What is missing is a description of the annuity process used for the Megajackpots games. The terms do clearly state that payment is in 20 annual installments, and that a reduced lump sum is available, but what is completely missing is WHY!
Your average man in the street is going to take this at face value, and conclude that the displayed amount is the actual pool, and not the value of the annuity being used to pay the jackpot.
There is an additional problem also, in providing the player with an annuity, they are no longer paying a win, but providing a financial product, and this would require compliance with the various rules in various countries, otherwise they could come unstuck. For example, what if a 93 year old won, the annuity option would be a complete non-starter, and if this was somehow foisted on him by the casino, they could come under fire from the executors of his estate who could take a case on his behalf. I doubt this has ever happened, this is low risk, but high consequence. THis is similar to what the banks were thinking a couple of years ago, and now we see what can happen when someone thinks that risk is negligible, and therefore does not consider what could happen in a worst case scenario.
Presently, annuity rates would be dreadful, and winners should seek INDEPENDENT advice should they win.
Wagerworks seem to believe they can predict what will happen in the next 20 years RE interest rates when they decide what to offer as the reduced lump sum. The best financial brains in the world have proven themselves to be WAY off the mark this last few years, so what makes an online and land casino group think it can do better.
It would be better if the industry forgot about all these fancy ideas about deferred payments, and annuatized progressives. Most players would not understand, but DO understand the concept of "what you see is what you get".
The lottery argument fails in the European market since OUR state lottery pays out in a lump sum, and no-one in the UK expects any different from any other kind of pooled jackpot, and will think something "shady" is afoot when they see any whiff of deferred payment over many years for a jackpot win.
Given that in the case of Playtech, the payment IS paid by Playtech, and in one lump, WHY is there even a thread discussing "the number of Playtech casinos paying progressives at $xxxxx per month". It gives a VERY bad impression of Playtech in general, and Playtech have never really had a sparkling reputation, often featuring in complaints.
The number of Playtech casinos paying these network progressives in installments should be ZERO!
) to calculate the reduced sum that Wagerworks SHOULD be offering for the displayed jackpot which represents the total of the reduced sum and 20 years interest.
