My perspective is slightly different to Forbes', because it's not an ethical one, but raising a question of technicalities. As I'm really not competent to gauge how financially capable you may be, I won't presume anything about your ability to put into practice what you're preaching, but I would ask:
1. If you are talking about generating benevolent funds, where does the money for your funding come from in the first instance? It is clear where Equity's comes from: member subscription and the philanthropic donations of those who have reason to support the union. *All* charities, as far as I'm aware, serve to raise funds through a combination of soliciting donation, winning patronage, 'earning' through sale of merchandise, member subscription, and canvassing for government subsidy, but to get most of this revenue they have to be appealing to charitable interest in the first place. In all seriousness (which is, in some sense, Forbes' point) who is going to reach into their pocket to support struggling actors? Save, perhaps, other actors who hold solidarity with their fellow performers? But the majority who care (the philanthropists) already give to the union. Is this not an issue?
2. If you are aiming to set up consultancy, mortgage/loan advice etc., this may be a different matter. But I tend to hold with most of the critiques that have already been raised. Firstly, the two entities are separate - conflating a benevolent fund with consultancy just confuses. Secondly, as Tony suggested, there are surely start-up costs to be considered. Thirdly, although I'm not sure Tony is right to say the banks have an advantage over a dedicated actor consultancy service if that service is *also* free, I don't see where your advisors are making their commission back...unless it is to do with passing on recommendations to other experts to offer further advice. In which case, all well and good but, at this stage, surely the charges start mounting for the actor as they engage with legal experts, mortgage brokers etc. In this respect, the consultancy is only intended to serve as a free advice bureau that can give actors better information on their options, and perhaps recommend them to experts who will offer lower rates for the sake of recommendation, I suppose. Which sounds laudable enough, but seems to have nothing to do with offering benevolent payouts - unless you are also advocating that a percentage cut is intended to be set aside for the fund.
I must confess to still being uncertain what model you're proposing here.