wouldn't it make more sense to invest that money into a few hundred startups instead?
At $50K a pop, that's 340 startups that he could invest in.
Then 5 years later, when that 17 mil becomes 200 mil, he could setup that music trust.
I mean sure, he can still invest with whatever is left over from that 1 mil yearly cash out, but it's not going to be a game changer compared to backing 340 new startups.
Plus if we assume that he does recieve 1.1 mil $ per year (at least for first couple of years).
And if he is that ascetic as he claims.
Then we can safely assume that from 660k that remain (after taxes) - he can probably live pretty lavishly on 160k per year (for an ascet !) - especially since this amount doesn't need to be spent on making money (transport,...).
So now we can see that he can clearly invest into 10 startups per year - and even afford to be actually involved in them. Which would probably far increase possibility of success over just blindly dumping money in 340 startups with total disregard for anything. And in 10 years he would be involved in 100 of possibly pretty good startups of which I believe at least one could repeat his success (due to selection and nurturing).
To me its clear how this "non-greedy" strategy is clearly better over long term.
I'm really amazed how some people who claim (or act) greedy are really not THAT greedy - solely because they act on short-term ("BIG" bonus this year! or - steal from thy shareholders, etc, etc) over long-term. I don't call them greedy - I just call them stupid :)
Because a true greedy person should be focused on an mid or long-term goal (how to maximize my profit in 20 or 40 years).
At $50K a pop, that's 340 startups that he could invest in.
Then 5 years later, when that 17 mil becomes 200 mil, he could setup that music trust.
I mean sure, he can still invest with whatever is left over from that 1 mil yearly cash out, but it's not going to be a game changer compared to backing 340 new startups.