Last updated: 16 June 2026
Most net worth figures online are copied from one another. A number appears on one site, gets repeated by the next, and within a year the same unverified figure is everywhere, with no one quite sure where it came from.
RichPeek does it differently. We build every estimate from the ground up, from public information, using a consistent method. This page explains how, both so you can judge our figures for yourself and so it is clear what they are and what they are not.
First, the honest part
Every figure on RichPeek is an estimate and an editorial opinion, not a statement of verified fact. Nobody outside a person’s accountant knows their true net worth, and that number changes daily with markets, taxes, debts, and private deals no outsider can see. What we offer is a transparent, good-faith estimate based on what is publicly knowable, and we would rather show our work than ask you to trust a number that fell out of the sky. If we get something wrong, we want to fix it. Corrections are welcome at contact@richpeek.com.
How we build a figure
Rather than guess at a final number, we reconstruct how wealth is actually built and then subtract what is actually lost along the way. The logic runs in one direction, from gross earnings to what is realistically left.
1. Career earnings, by source. We estimate what a person has earned across their career, broken out by where it came from: touring, recorded music and royalties, publishing and songwriting, film and television, endorsements, business income, and so on. We use public reporting, box-office data, industry-standard rates, and disclosed deals.
2. Representation. Artists and athletes do not keep their gross. Managers, agents, lawyers, and business teams typically take a meaningful share off the top. We subtract a realistic percentage based on the person’s field and how they are represented.
3. Tax. This is where many estimates go wrong by ignoring it. We apply a realistic, jurisdiction-specific tax rate, because where someone lives matters enormously. A star taxed in California or Ontario keeps far less of the same paycheck than one based in a no-income-tax state. We account for that.
4. Lifestyle. Money earned is not money kept. We subtract a realistic estimate of lifestyle spending, scaled to the person’s wealth, habits, and length of career.
5. What is left becomes what can accumulate. The remainder is the capital realistically available to build wealth over time.
6. Documented assets. On top of accumulated capital, we add the value of assets we can actually point to: ownership of a music catalog or masters, a stake in a business, a beauty or spirits brand, documented real estate gains. We value these conservatively, and we count only ownership we can substantiate.
The total of these steps is our estimate. We round it to avoid implying a precision we do not have.
Principles we hold to
- Public sources only. We do not have, and do not claim to have, access to anyone’s private accounts, tax filings, or contracts.
- We build, we do not copy. Our figures are reached independently. When ours differs sharply from another outlet’s, we say so and explain why.
- Conservative on what we cannot verify. We do not inflate a number with assets we cannot substantiate. Where we include a modeled estimate, such as growth on retained savings, we treat it conservatively and identify it as an estimate rather than a discovered fact.
- Estimates, not assertions. We never present a figure as the definitive truth of someone’s wealth. It is our best, good-faith opinion based on available information.
- Corrections matter. If you are featured and believe something is materially inaccurate, contact us. We review every request in good faith.
Why our numbers sometimes differ from other sites
Because we rebuild figures instead of repeating them, ours will sometimes sit above or below the commonly quoted number. Often that is because we have accounted for something others skipped, a heavy tax jurisdiction, the splits on a co-headlined tour, the fact that a “deal” was an advance rather than cash, or a catalog that was sold rather than still owned. Other times it is because a widely repeated figure is simply stale. We explain the reasoning in the article itself, so you can weigh it yourself.
A note on names and images
Public figures referenced on RichPeek are not affiliated with us and have not reviewed or endorsed our estimates. We reference names, and may reference trademarks or images, for identification, reporting, commentary, and analysis. All such marks remain the property of their owners.
Contact
Questions about our methodology, or a correction request, can be sent to:
RichPeek™, contact@richpeek.com