bankrupt Mark Brunell wants stuff (1 Viewer)

[fatness]

Mark Brunell doesn’t want to lose his rings in bankruptcy

Mark Brunell won a national championship ring as Washington’s backup quarterback in 1991, and a Super Bowl ring as the Saints’ backup quarterback in 2009. Brunell says that just because he’s filing for bankruptcy, that doesn’t mean he should lose those rings.

The Florida Times-Union reports that Brunell filed a debt reorganization plan filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Jacksonville that included a plan for him to pay for his own rings, meaning he would get to keep the rings but his creditors would get the money. It’s not clear how Brunell can afford to pay for the rings if he can’t afford to pay off his debts.

Brunell, who made about $50 million in his NFL career, also wants to keep other assets, including three Rose Bowl rings, two watches, helmets, memorabilia and shotguns.

Kinda reminds of

 

[WVU Alum]

Mark Brunell doesn’t want to lose his rings in bankruptcy

Mark Brunell won a national championship ring as Washington’s backup quarterback in 1991, and a Super Bowl ring as the Saints’ backup quarterback in 2009. Brunell says that just because he’s filing for bankruptcy, that doesn’t mean he should lose those rings.

The Florida Times-Union reports that Brunell filed a debt reorganization plan filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Jacksonville that included a plan for him to pay for his own rings, meaning he would get to keep the rings but his creditors would get the money. It’s not clear how Brunell can afford to pay for the rings if he can’t afford to pay off his debts.

Brunell, who made about $50 million in his NFL career, also wants to keep other assets, including three Rose Bowl rings, two watches, helmets, memorabilia and shotguns.

Kinda reminds of

I think he should be able to keep the championship rings. Is there a way to put a "lien" on them towards any future sale of these items that Brunell may initiate?

 

[Truman]

I don't see the problem here. This is what happens in bankruptcy, the debtor presents a plan to the creditors, and they decide whether they'll accept it.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

How do people lose $50 million dollars in less than 20 years ... unbelievable. I don't have any sympathy.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

How do people lose $50 million dollars in less than 20 years ... unbelievable. I don't have any sympathy.

Real estate investments. He made most of them with former teammate Joel Smeenge who has already filed for bankruptcy. He also has 11 Whataburgers.

 

[Hooper31]

How do people lose $50 million dollars in less than 20 years ... unbelievable. I don't have any sympathy.

Of course you don't. You don't know the whole story. Its just easier for you to pass judgment and wish him ill will than it is to find out what circumstances there might have been.

 

[FUBAR]

How do people lose $50 million dollars in less than 20 years ... unbelievable. I don't have any sympathy.

Of course you don't. You don't know the whole story. Its just easier for you to pass judgment and wish him ill will than it is to find out what circumstances there might have been.

Try as I might, I just can't muster up sympathy for people who lose that kind of money on bad investments.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

How do people lose $50 million dollars in less than 20 years ... unbelievable. I don't have any sympathy.

Of course you don't. You don't know the whole story. Its just easier for you to pass judgment and wish him ill will than it is to find out what circumstances there might have been.

Here's the whole story: http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2010-06-29/story/bankrupt-former-jaguars-quarterback-mark-brunell-owes-247And not having sympathy is not synonymous with wishing him ill.

 

[Christo]

How do people lose $50 million dollars in less than 20 years ... unbelievable. I don't have any sympathy.

Of course you don't. You don't know the whole story. Its just easier for you to pass judgment and wish him ill will than it is to find out what circumstances there might have been.

He had lots of money. Lots. More than 99% of the people on this planet will ever have. And now he owes more than he has and is asking his creditors to take less than they are owed. At the least, he made too many risky investments. Heck, he could have made safe investments and with the proper diversification generations of his family would have been set. This story is all too familiar with people who have money thrown at them like athletes and lottery winners. It's hard to have sympathy.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

How do people lose $50 million dollars in less than 20 years ... unbelievable. I don't have any sympathy.

Of course you don't. You don't know the whole story. Its just easier for you to pass judgment and wish him ill will than it is to find out what circumstances there might have been.

Yeah, because once we hear the "whole story," I'm sure losing $50 million will seem perfectly reasonable. I mean it's all about the circumstances.

 

[Sudoku_in_the_Bathtub]

He should be thankful he still has a job.

No I don't feel bad for him.

 

[fatness]

He had lots of money. Lots. More than 99% of the people on this planet will ever have. And now he owes more than he has and is asking his creditors to take less than they are owed.

I think this is the part some people aren't getting. It's not like he had $50 million, free and clear, stuffed under a mattress and one day it was gone. He owes the money to people who aren't going to get it.

 

[massraider]

It's not the same as having sympathy for a kid in a wheelchair, but a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. It's almost like a "well, he should have been smarter with his money" thing. That's just not realistic.

 

[adrenaline]

You have 50 million dollars, if you feel like you need more money & you should invest at least put 10 mil aside in case shinola hits the fan.

 

[Truman]

What's not realistic? He personally guaranteed commercial loans because he was greedy.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

He had lots of money. Lots. More than 99% of the people on this planet will ever have. And now he owes more than he has and is asking his creditors to take less than they are owed.

I think this is the part some people aren't getting. It's not like he had $50 million, free and clear, stuffed under a mattress and one day it was gone. He owes the money to people who aren't going to get it.

He would have been better off stuffing it under a mattress. Or, better yet, having a plan B and C. It's not like there aren't guaranteed vehicles. Being "Mark Brunell" shouldn't cost whatever he had after taxes. The fact that he took out loans, etc, just shows he didn't get it.

 

[Sudoku_in_the_Bathtub]

a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. It's almost like a "well, he should have been smarter with his money" thing. That's just not realistic.

They weren't smart with their money. That's the reality of it.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It's not the same as having sympathy for a kid in a wheelchair, but a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. It's almost like a "well, he should have been smarter with his money" thing. That's just not realistic.

If it's not realistic, then you're saying Mark Brunell doesn't have the common sense God gave a...creature that has a very small amount of common sense.You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

 

[CalBear]

a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. It's almost like a "well, he should have been smarter with his money" thing. That's just not realistic.

They weren't smart with their money. That's the reality of it.

I know, and you know, a lot of people who are underwater on their mortgages, or have already had to deal with foreclosure or a short sale. You can argue that buying a house between 2003 and 2007 was "not being smart with their money", but a ton of investment advisers were telling everyone to put money in real estate at the time.

 

[CalBear]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K. How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

 

[ArcticEdge]

I feel more sorry for him because Sanchez wiped that booger on him.

 

[Truman]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

How about if you have $30 million and personally guarantee commercial real estate deals through 4 LLCs? Brunell was either greedy or inept. He could have put his money in the bank or invested in mutual funds. He decided he was comfortable with the risk of highly leveraged commercial real estate and overextended himself. Did he ever ask why the banks were asking him to personally guarantee everything when they already held security?

 

[Truman]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K. How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

You owe 150k and you have 100k in cash and an asset worth 250k. Even if the bank calls in your loan you'll be okay. Now imagine you have 3 more houses secured against that original property that were worth $2 million and are now worth $1M - you still owe the bank $1.5 million. Your original bank goes bust and the receivers call in your loan. You owe the receivers $1.65 million and sell your 3 houses for $1M. You now owe the bank 650k, and have 350k in assets. The bank forecloses and sells your house for 200k. You now have 100k in the bank and owe 450k. How do you repay the 350K difference?

 

[FUBAR]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K. How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

You owe 150k and you have 100k in cash and an asset worth 250k. Even if the bank calls in your loan you'll be okay. Now imagine you have 3 more houses secured against that original property that were worth $2 million and are now worth $1M - you still owe the bank $1.5 million. Your original bank goes bust and the receivers call in your loan. You owe the receivers $1.65 million and sell your 3 houses for $1M. You now owe the bank 650k, and have 350k in assets. The bank forecloses and sells your house for 200k. You now have 100k in the bank and owe 450k. How do you repay the 350K difference?

Having the 3 extra houses and owing more money than he had is what makes him greedy and not very smart with his money. Remember, we're talking about a football player here, who is extremely unlikely to ever make the kind of money again that he made during his playing days. He was downright stupid with his investments and should have put a good portion of his money into a safety net.

 

[fsufan]

How do people lose $50 million dollars in less than 20 years ... unbelievable. I don't have any sympathy.

 

[CalBear]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K. How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

What if you can't make the same payments? What if the economic effect which caused your house to tank in value also meant a loss of income? Lots of people lost their jobs in the economic downturn. (Brunell happened to have investments in restaurants, which all took a major hit during the downturn). The bank comes calling; now what?

 

[CalBear]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K.

How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

You owe 150k and you have 100k in cash and an asset worth 250k. Even if the bank calls in your loan you'll be okay.

No, you owe $400k.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Mark Brunell won a national championship ring as Washington’s backup quarterback in 1991

Meh - Ring never should have been made in the first place. The U was the real National Champ that year.

 

[Balco]

It's not the same as having sympathy for a kid in a wheelchair, but a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. It's almost like a "well, he should have been smarter with his money" thing. That's just not realistic.

How so? We all lost money in the recession, but the majority of people don't file bankruptcy.He chose to invest his money a certain way, and it failed. So yes, he should have been smarter with his money. 50 % of his money in bonds/treasurys/tips would have been wise with that type of money. That way, if his outside investments crumbled, he had a cushion.

I have zero sympathy for him.

 

[Osaurus]

Hard times for a stellar clipboard holder.

 

[Christo]

Hard times for a stellar clipboard holder.

The guy started 151 games, threw for 32,045 yards & 184 TDs and went to 3 Pro Bowls.

 

[Truman]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K.

How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

You owe 150k and you have 100k in cash and an asset worth 250k. Even if the bank calls in your loan you'll be okay.

No, you owe $400k.

Okay, I can't read. If the bank calls in that loan you're in trouble.

 

[fatness]

It's not the same as having sympathy for a kid in a wheelchair, but a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession.

I don't see what that has to do with Mark Brunell, or shows in any way that he was smart with his money. His creditors are not going to get paid. If he'd gone to a jeweler and contracted to buy lots of bling on a payment plan, then couldn't make payments, the jeweler would get the jewelry back. This is worse than that -- Brunell's creditors won't get squat, but he wants to keep his bling.

 

[nxmehta]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K.

How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

You owe 150k and you have 100k in cash and an asset worth 250k. Even if the bank calls in your loan you'll be okay.

No, you owe $400k.

Okay, I can't read. If the bank calls in that loan you're in trouble.

What kind of nutjob takes out a callable mortgage on a residence? Are those even legal in the United States anymore (since the 20s)? Are you talking about balloon mortgages? Those should only be taken in special circumstances.There are lots of circumstances that would result in Brunell going bankrupt and every single one of them involves him being an idiot.

Step 1: Earn lots of money.

Step 2: Spend within a budget.

Step 3: Put the rest of the money in stock/bond index funds.

The end. Anyone willing to do 5 minutes of reading can figure that one out. Of course people who have lots of money going bankrupt do not deserve sympathy. They either lack intelligence or discipline, and it's hard to have sympathy for that. It's a bad situation and it sucks for them, but I don't have to feel bad for them about it. Now, people getting conned with bad mortgages, that's another story.

The problem with athletes and lots of other dumb people is they think that buying businesses, buying real estate, giving out personal loans, and other high risk investments are the best ways to make "real" money, beat the market, etc. Sorry guys, not gonna happen!

 

[menobrown]

Personally I think it's worse to have money and lose it than to have never had it all. Tough as hell going backwards. So while I realize for about 20 years Brunell has lived better than most of us ever will and probably will still continue to live quite well I still sympathize with him. Not to the degree I do with someone who lacks food to eat but sympathy is not something that needs to be stingily given only to those who need it the most.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K. How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

What if you can't make the same payments? What if the economic effect which caused your house to tank in value also meant a loss of income? Lots of people lost their jobs in the economic downturn. (Brunell happened to have investments in restaurants, which all took a major hit during the downturn). The bank comes calling; now what?

That makes a lot of sense if you have a $200,000 house and lost your $40,000/year job. It's happening to good people all over the country. But there is NO reason Brunell should be bankrupt.Mark Brunell made tens of millions in a relatively short period of time. He should have never been in a situation where he couldn't afford his lifestyle. If he had too much money in restaurants (which just about everyone knows are tough to keep going and carry a good amount of risk) and not enough in other investments, then I was right. He wasn't very smart with his money.There is no reason that a guy like Brunell couldn't lose restaurant money and other investments and not be just fine with what he had put away in safer instruments. How do you make $20 million (after taxes and advisors, let's say) and not sock away five percent for a rainy day so you're still a millionaire? How in the world do you put yourself in a situation when you're at risk for MORE than all the money you're making?I'm sorry. I'm not trying to kick someone when they're down, and it's easy to make a mistake, but it's hard to feel a lot of sympathy here.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K. How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

You owe 150k and you have 100k in cash and an asset worth 250k. Even if the bank calls in your loan you'll be okay. Now imagine you have 3 more houses secured against that original property that were worth $2 million and are now worth $1M - you still owe the bank $1.5 million. Your original bank goes bust and the receivers call in your loan. You owe the receivers $1.65 million and sell your 3 houses for $1M. You now owe the bank 650k, and have 350k in assets. The bank forecloses and sells your house for 200k. You now have 100k in the bank and owe 450k. How do you repay the 350K difference?

Why would Brunell put himself in a situation where he needed to take out loans above and beyond what he can afford to pay? He's not a guy who can't afford his 250K house after he lost his job. He had to put all his money at the mercy of the housing market to the extent that if it went south he's out to dry? That's not being smart with his money. Getting into real estate is smart; buying restaurants is smart. Those things are risky but good people lose money in them all the time. Putting all your sizable eggs in those baskets when a couple of conservative decisions would give you a nice floor isn't smart.

 

[shader]

He had too many eggs in one basket and the real estate market collapsed. Happened to tons of people. I'm sure he's pretty upset about it. It's a little different than blowing the money on parties, diamonds and women.

 

[shader]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K. How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

You owe 150k and you have 100k in cash and an asset worth 250k. Even if the bank calls in your loan you'll be okay. Now imagine you have 3 more houses secured against that original property that were worth $2 million and are now worth $1M - you still owe the bank $1.5 million. Your original bank goes bust and the receivers call in your loan. You owe the receivers $1.65 million and sell your 3 houses for $1M. You now owe the bank 650k, and have 350k in assets. The bank forecloses and sells your house for 200k. You now have 100k in the bank and owe 450k. How do you repay the 350K difference?

Why would Brunell put himself in a situation where he needed to take out loans above and beyond what he can afford to pay? He's not a guy who can't afford his 250K house after he lost his job. He had to put all his money at the mercy of the housing market to the extent that if it went south he's out to dry? That's not being smart with his money. Getting into real estate is smart; buying restaurants is smart. Those things are risky but good people lose money in them all the time. Putting all your sizable eggs in those baskets when a couple of conservative decisions would give you a nice floor isn't smart.

For a long time, people weren't losing any money at all, and viewed real estate as one of the safest investments you could make. 3-4 years ago, when I'd tell people that the housing market was going to collapse, they'd laugh in my face. Everyone was on top of the world and tons of people got slaughtered.

 

[JamesTheScot]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K.

How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

You owe 150k and you have 100k in cash and an asset worth 250k. Even if the bank calls in your loan you'll be okay.

No, you owe $400k.

Okay, I can't read. If the bank calls in that loan you're in trouble.

What kind of nutjob takes out a callable mortgage on a residence? Are those even legal in the United States anymore (since the 20s)? Are you talking about balloon mortgages? Those should only be taken in special circumstances.There are lots of circumstances that would result in Brunell going bankrupt and every single one of them involves him being an idiot.

Step 1: Earn lots of money.

Step 2: Spend within a budget.

Step 3: Put the rest of the money in stock/bond index funds.

The end. Anyone willing to do 5 minutes of reading can figure that one out. Of course people who have lots of money going bankrupt do not deserve sympathy. They either lack intelligence or discipline, and it's hard to have sympathy for that. It's a bad situation and it sucks for them, but I don't have to feel bad for them about it. Now, people getting conned with bad mortgages, that's another story.

The problem with athletes and lots of other dumb people is they think that buying businesses, buying real estate, giving out personal loans, and other high risk investments are the best ways to make "real" money, beat the market, etc. Sorry guys, not gonna happen!

If you have debt, you can go bankrupt. Anyone with a mortgage right now could potentially end up in bankruptcy. So is everyone with a mortgage an idiot? All it takes is for them to lose a job and they can end up in bankruptcy court.Brunell may be an idiot, I don't know. But you seem to indicate that he's an idiot by virtue of being in bankruptcy.

And I'm not sure how you muster sympathy for someone conned into a bad mortgage. What's the differenc? Conned into a bad deal sounds like conned into a bad deal either way, whether we're talking about signing up for ARM when you thought you were getting a FRM or signing a personal note on a real estate investment deal that you think can't miss. Getting conned is getting conned.

 

[JamesTheScot]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K.

How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

You owe 150k and you have 100k in cash and an asset worth 250k. Even if the bank calls in your loan you'll be okay. Now imagine you have 3 more houses secured against that original property that were worth $2 million and are now worth $1M - you still owe the bank $1.5 million. Your original bank goes bust and the receivers call in your loan. You owe the receivers $1.65 million and sell your 3 houses for $1M. You now owe the bank 650k, and have 350k in assets. The bank forecloses and sells your house for 200k. You now have 100k in the bank and owe 450k. How do you repay the 350K difference?

Why would Brunell put himself in a situation where he needed to take out loans above and beyond what he can afford to pay? He's not a guy who can't afford his 250K house after he lost his job. He had to put all his money at the mercy of the housing market to the extent that if it went south he's out to dry? That's not being smart with his money. Getting into real estate is smart; buying restaurants is smart. Those things are risky but good people lose money in them all the time. Putting all your sizable eggs in those baskets when a couple of conservative decisions would give you a nice floor isn't smart.

That's how many investments work. Say you use debt to buy a McDonald's franchise. Do you depend on the income generated by the store to pay the debt or do you not invest at all because your 9-5 income may not be enough to pay both your home mortgage and the note on the restaurant? Tough call. How much do you (and the bank) trust your income projections for the store?

Instead, you try and mitigate your risk by going in with a couple of other folks. You figure you can handle your share of the note this way if the store doesn't go. Unfortunately, the store doesn't go because local businesses go under and traffic dwindles. And a couple of your partners go into bankruptcy...maybe because they lost their 9-5 jobs in the recession. So now the bank comes calling to you for the whole note.

Same thing can happen with real estate. You invest in a residential development believing that sales of the various houses and lots will service the debt. Or you build an office building bigger than your own business's needs thinking that you can rent the excess space and pay the note with that rent. Market goes south. If you can't move the units, you go under. If you can, you earn equity by using the rent checks to pay the note and pay you a dividend.

This isn't crazy investing. It's pretty much everyday business.

Brunell may have been in too deep in real estate. There may be some valid criticism of his failure to diversify. But the individual variables in any particular deal are where the risk will rise or fall.

 

[scooterg61]

How do people lose $50 million dollars in less than 20 years ... unbelievable. I don't have any sympathy.

Of course you don't. You don't know the whole story. Its just easier for you to pass judgment and wish him ill will than it is to find out what circumstances there might have been.

hooper.. CMOM MAN $50 million!!!.. EVER HEAR OF DONT PUT ALL YOUR EGGS IN 1 BASKET?? EVER HEAR of putting some away for a rainy day?????? i could retire at age 20 and have enough to have my kids retire also.. NO PITY FOR HIM WHATSOEVER

 

[unckeyherb]

yeah, it tough to feel bad for the dude. He got greedy and put too many eggs in one basket. Frankly, why did he need to invest at all? $50 million equates to GENERATIONAL wealth. Put it in the bank and live off the interest. Shoot, blow half of it on real estate investments if you feel like you want to play developer. You are still left with GENERATIONAL wealth.

 

[dhockster]

Let's remember that Brunell isn't a doctor or lawyer or even an MBA who's run companies. His days of being able to rebuild his wealth through his work income are just about over. Therefore, he should have been much more conservative with his investments. I have to think that he was surrounded be some pretty unethical advisors who were just trying to get their cut off his deals, rather than really look out for his overall long-term financial health.

And maybe Brunell is like a lot of famous people who thought he was smarter than he really was and he wouldn't listen to reasonable financial advise.

I have sympathy for Brunell but probably have more sympathy for the people who are owed money from Brunell.

 

[Truman]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K. How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

You owe 150k and you have 100k in cash and an asset worth 250k. Even if the bank calls in your loan you'll be okay. Now imagine you have 3 more houses secured against that original property that were worth $2 million and are now worth $1M - you still owe the bank $1.5 million. Your original bank goes bust and the receivers call in your loan. You owe the receivers $1.65 million and sell your 3 houses for $1M. You now owe the bank 650k, and have 350k in assets. The bank forecloses and sells your house for 200k. You now have 100k in the bank and owe 450k. How do you repay the 350K difference?

Why would Brunell put himself in a situation where he needed to take out loans above and beyond what he can afford to pay? He's not a guy who can't afford his 250K house after he lost his job. He had to put all his money at the mercy of the housing market to the extent that if it went south he's out to dry? That's not being smart with his money. Getting into real estate is smart; buying restaurants is smart. Those things are risky but good people lose money in them all the time. Putting all your sizable eggs in those baskets when a couple of conservative decisions would give you a nice floor isn't smart.

In my previous post I said it was either due to greed or stupidity. Most likely he got greedy.

 

[Christo]

He had too many eggs in one basket and the real estate market collapsed. Happened to tons of people. I'm sure he's pretty upset about it. It's a little different than blowing the money on parties, diamonds and women.

Is it? Investing 101 teaches you to diversify.

 

[fatness]

It's a little different than blowing the money on parties, diamonds and women.

I don't see much difference, except that with parties/diamonds/women he probably would have gotten laid more. Either way his creditors don't get paid. He didn't lose his job and income due to the economic crash. He didn't become ill or incapacitated and unable to work. I have some sympathy for people those things have happened to. Not for Brunell.

 

[GroveDiesel]

You're absolutely right that a lot of smart people lost a lot of money in the recession. But if you have millions and you lose ALL your money, you weren't being all that smart. If he lost 70 percent of his money...hey, bad things happen to good people. But to have nothing socked away is inexcusable. He had the good fortune to have a long NFL career. What a waste.

He didn't lose 70% of his money. He owes more than he has. If have $200K, and you put $100K down on a $500K house, and the value of that house goes down to $250K, you are now bankrupt despite having put aside half of your money.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing your analogy. I have 200K, and I take 100K and put it down on a house. That's 100K in the house and 100K in the bank. I'm making my payments on my 500K house. Now, the housing market tanks and my house is now worth 250K.

How am I bankrupt? I live in the same house making the same payments I always did. The pool is just as nice; the living room is just as comfortable. I still have 100K in the bank. I'm not seeing the bankruptcy. Can you explain it to me?

You owe 150k and you have 100k in cash and an asset worth 250k. Even if the bank calls in your loan you'll be okay.

No, you owe $400k.

Okay, I can't read. If the bank calls in that loan you're in trouble.

What kind of nutjob takes out a callable mortgage on a residence? Are those even legal in the United States anymore (since the 20s)? Are you talking about balloon mortgages? Those should only be taken in special circumstances.

There are lots of circumstances that would result in Brunell going bankrupt and every single one of them involves him being an idiot.

Step 1: Earn lots of money.

Step 2: Spend within a budget.

Step 3: Put the rest of the money in stock/bond index funds.

The end. Anyone willing to do 5 minutes of reading can figure that one out. Of course people who have lots of money going bankrupt do not deserve sympathy. They either lack intelligence or discipline, and it's hard to have sympathy for that. It's a bad situation and it sucks for them, but I don't have to feel bad for them about it. Now, people getting conned with bad mortgages, that's another story.

The problem with athletes and lots of other dumb people is they think that buying businesses, buying real estate,

giving out personal loans, and other high risk investments are the best ways to make "real" money, beat the market, etc. Sorry guys, not gonna happen!

If you have debt, you can go bankrupt. Anyone with a mortgage right now could potentially end up in bankruptcy. So is everyone with a mortgage an idiot? All it takes is for them to lose a job and they can end up in bankruptcy court.

Brunell may be an idiot, I don't know. But you seem to indicate that he's an idiot by virtue of being in bankruptcy.

And I'm not sure how you muster sympathy for someone conned into a bad mortgage. What's the differenc? Conned into a bad deal sounds like conned into a bad deal either way, whether we're talking about signing up for ARM when you thought you were getting a FRM or signing a personal note on a real estate investment deal that you think can't miss. Getting conned is getting conned.

Brunell made $50M in a short period. He had no reason to even have any debt except he wanted a lot MORE money. Instead of buying a $1M house, investing in mutual funds and living a nice life off the interest, he spent more than he had in order to try to get super rich and he failed. Not a whole lot different than someone gambling their life savings away in a casino, only his odds were probably a little better of succeeding.

 

[FUBAR]

If you have debt, you can go bankrupt. Anyone with a mortgage right now could potentially end up in bankruptcy. So is everyone with a mortgage an idiot? All it takes is for them to lose a job and they can end up in bankruptcy court.

Many people I know with mortgages could pay them off with their retirement investments. They don't want to, but in a pinch, they could. Unless of course the stock market and real estate markets both crash at the same time as he loses his job. In which case, I'd have sympathy for that person.

But, this is not what we have here with Brunell.