>>94154755>>94154843Nope.
Those sites are usually based on guesses, or even worse, based on straight per-inflation "net" worth based off a decades-old guess. There's very rarely any accuracy, because going to the records - business tax returns, personal tax returns, just to begin with - and seeing what you can infer from them requires a) time and effort and b) someone on payroll to do the work.
The thing is, people very rarely want to talk about their earnings, especially if their earnings are exceptional in the field in which they're still employed, so you very rarely have any kind of solid sources (other than when it comes up in court filings) - unless you want to go digging around company filings with the relevant local/national companies register - and mostly it goes by rumor and headline.
For example, Mark Millar is raking it in from selling all those movie rights, right? Well... only the ones that actually get made. The headline figure for a movie rights sale is just the balance due on completion of the project, not an immediate payment. It can take years, it can never happen at all, it can happen because another movie got made and it's using your title/characters but nothing else, so "your" movie never gets made. Mostly, you get a little upfront and nothing else.
Or to look at it a different way: say McFarlane earned $50m from Image, including sales of movie rights, between founding Image and the Spawn movie coming out. That's about $10m a year, on average; and it was 20 years ago, so is it reasonable to assume he made $10m every year for 25 years? Is it reasonable to apply interest to that, and so on? Because that's what these sites do if they're not just reaching into their asses and plucking out turds.
