SPDB,
I can't speak for Mike Keiser, but I have to believe the money he initially invested in Bandon was like R&D money, expendable.
I don't think his margin for error was razor thin, I think he had a vision, like so many men who have been responsible for great golf courses in America. Due to the remote nature of the property, I think he understood that something special HAD to be built in order to provide the lure.
The question that intriques me is:
Could a bad golf course have been built on that site ?
TEPaul brought up a good point about Fownes, Wilson, Crump, MacDonald etc., etc., in that they were all amateur architects who produced spectacular first time golf courses.
I believe the property Mike Keiser purchased was in the 5,000 acre neighborhood, certainly sufficient land to route a SINGLE golf course. The fact that he bought so much land leads me to believe that his vision always encompassed a multi-course golf mecca, a target destination for golfers near and far.
When a very good golf course was created, he was merely done with one phase of his goal of having an assortment of several very good golf courses, with diverse personalities that would appeal to a broad spectrum of golfers.
Had the first course and the concept tanked.
It was a hit he could well afford, hence I don't see the dire consequence of failure. The risk/reward was clearly in his favor.
One of the great architectural questions in golf is:
Who will he retain for the 4th course ?
On the last issue you raised, I believe my comments were accurate.