand fans are more likely to continue using the brands than a non-Facebook fan. Do you think this seems low?

The 11 percent is an average, so that number will be higher or lower depending on the brand. Regardless, we view 11 percent as significant, especially considering that brand fans also spend 43 percent more in respective categories versus nonfans, despite not having a higher income. Those numbers can have compounding impact on the long-term performance of a brand.

Can a similar methodology be applied to sites like Pinterest, LinkedIn or Twitter?

Our methodology can be applied to any sort of membership within a larger customer group.

Do you think a Facebook fan is more valuable than a LinkedIn Connection or a Twitter follower?

Our public study did not compare the average value of Facebook fans versus Twitter or LinkedIn connections. However, our experience working with many of the world’s largest global marketers shows that fan value varies among brands as well as networks. Many mass-market global brands with low price points may see a higher value with Facebook fans versus connections on other social networks, because that’s where their customers are. Conversely, high-end or luxury brands may see a higher fan value on LinkedIn, because that’s where their customers frequent. The key is to experiment and find out the facts for your own individual brand.

Are there three things you would suggest small businesses do to leverage the value of their Facebook fans?

First, it’s important to observe your customers and see how they use Facebook. If they are on Facebook, then you have an amazing opportunity to connect with them in a new way — as do your competitors. Second, you should experiment and learn firsthand. This is new territory, so trial-and-error and learning from others is key. As you scale up, you’ll want to designate formal accountability for the social marketing efforts, and that often falls under the person responsible for marketing and customer acquisition. The biggest barrier to success is the time investment. Third, connect social marketing to business outcome. That may be awareness, lead generation, trials or even cold, hard sales. State your goal, define the success criteria, measure, and invest accordingly.

Gene Marks owns the Marks Group, a Bala Cynwyd, Pa., consulting firm that helps clients with customer relationship management. You can follow him on Twitter.

Article source: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/putting-a-dollar-value-on-a-facebook-fan/?partner=rss&emc=rss

You’re the Boss Blog: Who’s Making More Small-Business Loans Now? You May Be Surprised

The Agenda

How small-business issues are shaping politics and policy.

Last week’s news that total commercial lending is up for the first time in three years but small-business lending continues to fall got The Agenda wondering: Is that true across the board? Or are some banks actually making more small-business loans, while others are making fewer?

We know that the biggest banks are making fewer Small Business Administration-backed loans. Perhaps, then, they are also making fewer traditional small-business loans as well. So The Agenda dove back into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s lending statistics — and discovered a surprise.

As of June 30, the nation had 7,522 insured banks, which The Agenda divided into three cohorts. The vast majority — 91 percent — have fewer than $1 billion in assets. A much smaller group has $1 billion to $10 billion in assets. The 107 institutions with more than $10 billion in assets –the conventional line between big and small banks — constitute just 1.4 percent of the industry but control 79 percent of all assets among American banks.

Here’s what we learned: though small banks are often said to have a propensity for small-business lending, total small-business portfolios fell by 1.6 percent in the last quarter in both of the two categories of smaller banks. Big banks — the ones that are supposedly gun-shy about small companies — actually increased their total small-business loan portfolio by 0.9 percent.

The Agenda dove a little deeper. Among the big banks, those with $10 billion to $100 billion in assets increased their small-business loan volume by 1.6 percent. And the very largest institutions — the 19 banks with more than $100 billion in assets — increased their small-business portfolio, too, though only by 0.4 percent. Of course, these numbers hardly suggest an open spigot of capital for the small-business borrower, or really for any borrower.

Responding to last week’s post about the decline in small-business lending, a commenter who identified himself as seltzerman suggested that the situation wasn’t as dire as the numbers made it seem. “There are other unmeasured events that are cushioning this blow,” he wrote last week. “There is still lending (involuntarily) to underwater homeowners in the form of accumulated mortgage payments that have not been paid. There must be at least a couple entrepreneurs in that pool who have rented out rooms in their homes and are diverting a year or two of unpaid mortgages into some small business.”

If there are, The Agenda would like to hear from them. Please send a note. I’ll be happy to keep the conversation confidential.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4567b5877685b48eec9ab3b19b6c937c