The movie ended too quickly. Even though Ted did not tell the producers how much money he had after 6 months, the producers could have found out and explained: whether he was homeless, still living in his apartment, or living with a relative; whether he had a job, or did he go back to collecting bottles and cans; whether he was still in Sacramento or back in L.A.; what happened to his 18-year-old friend; etc., etc., etc...
I've come in contact with a lot of homeless people in the past few years. Compared to the one's I talked to, Ted seems to be fairly intelligent. I think the producers picked the right person to give the money to. However, I'm not a movie-maker but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that homeless people generally are not motivated, have psychological issues, are drug addicts, or all of the above -- I could have predicted the outcome without going through with the experiment. The money did nothing for this man. It is the same reason why it is bad to blindly hand over money to struggling third-world nations with no guidance.
It is a little sad that the producers put Ted through this purely for our entertainment. I think Ted would have been better off if this movie was never made (he seemed to be happy in the beginning of the movie). If the producers really wanted to help change his life, they could have set up a trust account, where Ted could live off the interest income from the $100k. At 5% it would be about $5k a year for the rest of his life -- which is about the same amount of money he was making collecting cans all day.