bankrupt Mark Brunell wants stuff (1 Viewer)

[atl3695]

$50 Million is a lot to burn through but we certainly are not seeing the whole story in this little bit offered in the OP.

Ah, the "we don't really know what the story is" defense. Perhaps you can post the rest of the story we haven't seen. The last link above was from the Wall Street Journal dated Aprils 16, 2011, and contains information from Brunell's court filing. link

Rest of the story? How about:

-How did Brunell go from $25mil in debt to only $7mil when he was "bankrupt"?

-Are there any partners that are paying this debt also and what is Brunells percentage of the debt? If multiple people personally signed, they would sue everyone for the full amount but get what they can from everyone.

-Did Brunell set up a trust for his kids that not subject to bk? This so called "rainy day" fund everyone here is blasting him for not having? Any assets that were left in his wife's name?

-How about his personal residence. Florida used to allow a personal residence exemption with no cap. You could buy a 20mil house, file bk and keep the house or any proceeds from the sale of the house. Is this law still the same? Does it apply to Brunell? How much is his personal residence worth? You have no clue.

-Who cares about his creditors. They are in business to make safe loans and do their due diligence. If Brunell is a fool for taking the loan, the bank is equally responsible for giving it to him.

-Etc, Etc, Etc.

I know football fans are used to playing Monday Morning Quarterback, but this is like doing that while only looking at the box score and not watching the game. Sure you have sort of an idea what happenned, but too many unknowns from these articles for all the bashing going on.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

If he had been smarter with his money, he wouldn't have to be psychic. If he had seen the problem he wouldn't have invested at all. But if you never invest because of what *could* happen, you'll never invest anything. None of that excuses Brunell for his poor decision-making. He could have invested in pretty much anything in moderation, lost it all and still been fine. Instead he risked more than he had. That's not smart, no matter how many advisors tell you different.

The vast majority of homeowners are "risking more than they have" by your definition.

The majority of homeowners have the means to make their payments. Of course, many go into default as soon as they lose their job or there's a change in their finances. To be honest, many of those people shouldn't own homes. We call it "The American Dream," not "The American Birthright." You really shouldn't own a home until you can reasonably make your payments for the foreseeable future and have a nice cushion if you can't. If you have two years' worth of payments in case of emergency, losing your job doesn't mean you go bankrupt. In any case, too many people took on loans they never should have received.I'm not sure why Brunell is being compared to these people, though. He burned through tens of millions of dollars. There is no reason for Mark Brunell to risk more than he had. He had too much to do that.

This post gave me a good laugh. So many opinions from people who have NO IDEA what they are are talking about.To compare commercial real estate investments to someone paying a mortgage on their personal home are totally different issues.

No one hear has any idea into Brunells finances. He filed for re-organization. That means he plans to work out a plan with his creditors and pay what he can. He most likely filed because he needed more time to sell his properties in a slow market. His debt was $25 mil when he filed and has already been reduced to only $7 million.

WSJ 4-16-11

Florida also has a homestead exemption where he could keep his personal residence. Also you have no idea if Brunell has set up trusts, annuities, life insurance plans,etc. that are not subject to BK. He and his family may be very well set so to say that he put nothing aside is pure speculation and ignorance.

Most pro athletes are very competitive and sitting at home "living off their interest" doesnt fit their personality. He is too young to retire at 40 so he made investments and tried to start his second career. Roger Staubach and Magic Johnson seemed to do ok.

His investments didnt work out, but that happened to lots of people. Hope this lockout ends quick. Financial issues dont seem to be a shark pool specialty .

This attitude is why people listen to "smart" advisors...and file for bankruptcy. You can laugh, but Mark Brunell isn't laughing. He actually put your philosophy into action. There's nothing wrong with trying to start a second career. There is definitely something wrong when a multi-millionaire can't get a hold of his finances. Even if he has annuities and insurance plans, why would such a young man put so much away that can't be accessed at his age without penalties or loss of principal? What advisor would tell him to sock his money away there and run up $25 million in debt? Is that supposed to be an indication of how smart he is with his money?

Maybe being more conservative with his money doesn't "fit his personality." You know what doesn't fit my personality? Filing for bankruptcy. Begging the courts to keep things I earned. Embarrassing my family with this kind of story when I made tens of millions over my career. Financial issues might not be a Shark Pool specialty, but handling your business seems to be. I know that because only a few people are actually defending Brunell for such poor decision-making with his money and pretending it makes sense financially.

 

[Chadstroma]

$50 Million is a lot to burn through but we certainly are not seeing the whole story in this little bit offered in the OP.

Ah, the "we don't really know what the story is" defense. Perhaps you can post the rest of the story we haven't seen. The last link above was from the Wall Street Journal dated Aprils 16, 2011, and contains information from Brunell's court filing. link

Where is the defense? I simply said we did not see the whole story... even your additional blog report does not paint the entire picture.

 

[Chadstroma]

I have much more sympathy for someone who at least tries to make good decisions with his money by investing it and loses it- than someone who parties it away.

How about the people to whom they owe money?

Bankruptcy is part of our laws. I suppose your suggestion is that we no longer have bankruptcy and start building debtors prisons?

 

[Chadstroma]

First, he is not in a profession that you can really project how long or how much money he will make. Second, what do you propose a person does who makes money? Not invest? I have much more sympathy for someone who at least tries to make good decisions with his money by investing it and loses it- than someone who parties it away.

I think you and others are missing the point. There is no reason that a guy with $50 million needs to put $50 million+ in play, other than delusions of granduer or simple greediness. It apparent that he wasn't even trying to make good decisions.

Also, why is someone that parties it away the only other option? Frankly, if you have $50 million one day, and owe money the next, I have little sympathy for your plight, regardless of how you got there. You really need to try to over extend yourself to do that and there haven't been any posts so far that can explain why someone would do that-many that explain how you can lose your millions-but none that can convince me why it should happen.

There is an awful lot of assumptions made here.

 

[Chadstroma]

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.

At what point does someone have enough money? It boggles my mind that someone can have 30 million and go "you know, that's just not enough. I need to make some risky investments and double that stash".

First, he is not in a profession that you can really project how long or how much money he will make. Second, what do you propose a person does who makes money? Not invest? I have much more sympathy for someone who at least tries to make good decisions with his money by investing it and loses it- than someone who parties it away.

So greed is better than gluttony?

Investing is greed?

 

[Chadstroma]

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.

At what point does someone have enough money? It boggles my mind that someone can have 30 million and go "you know, that's just not enough. I need to make some risky investments and double that stash".

First, he is not in a profession that you can really project how long or how much money he will make. Second, what do you propose a person does who makes money? Not invest? I have much more sympathy for someone who at least tries to make good decisions with his money by investing it and loses it- than someone who parties it away.

Of course, a person with a lot of money should invest. As should a person with significantly smaller income. But one would have to make an intelligent asset allocation which is not difficult at all. A combination of equities, bonds, cash, real estate is a good general start. And with a person making millions of dollars, the wise move would be to put 30-40 % in bonds/treasuries/fixed income. Having 10 % of a portfolio is not a bad idea, but it sounds like Brunell had significantly more and was really over leveraged. Very poor decisions. Everyone, millionaires and minimum wage took a hit during the current downturn, but the vast majority didn't declare bankruptcy. Not saying Brunell isn't a good guy, just that I have zero sympathy for him.

I do not disagree with anything said here. But let me just state that I don't have a bleeding heart for him and at the same time, I do not see any reason to crucify him. People make bad decisions in life at times. Mark apparently has made some bad financial decisions. People that are not use to having or working with money see $50 Million and bankruptcy and start screaming about 'greed' and the like. The negative over reactions, in my view, is more about jealousy than anything else. And as the lottery has shown, statistically, if you gave $50 million to everyone in this thread that are just foaming at the mouth, a good chunk of them would be doing the exact same thing as Mark is now. Sure, a bunch would not, but having a lot of money does not guarantee that you will always have money.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Investing is greed?

Sometimes, yes.

 

[fatness]

Let's look a little more at what Mark Brunell says in his bankruptcy filing.

link posted previously

He says his income after the bankruptcy will be $5000/month. That's all he'll have to live on, $60k/yr. A former NFL player thought of as a good guy, with many contacts, will be making $60k/yr. if you believe him. Yet he has committed to 'pay' $16,300 to keep his bling. That's over 3 months income, if you believe him about his income after bankruptcy.

In February, he spent 20% of that $5000/mo. amount on a ski trip.

In February, he spent 50% of that $5000/mo. amount on private school tuition.

In February, he spent 17.8% of that $5000/mo. amount on Victoria's Secret purchases.

In February, he made 880% of that $5000/mo. amount in income (he made over $44k).

 

[fatness]

Where is the defense? I simply said we did not see the whole story... even your additional blog report does not paint the entire picture.

I'm criticizing Mark Brunell based on things we know. You're defending him based on things supposedly unknown. For all you know, unknown things paint him in even a worse light, yet you defend him.

Bankruptcy is part of our laws. I suppose your suggestion is that we no longer have bankruptcy and start building debtors prisons?

Save the red herrings for your political fights.

 

[Chadstroma]

Where is the defense? I simply said we did not see the whole story... even your additional blog report does not paint the entire picture.

I'm criticizing Mark Brunell based on things we know. You're defending him based on things supposedly unknown. For all you know, unknown things paint him in even a worse light, yet you defend him.

Bankruptcy is part of our laws. I suppose your suggestion is that we no longer have bankruptcy and start building debtors prisons?

Save the red herrings for your political fights.

No, I am simply stating the truth. You do not have all the information but you are quick to damn him. You simply do not have the big picture- maybe he deserves to be attacked and maybe he doesn't, but from the limited information that we have, any reasonable, rational and well informed individual who understands finance/personal finances by way of profession- likely would not. I am not sure why you are making this such a personal fight thing. You are going out of your way here. You continue to push the notion that I am defending him, which I am not. You ignore what I write and continue your knee jerk reactions. Yes, he made a lot of money and apparently made a lot of bad investment decisions (which is not unheard of in general and pretty common over the last few years). I just do not see where you get the omniscience to understand the entire situation and the moral authority to attack him. That is all. It really is not more complicated than that. He is clearly at the end of his career, so his income potential is very limited. Who knows if he will even carry a roster spot- at this point, I would think not. Will the Jets have him back? I don't see why now that Sanchez has some field time to be experienced. His investments have apparently largely gone sour- so what do you expect him to do, again, since you apparently have full knowledge of the situation and have the moral superiority to judge him, in this situation? In fact, why don't you explain his entire financial life to us. From when he entered the league and started making very good money to this point. Please enlighten us on every decision point along the way and judge it for us. I would really love to learn from someone that is certainly as experienced, knowledgeable and wise as yourself. Obviously, to you this is a black and white issue and you do not accept anything less than that, so explain it.

 

[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.

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.

At what point does someone have enough money? It boggles my mind that someone can have 30 million and go "you know, that's just not enough. I need to make some risky investments and double that stash".

First, he is not in a profession that you can really project how long or how much money he will make. Second, what do you propose a person does who makes money? Not invest? I have much more sympathy for someone who at least tries to make good decisions with his money by investing it and loses it- than someone who parties it away.

Of course, a person with a lot of money should invest. As should a person with significantly smaller income. But one would have to make an intelligent asset allocation which is not difficult at all. A combination of equities, bonds, cash, real estate is a good general start. And with a person making millions of dollars, the wise move would be to put 30-40 % in bonds/treasuries/fixed income. Having 10 % of a portfolio is not a bad idea, but it sounds like Brunell had significantly more and was really over leveraged. Very poor decisions. Everyone, millionaires and minimum wage took a hit during the current downturn, but the vast majority didn't declare bankruptcy. Not saying Brunell isn't a good guy, just that I have zero sympathy for him.

I do not disagree with anything said here. But let me just state that I don't have a bleeding heart for him and at the same time, I do not see any reason to crucify him. People make bad decisions in life at times. Mark apparently has made some bad financial decisions. People that are not use to having or working with money see $50 Million and bankruptcy and start screaming about 'greed' and the like. The negative over reactions, in my view, is more about jealousy than anything else. And as the lottery has shown, statistically, if you gave $50 million to everyone in this thread that are just foaming at the mouth, a good chunk of them would be doing the exact same thing as Mark is now. Sure, a bunch would not, but having a lot of money does not guarantee that you will always have money.

* Nobody here can crucify Brunell, or affect him in any way. It's just criticism he'll never read from strangers he'll never meet. Not a big deal. * This isn't a "bad decision." This is a series of bad decisions that threw away the kind of financial stability few will ever see. It's not something you can do in a day or two.

* There's no jealousy here. I didn't file for bankruptcy. I can handle my business. I have a little pity mixed in with disgust. Why would anyone be jealous of a person who has to beg the courts to keep things he earned?

* If people would be doing the same things he did...shame on them. This is not something that "could happen to anybody" like catching a cold. It's amazing to me that Brunell didn't have anyone in his life telling him to watch what he was doing. He either never solicited such advice or never followed it. Either way he bears responsibility for his condition.

 

[unckeyherb]

First, he is not in a profession that you can really project how long or how much money he will make. Second, what do you propose a person does who makes money? Not invest? I have much more sympathy for someone who at least tries to make good decisions with his money by investing it and loses it- than someone who parties it away.

I think you and others are missing the point. There is no reason that a guy with $50 million needs to put $50 million+ in play, other than delusions of granduer or simple greediness. It apparent that he wasn't even trying to make good decisions.

Also, why is someone that parties it away the only other option? Frankly, if you have $50 million one day, and owe money the next, I have little sympathy for your plight, regardless of how you got there. You really need to try to over extend yourself to do that and there haven't been any posts so far that can explain why someone would do that-many that explain how you can lose your millions-but none that can convince me why it should happen.

There is an awful lot of assumptions made here.

No more or less than the assumptions you are making that there are "parts of this story we don't know". Regardless I still stick to my bolded point-and your responses don't answer it. The issue that people are taking is that he didn't need to put himself in the situation where he could go bankrupt.

 

[Chadstroma]

* Nobody here can crucify Brunell, or affect him in any way. It's just criticism he'll never read from strangers he'll never meet. Not a big deal.

Right... it is always good to degrade people when they don't know about it.

* This isn't a "bad decision." This is a series of bad decisions that threw away the kind of financial stability few will ever see. It's not something you can do in a day or two.

No disagreement.

* There's no jealousy here. I didn't file for bankruptcy. I can handle my business. I have a little pity mixed in with disgust. Why would anyone be jealous of a person who has to beg the courts to keep things he earned?

The jealousy is in seeing $50 million and many of the people being critical will not make a tenth of that in their entire lifetime. There is real jealousy about that. Heck, I am jealous about that. Some people just automatically react to that and lash out. I think that that is at play here.

* If people would be doing the same things he did...shame on them. This is not something that "could happen to anybody" like catching a cold. It's amazing to me that Brunell didn't have anyone in his life telling him to watch what he was doing. He either never solicited such advice or never followed it. Either way he bears responsibility for his condition.

Again, we do not have the entire picture here. You, me, no one on this board has enough information about this to be so confident in their criticism or feel morally superior that they would not make the same mistakes in his shoes.

 

[Chadstroma]

First, he is not in a profession that you can really project how long or how much money he will make. Second, what do you propose a person does who makes money? Not invest? I have much more sympathy for someone who at least tries to make good decisions with his money by investing it and loses it- than someone who parties it away.

I think you and others are missing the point. There is no reason that a guy with $50 million needs to put $50 million+ in play, other than delusions of granduer or simple greediness. It apparent that he wasn't even trying to make good decisions.

Also, why is someone that parties it away the only other option? Frankly, if you have $50 million one day, and owe money the next, I have little sympathy for your plight, regardless of how you got there. You really need to try to over extend yourself to do that and there haven't been any posts so far that can explain why someone would do that-many that explain how you can lose your millions-but none that can convince me why it should happen.

There is an awful lot of assumptions made here.

No more or less than the assumptions you are making that there are "parts of this story we don't know". Regardless I still stick to my bolded point-and your responses don't answer it. The issue that people are taking is that he didn't need to put himself in the situation where he could go bankrupt.

I am not making an assumption that I do not know the whole story, I know I do not know the whole story. That is really my point. I can not answer your bolded question because again, I do not know the whole story. Neither do you. My problem is not that I am defending Mark (as many of you keep erroneously believing) but that I simply am pointing out the fact that many of you are looking at 2+2+ +2 =? and in a knee jerk reaction with supreme confidence and misguided understanding are telling everyone else that it is obviously 8 and that anyone that says that you can not answer the question is wrong. The real answer is that none of you know.

I suspect that most (if not all) of you do not have any experience or expertise in finance/personal finance in any kind of professional arena. I would also venture a guess in that most (if not all) either do not invest or are overly conservative in their investments. You assume that your risk tolerance is the right risk tolerance for investing (or you are like way too many Americans and do not bother with even an overly conservative investment). There are plenty of people that would look at $50 million income over a decade or so as peanuts, and if these people made their money, they risked their money to get there. Maybe you look at $50 million and think, wow, that is all I need to live comfortably for the rest of my life but that is the same mental capacity that almost ensures that you will never see that much money unless you completely luck out with a lottery ticket.

You guys don't know. Stop trying to act like you do.

 

[Insein]

I am not making an assumption that I do not know the whole story, I know I do not know the whole story. That is really my point. I can not answer your bolded question because again, I do not know the whole story. Neither do you. My problem is not that I am defending Mark (as many of you keep erroneously believing) but that I simply am pointing out the fact that many of you are looking at 2+2+ +2 =? and in a knee jerk reaction with supreme confidence and misguided understanding are telling everyone else that it is obviously 8 and that anyone that says that you can not answer the question is wrong. The real answer is that none of you know. I suspect that most (if not all) of you do not have any experience or expertise in finance/personal finance in any kind of professional arena. I would also venture a guess in that most (if not all) either do not invest or are overly conservative in their investments. You assume that your risk tolerance is the right risk tolerance for investing (or you are like way too many Americans and do not bother with even an overly conservative investment). There are plenty of people that would look at $50 million income over a decade or so as peanuts, and if these people made their money, they risked their money to get there. Maybe you look at $50 million and think, wow, that is all I need to live comfortably for the rest of my life but that is the same mental capacity that almost ensures that you will never see that much money unless you completely luck out with a lottery ticket. You guys don't know. Stop trying to act like you do.

/thread

 

[unckeyherb]

First, he is not in a profession that you can really project how long or how much money he will make. Second, what do you propose a person does who makes money? Not invest? I have much more sympathy for someone who at least tries to make good decisions with his money by investing it and loses it- than someone who parties it away.

I think you and others are missing the point. There is no reason that a guy with $50 million needs to put $50 million+ in play, other than delusions of granduer or simple greediness. It apparent that he wasn't even trying to make good decisions.

Also, why is someone that parties it away the only other option? Frankly, if you have $50 million one day, and owe money the next, I have little sympathy for your plight, regardless of how you got there. You really need to try to over extend yourself to do that and there haven't been any posts so far that can explain why someone would do that-many that explain how you can lose your millions-but none that can convince me why it should happen.

There is an awful lot of assumptions made here.

No more or less than the assumptions you are making that there are "parts of this story we don't know". Regardless I still stick to my bolded point-and your responses don't answer it. The issue that people are taking is that he didn't need to put himself in the situation where he could go bankrupt.

I am not making an assumption that I do not know the whole story, I know I do not know the whole story. That is really my point. I can not answer your bolded question because again, I do not know the whole story. Neither do you. My problem is not that I am defending Mark (as many of you keep erroneously believing) but that I simply am pointing out the fact that many of you are looking at 2+2+ +2 =? and in a knee jerk reaction with supreme confidence and misguided understanding are telling everyone else that it is obviously 8 and that anyone that says that you can not answer the question is wrong. The real answer is that none of you know.

I suspect that most (if not all) of you do not have any experience or expertise in finance/personal finance in any kind of professional arena. I would also venture a guess in that most (if not all) either do not invest or are overly conservative in their investments. You assume that your risk tolerance is the right risk tolerance for investing (or you are like way too many Americans and do not bother with even an overly conservative investment). There are plenty of people that would look at $50 million income over a decade or so as peanuts, and if these people made their money, they risked their money to get there. Maybe you look at $50 million and think, wow, that is all I need to live comfortably for the rest of my life but that is the same mental capacity that almost ensures that you will never see that much money unless you completely luck out with a lottery ticket.

You guys don't know. Stop trying to act like you do.

dude, if anyone is coming off as sounding like they are superior its you. You are lecturing/scolding people for considering the loss of $50 million dollars to be a big deal. And you are basing your scolding on the ASSUMPTION that those that invest lack the mentally capacity to do so successfully because we are conservative. I take exception to that, but whatever-you are entitled to think what you want. I got news for you though, I look at $50 million lost on real estate ventures by one person and I don't see peanuts; I see someone that made some very poor choices and with the evidence that is available I don't see a reason that would make me feel sorry for him. Regardless, my point STILL has not been answered, and while you said you do not know I'll ask you to venture a guess, because all this back and forth boils down to people either sympathizing with his plight and those that feel no pity for him.

You obviously think there may be more to the story that would make it understandable-even vindicating-that a guy could lose $50 million+ (all his money and then some) on real estate speculation. I'd like to know what you think might be a plausible explanation that would enable me to understand or even have some pity for him.

 

[Chadstroma]

dude, if anyone is coming off as sounding like they are superior its you. You are lecturing/scolding people for considering the loss of $50 million dollars to be a big deal. And you are basing your scolding on the ASSUMPTION that those that invest lack the mentally capacity to do so successfully because we are conservative. I take exception to that, but whatever-you are entitled to think what you want. I got news for you though, I look at $50 million lost on real estate ventures by one person and I don't see peanuts; I see someone that made some very poor choices and with the evidence that is available I don't see a reason that would make me feel sorry for him. Regardless, my point STILL has not been answered, and while you said you do not know I'll ask you to venture a guess, because all this back and forth boils down to people either sympathizing with his plight and those that feel no pity for him. You obviously think there may be more to the story that would make it understandable-even vindicating-that a guy could lose $50 million+ (all his money and then some) on real estate speculation. I'd like to know what you think might be a plausible explanation that would enable me to understand or even have some pity for him.

I see some of these posts and I do not see 'feel no pity for him' which is a neutral term but active negative attacks. And there is no point in that because ONE LAST TIME- you have no idea about the circumstances. My point, one more time, is that you do not know. It seems something that you can not grasp but that is the end of the story. Continue to attack the guy but understand that someone pointed out your ignorance in the matter.

 

[unckeyherb]

dude, if anyone is coming off as sounding like they are superior its you. You are lecturing/scolding people for considering the loss of $50 million dollars to be a big deal. And you are basing your scolding on the ASSUMPTION that those that invest lack the mentally capacity to do so successfully because we are conservative. I take exception to that, but whatever-you are entitled to think what you want. I got news for you though, I look at $50 million lost on real estate ventures by one person and I don't see peanuts; I see someone that made some very poor choices and with the evidence that is available I don't see a reason that would make me feel sorry for him. Regardless, my point STILL has not been answered, and while you said you do not know I'll ask you to venture a guess, because all this back and forth boils down to people either sympathizing with his plight and those that feel no pity for him. You obviously think there may be more to the story that would make it understandable-even vindicating-that a guy could lose $50 million+ (all his money and then some) on real estate speculation. I'd like to know what you think might be a plausible explanation that would enable me to understand or even have some pity for him.

I see some of these posts and I do not see 'feel no pity for him' which is a neutral term but active negative attacks. And there is no point in that because ONE LAST TIME- you have no idea about the circumstances. My point, one more time, is that you do not know. It seems something that you can not grasp but that is the end of the story. Continue to attack the guy but understand that someone pointed out your ignorance in the matter.

Since you continue to not address my question in even the most hypothetical sense I'll assume that you at least tacitly accept that he probably didn't need to lose all of his money and leave it at that. But I will duly note that you pointed out my ignorance in the matter.

 

[Chadstroma]

dude, if anyone is coming off as sounding like they are superior its you. You are lecturing/scolding people for considering the loss of $50 million dollars to be a big deal. And you are basing your scolding on the ASSUMPTION that those that invest lack the mentally capacity to do so successfully because we are conservative. I take exception to that, but whatever-you are entitled to think what you want. I got news for you though, I look at $50 million lost on real estate ventures by one person and I don't see peanuts; I see someone that made some very poor choices and with the evidence that is available I don't see a reason that would make me feel sorry for him.

Regardless, my point STILL has not been answered, and while you said you do not know I'll ask you to venture a guess, because all this back and forth boils down to people either sympathizing with his plight and those that feel no pity for him.

You obviously think there may be more to the story that would make it understandable-even vindicating-that a guy could lose $50 million+ (all his money and then some) on real estate speculation. I'd like to know what you think might be a plausible explanation that would enable me to understand or even have some pity for him.

I see some of these posts and I do not see 'feel no pity for him' which is a neutral term but active negative attacks. And there is no point in that because ONE LAST TIME- you have no idea about the circumstances. My point, one more time, is that you do not know. It seems something that you can not grasp but that is the end of the story. Continue to attack the guy but understand that someone pointed out your ignorance in the matter.

Since you continue to not address my question in even the most hypothetical sense I'll assume that you at least tacitly accept that he probably didn't need to lose all of his money and leave it at that. But I will duly note that you pointed out my ignorance in the matter.

I continue to not address your question because I can not, based on the information available, give a decent analysis of what happened. I am not going to play fantasyland because there are just way too many variables from a well over decade long career, personal finance decisions, and investment decisions to come up with anything that is worthwhile without spending way too much time on it. I accept that he probably didn't need to lose all his money. It would be a silly position to defend to say he needed to lose his money. He also did not need to simply live off of his income without investing. We know he made some bad real estate investments from the filing and beyond that it is hard to come up with too much more that is useful in this discussion. Which brings us back to my point- we don't know. (notice we, meaning we, on this board, are all ignorant in the matter)

And let me address something that I think some are thinking here. I am not a defender of those who make bad financial decisions. I am critical of my mother and her financial decisions because I am very knowledgeable about it. I see the whole picture and thus I can reasonably criticize some of her decisions, to the point of which I have taken over a large part of her financials.

 

[Da Guru]

Pro athletes are a puzzling lot.

If they told Brunell in college he would make 30 million playing pro football he would probably think he would retire a very happy, wealthy man at a young age.

Then they try to parlay that into more wealth and end up losing it all.

Do you know how to make a small fortune? Give a large fortune to a NFL player.

 

[fatness]

The jealousy is in seeing $50 million and many of the people being critical will not make a tenth of that in their entire lifetime. There is real jealousy about that. Heck, I am jealous about that.

You'll get over it. Walk it off.

 

[FUBAR]

Pro athletes are a puzzling lot.

If they told Brunell in college he would make 30 million playing pro football he would probably think he would retire a very happy, wealthy man at a young age.

Then they try to parlay that into more wealth and end up losing it all.

Do you know how to make a small fortune? Give a large fortune to a NFL player.

The same can be said for most people who attain a lot of money without a good foundation. Lottery winners, rock stars, athletes, real estate speculators, etc. Too many of these people lose fortunes. The lucky ones are able to make it back. But for pro athletes, their earning power is usually significantly diminished by the time they wise up.

ETA: "lucky" might not be the right word, but "blessed" seemed to be pushing religion.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

* Nobody here can crucify Brunell, or affect him in any way. It's just criticism he'll never read from strangers he'll never meet. Not a big deal.

Right... it is always good to degrade people when they don't know about it.

* This isn't a "bad decision." This is a series of bad decisions that threw away the kind of financial stability few will ever see. It's not something you can do in a day or two.

No disagreement.

* There's no jealousy here. I didn't file for bankruptcy. I can handle my business. I have a little pity mixed in with disgust. Why would anyone be jealous of a person who has to beg the courts to keep things he earned?

The jealousy is in seeing $50 million and many of the people being critical will not make a tenth of that in their entire lifetime. There is real jealousy about that. Heck, I am jealous about that. Some people just automatically react to that and lash out. I think that that is at play here.

* If people would be doing the same things he did...shame on them. This is not something that "could happen to anybody" like catching a cold. It's amazing to me that Brunell didn't have anyone in his life telling him to watch what he was doing. He either never solicited such advice or never followed it. Either way he bears responsibility for his condition.

Again, we do not have the entire picture here. You, me, no one on this board has enough information about this to be so confident in their criticism or feel morally superior that they would not make the same mistakes in his shoes.

I can be completely confident that I would not make the same mistakes because I'm a more conservative investor and I wouldn't do it with just what I know. Throw in trusted people giving advice and it becomes a lock. It's hard to imagine that he consulted a number of smart financial people and they all gave him the green light to put himself in that position. I'm sorry, but if you talked to 10 well-respected financial advisors, I simply do not believe that they'd look at what Brunell did and say "Yeah, looks good to me." Again, I can't imagine being jealous of someone who has to beg the courts to keep his rings. It's a shame that he had such great talent to earn a superior living...and ends up in bankruptcy. What I find interesting is the number of people (not saying you're one of them) who chalk it up to "well, real estate went bad. Who knew it was gonna be risky?" as if that makes any sense whatsoever.Here's the information I have: Brunell earned $50 million (let's say he saw $20 million). He knew his career had a finite lifespan, which lasted much longer than average. He ends up in bankruptcy. I don't think I need any other information to conclude that Brunell wasn't smart with his money. Whether it's restaurants, real estate, hookers, Vegas, eBay, Amway or GM stock, there's no excuse for ending up $25 million in the red. If you think there's some "unknown" info that would change things, I'd like to hear some speculation as to what it could possibly be.

 

[renesauz]

First time in this thread. Interesting how the overwhelming majority of it is about how/why Brunell is an idiot for going BK to start with, and not about the original premise....should he be able to keep the rings?

I think perspective is in order. These rings are trophys first, before jewelry. You don't lightly take someone's trophys away. While they have value, the value of them is far far less than what is owed, and they were never offered as collateral. With that in mind, he should keep them with a single caveat....if he sells them while still in the BK, 3/4 of the proceeds go to the creditors. Simple. (Not saying he should keep every piece of expensive bling he owns, but 2 or 3 trophy rings are certainly reasonable.) Items like these are kept in BKs all of the time, often for very similar reasons.

 

[unckeyherb]

* Nobody here can crucify Brunell, or affect him in any way. It's just criticism he'll never read from strangers he'll never meet. Not a big deal.

Right... it is always good to degrade people when they don't know about it.

* This isn't a "bad decision." This is a series of bad decisions that threw away the kind of financial stability few will ever see. It's not something you can do in a day or two.

No disagreement.

* There's no jealousy here. I didn't file for bankruptcy. I can handle my business. I have a little pity mixed in with disgust. Why would anyone be jealous of a person who has to beg the courts to keep things he earned?

The jealousy is in seeing $50 million and many of the people being critical will not make a tenth of that in their entire lifetime. There is real jealousy about that. Heck, I am jealous about that. Some people just automatically react to that and lash out. I think that that is at play here.

* If people would be doing the same things he did...shame on them. This is not something that "could happen to anybody" like catching a cold. It's amazing to me that Brunell didn't have anyone in his life telling him to watch what he was doing. He either never solicited such advice or never followed it. Either way he bears responsibility for his condition.

Again, we do not have the entire picture here. You, me, no one on this board has enough information about this to be so confident in their criticism or feel morally superior that they would not make the same mistakes in his shoes.

I can be completely confident that I would not make the same mistakes because I'm a more conservative investor and I wouldn't do it with just what I know. Throw in trusted people giving advice and it becomes a lock. It's hard to imagine that he consulted a number of smart financial people and they all gave him the green light to put himself in that position. I'm sorry, but if you talked to 10 well-respected financial advisors, I simply do not believe that they'd look at what Brunell did and say "Yeah, looks good to me." Again, I can't imagine being jealous of someone who has to beg the courts to keep his rings. It's a shame that he had such great talent to earn a superior living...and ends up in bankruptcy. What I find interesting is the number of people (not saying you're one of them) who chalk it up to "well, real estate went bad. Who knew it was gonna be risky?" as if that makes any sense whatsoever.

Here's the information I have: Brunell earned $50 million (let's say he saw $20 million). He knew his career had a finite lifespan, which lasted much longer than average. He ends up in bankruptcy. I don't think I need any other information to conclude that Brunell wasn't smart with his money. Whether it's restaurants, real estate, hookers, Vegas, eBay, Amway or GM stock, there's no excuse for ending up $25 million in the red. If you think there's some "unknown" info that would change things, I'd like to hear some speculation as to what it could possibly be.

and good luck getting the bolded answered...

 

[massraider]

No one hear has any idea into Brunells finances.

Actually, yes we do. The link you posted gives a pretty detailed look at his big fat sense of entitlement.

WSJ 4-16-11

From that article.

Veteran National Football League quarterback Mark Brunell has committed to pay $16,300 for his personal effects—including a 2010 Super Bowl ring and a 1991 NCAA national championship ring—that could otherwise become the property of his creditors as part of a repayment plan he filed this week with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Jacksonville, Fla., the Florida Times-Union first reported.

Brunell served primarily as a reserve for both the 2010 New Orleans Saints and 1991 University of Washington Huskies. Under Brunell’s proposed plan, he will raise at least $350,000 to repay his unsecured creditors, who were owed more than $21 million at the time of his Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in June 2010. Court papers, however, show that during the bankruptcy process the claims against Brunell have been reduced to $7.4 million, including his secured debts.

To raise the funds, Brunell will sell Jacksonville property valued at $295,000 and a 1983 Jeep CJ7 and buy back his mementos, which also include three Rose Bowl rings, two watches and collection of shotguns. The plan didn’t specify how Brunell would finance that purchase, but court records show he had some $822,000 in several bank accounts at the end of February and took in more than $44,000 that month from wages and investment income.

The plan allows Brunell to enter into revised financing agreements so that he can keep his Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., home and two vehicles. Other of his properties will be turned over to secured lenders to satisfy their debts.

The vast majority of Brunell’s unsecured debts were his personal guarantees of failed business transactions, including a number of real estate-ventures.

While Brunell made millions in his NFL career, which included three trips to the Pro Bowl as a member of the Jacksonville Jaguars, his bankruptcy plan is based upon earning $5,000 in monthly wages.

The plan stated that Brunell, who is still under contract with the New York Jets, may have finished his playing career because his deal with the team is not guaranteed and a labor dispute has cast doubt over the entire NFL season.

According to court records, Brunell has righted his financial ship, taking in more money in February than he spent. Among the Brunell family’s purchases were about $1,000 for a ski trip to New York’s Windham Mountain, $2,500 for private-school tuition and $891.53 for items at Victoria Secret—$322.51 of which was later returned.

Hang on, part of his big fat sense of entitlement includes him BUYING his ring back?

 

[unckeyherb]

No one hear has any idea into Brunells finances.

Actually, yes we do. The link you posted gives a pretty detailed look at his big fat sense of entitlement.

WSJ 4-16-11

From that article.

Veteran National Football League quarterback Mark Brunell has committed to pay $16,300 for his personal effects—including a 2010 Super Bowl ring and a 1991 NCAA national championship ring—that could otherwise become the property of his creditors as part of a repayment plan he filed this week with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Jacksonville, Fla., the Florida Times-Union first reported.

Brunell served primarily as a reserve for both the 2010 New Orleans Saints and 1991 University of Washington Huskies. Under Brunell’s proposed plan, he will raise at least $350,000 to repay his unsecured creditors, who were owed more than $21 million at the time of his Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in June 2010. Court papers, however, show that during the bankruptcy process the claims against Brunell have been reduced to $7.4 million, including his secured debts.

To raise the funds, Brunell will sell Jacksonville property valued at $295,000 and a 1983 Jeep CJ7 and buy back his mementos, which also include three Rose Bowl rings, two watches and collection of shotguns. The plan didn’t specify how Brunell would finance that purchase, but court records show he had some $822,000 in several bank accounts at the end of February and took in more than $44,000 that month from wages and investment income.

The plan allows Brunell to enter into revised financing agreements so that he can keep his Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., home and two vehicles. Other of his properties will be turned over to secured lenders to satisfy their debts.

The vast majority of Brunell’s unsecured debts were his personal guarantees of failed business transactions, including a number of real estate-ventures.

While Brunell made millions in his NFL career, which included three trips to the Pro Bowl as a member of the Jacksonville Jaguars, his bankruptcy plan is based upon earning $5,000 in monthly wages.

The plan stated that Brunell, who is still under contract with the New York Jets, may have finished his playing career because his deal with the team is not guaranteed and a labor dispute has cast doubt over the entire NFL season.

According to court records, Brunell has righted his financial ship, taking in more money in February than he spent. Among the Brunell family’s purchases were about $1,000 for a ski trip to New York’s Windham Mountain, $2,500 for private-school tuition and $891.53 for items at Victoria Secret—$322.51 of which was later returned.

Hang on, part of his big fat sense of entitlement includes him BUYING his ring back?

he owes $7.4 million, which was reduced from $21 million. His plan indicates that he will raise $350,000 to pay towards his creditors. He will also pay $16,000 for his rings etc. I don't really care about the rings, I personally think he probably should be able to keep them as they hold sentimental value. I guess the part that bothers me is that based on his plan he will pay back >5% of what he owes his creditors AFTER they cut the bill by 65%-and then he'll spend $16,000 to get his stuff back.

 

[JamesTheScot]

At what point does someone have enough money? It boggles my mind that someone can have 30 million and go "you know, that's just not enough. I need to make some risky investments and double that stash".

That's a ridiculous characterization. Try this one for size: "I'll be out of a job soon, and I have some friends who are already out of jobs. Maybe we should go in together on a business venture. My investment advisers are saying it'd be a good idea."

Sounds like a good time to create a LLC.

He created a number of LLCs, but apparently he backed some of the financing with personal assets, which is why he's declaring personal bankruptcy and not just shutting down the LLCs. Clearly, he made a mistake there.

The bank would have asked him to personally guarantee the lending in the LLCs because commercial real estate development is and always has been risky. Comparing it to residential homeowners is borderline ridiculous.

You don't think you are personally guaranteeing your home mortgage?

No.

What happens in a short sale?

Because borrowers agree to a short sale when they are having financial difficulty, it doesn't mean that you have agreed to a personal guarantee upon agreeing to your residential mortgage.

Yes, you have. If you weren't personally responsible for the note, the bank would have no legal basis to sue you for the balance owed. If the bank forecloses and the asset (the house) does not sell for sufficient money at master commissioner's sale, the borrower remains personally liable for the balance owed. That's one of the reasons why you would negotiate with the bank for a short sell rather than letting it get to foreclosure, you can try to negotiate out of your personal liability for that shortage. You see this issue come up more often in car loans because cars depreciate out from under the borrower while real estate value is, comparatively, more stable in value. The asset is collateral, but the borrower still personally guarantees performance on the loan and is responsible for any shortfall should the asset depreciate or liquidate for less than the amount owed.Very few loans are non-recourse loans in the sense that the borrowing entity has no responsibility or exposure other than a surrender of collateral.

 

[fatness]

Hang on, part of his big fat sense of entitlement includes him BUYING his ring back?

Yes, you're exactly right, it does. His plan, while owing millions to creditors, is to raise some money and instead of paying it to creditors honorably, to by himself some bling.

 

[CalBear]

Hang on, part of his big fat sense of entitlement includes him BUYING his ring back?

Yes, you're exactly right, it does. His plan, while owing millions to creditors, is to raise some money and instead of paying it to creditors honorably, to by himself some bling.

This perspective is simply ridiculous.

 

[Insein]

Hang on, part of his big fat sense of entitlement includes him BUYING his ring back?

Yes, you're exactly right, it does. His plan, while owing millions to creditors, is to raise some money and instead of paying it to creditors honorably, to by himself some bling.

I don't think there's a way to argue with this kind of logic.

 

[atl3695]

he owes $7.4 million, which was reduced from $21 million. His plan indicates that he will raise $350,000 to pay towards his creditors. He will also pay $16,000 for his rings etc. I don't really care about the rings, I personally think he probably should be able to keep them as they hold sentimental value. I guess the part that bothers me is that based on his plan he will pay back >5% of what he owes his creditors AFTER they cut the bill by 65%-and then he'll spend $16,000 to get his stuff back.

What make you think creditors decided to just cut his bill 65%? How do you know Brunell didnt pay them down. Considering the loans were tied to real estate this is a very good possibility. ANOTHER example of a claim with no facts.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

No one hear has any idea into Brunells finances.

Actually, yes we do. The link you posted gives a pretty detailed look at his big fat sense of entitlement.

WSJ 4-16-11

From that article.

Veteran National Football League quarterback Mark Brunell has committed to pay $16,300 for his personal effects—including a 2010 Super Bowl ring and a 1991 NCAA national championship ring—that could otherwise become the property of his creditors as part of a repayment plan he filed this week with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Jacksonville, Fla., the Florida Times-Union first reported.

Brunell served primarily as a reserve for both the 2010 New Orleans Saints and 1991 University of Washington Huskies. Under Brunell’s proposed plan, he will raise at least $350,000 to repay his unsecured creditors, who were owed more than $21 million at the time of his Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in June 2010. Court papers, however, show that during the bankruptcy process the claims against Brunell have been reduced to $7.4 million, including his secured debts.

To raise the funds, Brunell will sell Jacksonville property valued at $295,000 and a 1983 Jeep CJ7 and buy back his mementos, which also include three Rose Bowl rings, two watches and collection of shotguns. The plan didn’t specify how Brunell would finance that purchase, but court records show he had some $822,000 in several bank accounts at the end of February and took in more than $44,000 that month from wages and investment income.

The plan allows Brunell to enter into revised financing agreements so that he can keep his Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., home and two vehicles. Other of his properties will be turned over to secured lenders to satisfy their debts.

The vast majority of Brunell’s unsecured debts were his personal guarantees of failed business transactions, including a number of real estate-ventures.

While Brunell made millions in his NFL career, which included three trips to the Pro Bowl as a member of the Jacksonville Jaguars, his bankruptcy plan is based upon earning $5,000 in monthly wages.

The plan stated that Brunell, who is still under contract with the New York Jets, may have finished his playing career because his deal with the team is not guaranteed and a labor dispute has cast doubt over the entire NFL season.

According to court records, Brunell has righted his financial ship, taking in more money in February than he spent. Among the Brunell family’s purchases were about $1,000 for a ski trip to New York’s Windham Mountain, $2,500 for private-school tuition and $891.53 for items at Victoria Secret—$322.51 of which was later returned.

Hang on, part of his big fat sense of entitlement includes him BUYING his ring back?

he owes $7.4 million, which was reduced from $21 million. His plan indicates that he will raise $350,000 to pay towards his creditors. He will also pay $16,000 for his rings etc. I don't really care about the rings, I personally think he probably should be able to keep them as they hold sentimental value. I guess the part that bothers me is that based on his plan he will pay back >5% of what he owes his creditors AFTER they cut the bill by 65%-and then he'll spend $16,000 to get his stuff back.

Brunell's bankruptcy petition - the initial document filed in a bankruptcy case - listed about $24 mil. in possible claims against him, of which about $21 mil. was unsecured debt, mostly personal guarantees on failed businesses. It is common to be overinclusive in listing debts in the initial petition, as you don't want to fail to schedule any debts. After the claims deadline passed and several disputed claims were resolved, the remaining allowable claims against him in the case total about $7.5 mil. Brunell is paying the appraised value of some personal items - the rings and other memorabilia - which means the creditors are getting no more or less than they would get if those items were liquidated along with his other assets. This case doesn't seem to be any different than any other business failure. Secured lenders get their collateral back and unsecured lenders (in this case, personal guarantee debt) get very little. If anything, the unsecured debt is probably getting better treatment than they could normally expect in a business failure insofar as Brunell has approx. $350,000 in unencumbered assets to liquidate. That's the bargain they made.

I've got a copy of his disclosure statement and plan if anyone is interested. Its thrilling reading. This is from the section regarding the reasons for the filing:

Mr. Brunell filed required schedules in the case listing all his property, his debts of various types, and his anticipated income and expenses. Those schedules reflect accurately that the vast majority of Mr. Brunell’s debts relate to business debts incurred in connection with (a) Champion, LLC, which is a failed real estate development and holding company, (along with related entities, the “Real Estate Entities”) and (b) the various related entities that invested in and owned several Whataburger ™ franchises (the “Restaurant Entities”)5. It is the failure of those business enterprises, and Mr. Brunell’s guaranties of many of their financial and contractual obligations, that caused Mr. Brunell’s financial problems. As a result of his continuing guaranty obligations, Mr. Brunell was funding their operations and was facing continued litigation regarding the debts of Champion, LLC. All of Mr. Brunell’s initial investments in the Real Estate Entities and the Restaurant Companies have been lost as Mr. Brunell’s remaining shares and/or membership interests have no value.

Champion, LLC was founded in 2003 to invest in and develop real residential and commercial real estate.6 At one point prior to the Petition Date, Champion, LLC owned properties in Florida, Michigan, and South Carolina which it planned to operate and develop. When the real estate market turned downward, Champion, LLC, its primary operating subsidiary Core Development Services, LLC and multiple related real estate holding companies (the Real Estate Companies, as identified above) were unable to pay their debts as they became due. As a result, Mr. Brunell was one of the parties sued by (a) Select Bank of Michigan, (b) South Carolina Bank & Trust, N.A. © CNL Bank, and (d) OneWest Bank.7 All of those lawsuits were for foreclosure on real estate and for judgment on, inter alia, Mr. Brunell’s guarantees.8 None of the Real Estate Companies has (a) any employees, (b) operations other than dealing with the turnover of property to secured creditors holding valid liens, or © property of any net value. Each Real Estate Company is insolvent.

 

[Chadstroma]

* Nobody here can crucify Brunell, or affect him in any way. It's just criticism he'll never read from strangers he'll never meet. Not a big deal.

Right... it is always good to degrade people when they don't know about it.

* This isn't a "bad decision." This is a series of bad decisions that threw away the kind of financial stability few will ever see. It's not something you can do in a day or two.

No disagreement.

* There's no jealousy here. I didn't file for bankruptcy. I can handle my business. I have a little pity mixed in with disgust. Why would anyone be jealous of a person who has to beg the courts to keep things he earned?

The jealousy is in seeing $50 million and many of the people being critical will not make a tenth of that in their entire lifetime. There is real jealousy about that. Heck, I am jealous about that. Some people just automatically react to that and lash out. I think that that is at play here.

* If people would be doing the same things he did...shame on them. This is not something that "could happen to anybody" like catching a cold. It's amazing to me that Brunell didn't have anyone in his life telling him to watch what he was doing. He either never solicited such advice or never followed it. Either way he bears responsibility for his condition.

Again, we do not have the entire picture here. You, me, no one on this board has enough information about this to be so confident in their criticism or feel morally superior that they would not make the same mistakes in his shoes.

I can be completely confident that I would not make the same mistakes because I'm a more conservative investor and I wouldn't do it with just what I know. Throw in trusted people giving advice and it becomes a lock. It's hard to imagine that he consulted a number of smart financial people and they all gave him the green light to put himself in that position. I'm sorry, but if you talked to 10 well-respected financial advisors, I simply do not believe that they'd look at what Brunell did and say "Yeah, looks good to me." Again, I can't imagine being jealous of someone who has to beg the courts to keep his rings. It's a shame that he had such great talent to earn a superior living...and ends up in bankruptcy. What I find interesting is the number of people (not saying you're one of them) who chalk it up to "well, real estate went bad. Who knew it was gonna be risky?" as if that makes any sense whatsoever.

Here's the information I have: Brunell earned $50 million (let's say he saw $20 million). He knew his career had a finite lifespan, which lasted much longer than average. He ends up in bankruptcy. I don't think I need any other information to conclude that Brunell wasn't smart with his money. Whether it's restaurants, real estate, hookers, Vegas, eBay, Amway or GM stock, there's no excuse for ending up $25 million in the red. If you think there's some "unknown" info that would change things, I'd like to hear some speculation as to what it could possibly be.

and good luck getting the bolded answered...

For crying out loud....Ok.... fine, here is a real life scenario that I will throw out to you.

(making a long story short) A guy with some real estate investment experience has a good job.... maybe even one that some of you would say that he did not need to invest.... he then buys two crappy houses in very good neighborhoods way back when real estate was still doing nothing but going up. Tears them down and builds spec houses on the lots. He is not flush with cash, so be leverages the buying of the property and construction costs. He gets them done and sells them just about when the real estate market starts to poop. He is set to make a killing. One house goes through fine, the other one has the basement flood (suspiciously) before closing. The buyer refuses to close citing punch list items (to be done after closing) and the flood. The buyer is in breach of contract and does not close. The buyer files a lawsuit. Within the process, a letter is sent that basically tells the guy that built that house 'I get my way by suing people and I have driven others into bankruptcy- I want X. We know how much you make a year and how much your house payment is- you can't last with us', X amounts to credits that make the sell of the house well below even current market value- which would cause him to file bankruptcy anyways. Builder guy says screw you. Court battle goes on. Legal fees and carrying costs eat up his cash reserves and eventually after a couple of years, ends with him having to file bankruptcy.

Now, that is pretty different from just telling you that a guy speculated on two houses and ended up having to file bankruptcy. Isn't it?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

For crying out loud....Ok.... fine, here is a real life scenario that I will throw out to you. (making a long story short) A guy with some real estate investment experience has a good job.... maybe even one that some of you would say that he did not need to invest.... he then buys two crappy houses in very good neighborhoods way back when real estate was still doing nothing but going up. Tears them down and builds spec houses on the lots. He is not flush with cash, so be leverages the buying of the property and construction costs. He gets them done and sells them just about when the real estate market starts to poop. He is set to make a killing. One house goes through fine, the other one has the basement flood (suspiciously) before closing. The buyer refuses to close citing punch list items (to be done after closing) and the flood. The buyer is in breach of contract and does not close. The buyer files a lawsuit. Within the process, a letter is sent that basically tells the guy that built that house 'I get my way by suing people and I have driven others into bankruptcy- I want X. We know how much you make a year and how much your house payment is- you can't last with us', X amounts to credits that make the sell of the house well below even current market value- which would cause him to file bankruptcy anyways. Builder guy says screw you. Court battle goes on. Legal fees and carrying costs eat up his cash reserves and eventually after a couple of years, ends with him having to file bankruptcy.Now, that is pretty different from just telling you that a guy speculated on two houses and ended up having to file bankruptcy. Isn't it?

Why, yes it is. That's a very good story about how a regular person can put themselves in a bad situation. But it's a ROTTEN rationale for a guy who saw about $20 million going bankrupt.But using your story, why doesn't the guy simply make the payments on the other house, or at least the loan he took? Are you saying he's so tight with his money that he can't make those payments? Didn't he just sell the first house for a good profit? I think this guy with a good job wasn't very good with his money either, or he'd have a cushion in case things go wrong. Once again, if this guy is so tight on his cash flow, why not just do one modest house so he could afford the payments if it took time to sell (or had mysterious flooding and a really mean buyer who reveals himself to be a shark)? Why is it so hard to simply make investments you can afford to make and not leverage yourself into bankruptcy because you couldn't take the risk you assumed? Is that really so unreasonable?A guy who made $20 million should just keep the houses and give them to his children when they get older.

 

[Chadstroma]

For crying out loud....Ok.... fine, here is a real life scenario that I will throw out to you. (making a long story short) A guy with some real estate investment experience has a good job.... maybe even one that some of you would say that he did not need to invest.... he then buys two crappy houses in very good neighborhoods way back when real estate was still doing nothing but going up. Tears them down and builds spec houses on the lots. He is not flush with cash, so be leverages the buying of the property and construction costs. He gets them done and sells them just about when the real estate market starts to poop. He is set to make a killing. One house goes through fine, the other one has the basement flood (suspiciously) before closing. The buyer refuses to close citing punch list items (to be done after closing) and the flood. The buyer is in breach of contract and does not close. The buyer files a lawsuit. Within the process, a letter is sent that basically tells the guy that built that house 'I get my way by suing people and I have driven others into bankruptcy- I want X. We know how much you make a year and how much your house payment is- you can't last with us', X amounts to credits that make the sell of the house well below even current market value- which would cause him to file bankruptcy anyways. Builder guy says screw you. Court battle goes on. Legal fees and carrying costs eat up his cash reserves and eventually after a couple of years, ends with him having to file bankruptcy.Now, that is pretty different from just telling you that a guy speculated on two houses and ended up having to file bankruptcy. Isn't it?

Why, yes it is. That's a very good story about how a regular person can put themselves in a bad situation. But it's a ROTTEN rationale for a guy who saw about $20 million going bankrupt.But using your story, why doesn't the guy simply make the payments on the other house, or at least the loan he took? Are you saying he's so tight with his money that he can't make those payments? Didn't he just sell the first house for a good profit? I think this guy with a good job wasn't very good with his money either, or he'd have a cushion in case things go wrong. Once again, if this guy is so tight on his cash flow, why not just do one modest house so he could afford the payments if it took time to sell (or had mysterious flooding and a really mean buyer who reveals himself to be a shark)? Why is it so hard to simply make investments you can afford to make and not leverage yourself into bankruptcy because you couldn't take the risk you assumed? Is that really so unreasonable?A guy who made $20 million should just keep the houses and give them to his children when they get older.

I am going to guess that you have never invested in real estate before or gone through a lawsuit before. The point is simple but seemingly something you morally and financially superior individuals can not grasp. I am done going around in circles with you vultures. If it makes you feel better by thinking you know more than you do and being critical of someone else... have at it. For those who have more experience than you do in these matters, it just shows your ignorance.

 

[dhockster]

Brunell's bankruptcy petition - the initial document filed in a bankruptcy case - listed about $24 mil. in possible claims against him, of which about $21 mil. was unsecured debt, mostly personal guarantees on failed businesses. It is common to be overinclusive in listing debts in the initial petition, as you don't want to fail to schedule any debts. After the claims deadline passed and several disputed claims were resolved, the remaining allowable claims against him in the case total about $7.5 mil. Brunell is paying the appraised value of some personal items - the rings and other memorabilia - which means the creditors are getting no more or less than they would get if those items were liquidated along with his other assets. This case doesn't seem to be any different than any other business failure. Secured lenders get their collateral back and unsecured lenders (in this case, personal guarantee debt) get very little. If anything, the unsecured debt is probably getting better treatment than they could normally expect in a business failure insofar as Brunell has approx. $350,000 in unencumbered assets to liquidate. That's the bargain they made.I've got a copy of his disclosure statement and plan if anyone is interested. Its thrilling reading. This is from the section regarding the reasons for the filing:

Mr. Brunell filed required schedules in the case listing all his property, his debts of various types, and his anticipated income and expenses. Those schedules reflect accurately that the vast majority of Mr. Brunells debts relate to business debts incurred in connection with (a) Champion, LLC, which is a failed real estate development and holding company, (along with related entities, the Real Estate Entities) and (b) the various related entities that invested in and owned several Whataburger franchises (the Restaurant Entities)5. It is the failure of those business enterprises, and Mr. Brunells guaranties of many of their financial and contractual obligations, that caused Mr. Brunells financial problems. As a result of his continuing guaranty obligations, Mr. Brunell was funding their operations and was facing continued litigation regarding the debts of Champion, LLC. All of Mr. Brunells initial investments in the Real Estate Entities and the Restaurant Companies have been lost as Mr. Brunells remaining shares and/or membership interests have no value.Champion, LLC was founded in 2003 to invest in and develop real residential and commercial real estate.6 At one point prior to the Petition Date, Champion, LLC owned properties in Florida, Michigan, and South Carolina which it planned to operate and develop. When the real estate market turned downward, Champion, LLC, its primary operating subsidiary Core Development Services, LLC and multiple related real estate holding companies (the Real Estate Companies, as identified above) were unable to pay their debts as they became due. As a result, Mr. Brunell was one of the parties sued by (a) Select Bank of Michigan, (b) South Carolina Bank & Trust, N.A. © CNL Bank, and (d) OneWest Bank.7 All of those lawsuits were for foreclosure on real estate and for judgment on, inter alia, Mr. Brunells guarantees.8 None of the Real Estate Companies has (a) any employees, (b) operations other than dealing with the turnover of property to secured creditors holding valid liens, or © property of any net value. Each Real Estate Company is insolvent.

Smart investing strategy is pretty simple:1) Diversify your investments2) Spread risk among other parties3) Invest in things you know and understand4) Be more conservative with your investments as your ability to rebuild your wealth decreases.It appears Brunell didn't follow any of these rules, and he ended up bankrupt as a result. I wish him well in his recovery.

 

[Topes]

At what point does someone have enough money? It boggles my mind that someone can have 30 million and go "you know, that's just not enough. I need to make some risky investments and double that stash".

Indeed. That's something a gambling addict does. Hmmm...

 

[unckeyherb]

* Nobody here can crucify Brunell, or affect him in any way. It's just criticism he'll never read from strangers he'll never meet. Not a big deal.

Right... it is always good to degrade people when they don't know about it.

* This isn't a "bad decision." This is a series of bad decisions that threw away the kind of financial stability few will ever see. It's not something you can do in a day or two.

No disagreement.

* There's no jealousy here. I didn't file for bankruptcy. I can handle my business. I have a little pity mixed in with disgust. Why would anyone be jealous of a person who has to beg the courts to keep things he earned?

The jealousy is in seeing $50 million and many of the people being critical will not make a tenth of that in their entire lifetime. There is real jealousy about that. Heck, I am jealous about that. Some people just automatically react to that and lash out. I think that that is at play here.

* If people would be doing the same things he did...shame on them. This is not something that "could happen to anybody" like catching a cold. It's amazing to me that Brunell didn't have anyone in his life telling him to watch what he was doing. He either never solicited such advice or never followed it. Either way he bears responsibility for his condition.

Again, we do not have the entire picture here. You, me, no one on this board has enough information about this to be so confident in their criticism or feel morally superior that they would not make the same mistakes in his shoes.

I can be completely confident that I would not make the same mistakes because I'm a more conservative investor and I wouldn't do it with just what I know. Throw in trusted people giving advice and it becomes a lock. It's hard to imagine that he consulted a number of smart financial people and they all gave him the green light to put himself in that position. I'm sorry, but if you talked to 10 well-respected financial advisors, I simply do not believe that they'd look at what Brunell did and say "Yeah, looks good to me." Again, I can't imagine being jealous of someone who has to beg the courts to keep his rings. It's a shame that he had such great talent to earn a superior living...and ends up in bankruptcy. What I find interesting is the number of people (not saying you're one of them) who chalk it up to "well, real estate went bad. Who knew it was gonna be risky?" as if that makes any sense whatsoever.

Here's the information I have: Brunell earned $50 million (let's say he saw $20 million). He knew his career had a finite lifespan, which lasted much longer than average. He ends up in bankruptcy. I don't think I need any other information to conclude that Brunell wasn't smart with his money. Whether it's restaurants, real estate, hookers, Vegas, eBay, Amway or GM stock, there's no excuse for ending up $25 million in the red. If you think there's some "unknown" info that would change things, I'd like to hear some speculation as to what it could possibly be.

and good luck getting the bolded answered...

For crying out loud....Ok.... fine, here is a real life scenario that I will throw out to you.

(making a long story short) A guy with some real estate investment experience has a good job.... maybe even one that some of you would say that he did not need to invest.... he then buys two crappy houses in very good neighborhoods way back when real estate was still doing nothing but going up. Tears them down and builds spec houses on the lots. He is not flush with cash, so be leverages the buying of the property and construction costs. He gets them done and sells them just about when the real estate market starts to poop. He is set to make a killing. One house goes through fine, the other one has the basement flood (suspiciously) before closing. The buyer refuses to close citing punch list items (to be done after closing) and the flood. The buyer is in breach of contract and does not close. The buyer files a lawsuit. Within the process, a letter is sent that basically tells the guy that built that house 'I get my way by suing people and I have driven others into bankruptcy- I want X. We know how much you make a year and how much your house payment is- you can't last with us', X amounts to credits that make the sell of the house well below even current market value- which would cause him to file bankruptcy anyways. Builder guy says screw you. Court battle goes on. Legal fees and carrying costs eat up his cash reserves and eventually after a couple of years, ends with him having to file bankruptcy.

Now, that is pretty different from just telling you that a guy speculated on two houses and ended up having to file bankruptcy. Isn't it?

What does the story you wrote above have to do with Brunells situation? I asked you repeatedly to give me an example that related to his specific situation. For crying out loud is right. Brunell didn't have 'a good job', like the unfortunate soul in your story, he was an NFL QB for many, many years-earning wealth unknown to a vast majority of the world. In your example the guy is not 'flush with cash'. $50 million. say that a few times till it sets in. Even if he has 98% of that locked up in investments/savings etc. he still is sitting on $1 million cash. You give an example how an investor can lose money on real estate-like every other post in this thread. Now try this exercise.Someone: a. has $50 million dollars b. through investments that person loses all of the $50 million and in fact, owes money.

Give me a plausible argument that can convince me that he didn't make poor choices/ignore the advice of experts/get greedy and over extend himself. Seriously, thats all I and others are saying. It is apparent to me that the only explanation for this amount of loss is some combination of greed, poor advice, ignoring good advice. While I agree that we do not know all the facts, I can't think of one that might suddenly shed light on this and make me think otherwise. You think that there is something about the situation that would disprove what I feel is apparent and that we are overlooking it. All I am asking is for you to explain what you think it MIGHT be. Speculate. Guess.

 

[CalBear]

Give me a plausible argument that can convince me that he didn't make poor choices/ignore the advice of experts/get greedy and over extend himself. Seriously, thats all I and others are saying.

He obviously made poor choices, or at least choices which didn't work out. I am sure he consulted the advice of "experts"; "experts" ran Goldman Sachs, too. What the original poster is saying is that Brunell has a big fat sense of entitlement for wanting to keep his Super Bowl ring. That's not a judgement on Brunell's business decisions, it's a judgement on his person which is completely unwarranted.

 

[gandalas]

I thought rich people were always rich, and poor people were always poor. This doesn't make any sense.

Oh that's right, owners of NFL teams are a different breed of rich. They didn't do anything to make their money and they never lose money. Got it.

The New York Mets ownership would like to have a word with you, unless you were being sarcastic.

 

[unckeyherb]

Give me a plausible argument that can convince me that he didn't make poor choices/ignore the advice of experts/get greedy and over extend himself. Seriously, thats all I and others are saying.

He obviously made poor choices, or at least choices which didn't work out. I am sure he consulted the advice of "experts"; "experts" ran Goldman Sachs, too. What the original poster is saying is that Brunell has a big fat sense of entitlement for wanting to keep his Super Bowl ring. That's not a judgement on Brunell's business decisions, it's a judgement on his person which is completely unwarranted.

Agreed. My response was to Chadstroma consistently chiding everyone that took issue with someone blowing $50 million because "we don't know all the facts".

 

[Christo]

No one hear has any idea into Brunells finances.

Actually, yes we do. The link you posted gives a pretty detailed look at his big fat sense of entitlement.

WSJ 4-16-11

From that article.

Veteran National Football League quarterback Mark Brunell has committed to pay $16,300 for his personal effects—including a 2010 Super Bowl ring and a 1991 NCAA national championship ring—that could otherwise become the property of his creditors as part of a repayment plan he filed this week with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Jacksonville, Fla., the Florida Times-Union first reported.

Brunell served primarily as a reserve for both the 2010 New Orleans Saints and 1991 University of Washington Huskies. Under Brunell’s proposed plan, he will raise at least $350,000 to repay his unsecured creditors, who were owed more than $21 million at the time of his Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in June 2010. Court papers, however, show that during the bankruptcy process the claims against Brunell have been reduced to $7.4 million, including his secured debts.

To raise the funds, Brunell will sell Jacksonville property valued at $295,000 and a 1983 Jeep CJ7 and buy back his mementos, which also include three Rose Bowl rings, two watches and collection of shotguns. The plan didn’t specify how Brunell would finance that purchase, but court records show he had some $822,000 in several bank accounts at the end of February and took in more than $44,000 that month from wages and investment income.

The plan allows Brunell to enter into revised financing agreements so that he can keep his Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., home and two vehicles. Other of his properties will be turned over to secured lenders to satisfy their debts.

The vast majority of Brunell’s unsecured debts were his personal guarantees of failed business transactions, including a number of real estate-ventures.

While Brunell made millions in his NFL career, which included three trips to the Pro Bowl as a member of the Jacksonville Jaguars, his bankruptcy plan is based upon earning $5,000 in monthly wages.

The plan stated that Brunell, who is still under contract with the New York Jets, may have finished his playing career because his deal with the team is not guaranteed and a labor dispute has cast doubt over the entire NFL season.

According to court records, Brunell has righted his financial ship, taking in more money in February than he spent. Among the Brunell family’s purchases were about $1,000 for a ski trip to New York’s Windham Mountain, $2,500 for private-school tuition and $891.53 for items at Victoria Secret—$322.51 of which was later returned.

Hang on, part of his big fat sense of entitlement includes him BUYING his ring back?

he owes $7.4 million, which was reduced from $21 million. His plan indicates that he will raise $350,000 to pay towards his creditors. He will also pay $16,000 for his rings etc. I don't really care about the rings, I personally think he probably should be able to keep them as they hold sentimental value. I guess the part that bothers me is that based on his plan he will pay back >5% of what he owes his creditors AFTER they cut the bill by 65%-and then he'll spend $16,000 to get his stuff back.

Brunell's bankruptcy petition - the initial document filed in a bankruptcy case - listed about $24 mil. in possible claims against him, of which about $21 mil. was unsecured debt, mostly personal guarantees on failed businesses. It is common to be overinclusive in listing debts in the initial petition, as you don't want to fail to schedule any debts. After the claims deadline passed and several disputed claims were resolved, the remaining allowable claims against him in the case total about $7.5 mil. Brunell is paying the appraised value of some personal items - the rings and other memorabilia - which means the creditors are getting no more or less than they would get if those items were liquidated along with his other assets. This case doesn't seem to be any different than any other business failure. Secured lenders get their collateral back and unsecured lenders (in this case, personal guarantee debt) get very little. If anything, the unsecured debt is probably getting better treatment than they could normally expect in a business failure insofar as Brunell has approx. $350,000 in unencumbered assets to liquidate. That's the bargain they made.

I was with you up to this point. The fact that the law allows debtors to welch on the debts they owe doesn't mean that is the "bargain" the creditor made.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

No one hear has any idea into Brunells finances.

Actually, yes we do. The link you posted gives a pretty detailed look at his big fat sense of entitlement.

WSJ 4-16-11

From that article.

Veteran National Football League quarterback Mark Brunell has committed to pay $16,300 for his personal effects—including a 2010 Super Bowl ring and a 1991 NCAA national championship ring—that could otherwise become the property of his creditors as part of a repayment plan he filed this week with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Jacksonville, Fla., the Florida Times-Union first reported.

Brunell served primarily as a reserve for both the 2010 New Orleans Saints and 1991 University of Washington Huskies. Under Brunell’s proposed plan, he will raise at least $350,000 to repay his unsecured creditors, who were owed more than $21 million at the time of his Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in June 2010. Court papers, however, show that during the bankruptcy process the claims against Brunell have been reduced to $7.4 million, including his secured debts.

To raise the funds, Brunell will sell Jacksonville property valued at $295,000 and a 1983 Jeep CJ7 and buy back his mementos, which also include three Rose Bowl rings, two watches and collection of shotguns. The plan didn’t specify how Brunell would finance that purchase, but court records show he had some $822,000 in several bank accounts at the end of February and took in more than $44,000 that month from wages and investment income.

The plan allows Brunell to enter into revised financing agreements so that he can keep his Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., home and two vehicles. Other of his properties will be turned over to secured lenders to satisfy their debts.

The vast majority of Brunell’s unsecured debts were his personal guarantees of failed business transactions, including a number of real estate-ventures.

While Brunell made millions in his NFL career, which included three trips to the Pro Bowl as a member of the Jacksonville Jaguars, his bankruptcy plan is based upon earning $5,000 in monthly wages.

The plan stated that Brunell, who is still under contract with the New York Jets, may have finished his playing career because his deal with the team is not guaranteed and a labor dispute has cast doubt over the entire NFL season.

According to court records, Brunell has righted his financial ship, taking in more money in February than he spent. Among the Brunell family’s purchases were about $1,000 for a ski trip to New York’s Windham Mountain, $2,500 for private-school tuition and $891.53 for items at Victoria Secret—$322.51 of which was later returned.

Hang on, part of his big fat sense of entitlement includes him BUYING his ring back?

he owes $7.4 million, which was reduced from $21 million. His plan indicates that he will raise $350,000 to pay towards his creditors. He will also pay $16,000 for his rings etc. I don't really care about the rings, I personally think he probably should be able to keep them as they hold sentimental value. I guess the part that bothers me is that based on his plan he will pay back >5% of what he owes his creditors AFTER they cut the bill by 65%-and then he'll spend $16,000 to get his stuff back.

Brunell's bankruptcy petition - the initial document filed in a bankruptcy case - listed about $24 mil. in possible claims against him, of which about $21 mil. was unsecured debt, mostly personal guarantees on failed businesses. It is common to be overinclusive in listing debts in the initial petition, as you don't want to fail to schedule any debts. After the claims deadline passed and several disputed claims were resolved, the remaining allowable claims against him in the case total about $7.5 mil. Brunell is paying the appraised value of some personal items - the rings and other memorabilia - which means the creditors are getting no more or less than they would get if those items were liquidated along with his other assets. This case doesn't seem to be any different than any other business failure. Secured lenders get their collateral back and unsecured lenders (in this case, personal guarantee debt) get very little. If anything, the unsecured debt is probably getting better treatment than they could normally expect in a business failure insofar as Brunell has approx. $350,000 in unencumbered assets to liquidate. That's the bargain they made.

I was with you up to this point. The fact that the law allows debtors to welch on the debts they owe doesn't mean that is the "bargain" the creditor made.

Of course its the bargain they made. Unsecured lenders with nothing more than a personal guarantee know damn well they're rolling the dice on the success of the business venture they're backing. If the business tanks, everyone's gonna feel some pain. I'm just stating the facts, man.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

For crying out loud....Ok.... fine, here is a real life scenario that I will throw out to you. (making a long story short) A guy with some real estate investment experience has a good job.... maybe even one that some of you would say that he did not need to invest.... he then buys two crappy houses in very good neighborhoods way back when real estate was still doing nothing but going up. Tears them down and builds spec houses on the lots. He is not flush with cash, so be leverages the buying of the property and construction costs. He gets them done and sells them just about when the real estate market starts to poop. He is set to make a killing. One house goes through fine, the other one has the basement flood (suspiciously) before closing. The buyer refuses to close citing punch list items (to be done after closing) and the flood. The buyer is in breach of contract and does not close. The buyer files a lawsuit. Within the process, a letter is sent that basically tells the guy that built that house 'I get my way by suing people and I have driven others into bankruptcy- I want X. We know how much you make a year and how much your house payment is- you can't last with us', X amounts to credits that make the sell of the house well below even current market value- which would cause him to file bankruptcy anyways. Builder guy says screw you. Court battle goes on. Legal fees and carrying costs eat up his cash reserves and eventually after a couple of years, ends with him having to file bankruptcy.Now, that is pretty different from just telling you that a guy speculated on two houses and ended up having to file bankruptcy. Isn't it?

Why, yes it is. That's a very good story about how a regular person can put themselves in a bad situation. But it's a ROTTEN rationale for a guy who saw about $20 million going bankrupt.But using your story, why doesn't the guy simply make the payments on the other house, or at least the loan he took? Are you saying he's so tight with his money that he can't make those payments? Didn't he just sell the first house for a good profit? I think this guy with a good job wasn't very good with his money either, or he'd have a cushion in case things go wrong. Once again, if this guy is so tight on his cash flow, why not just do one modest house so he could afford the payments if it took time to sell (or had mysterious flooding and a really mean buyer who reveals himself to be a shark)? Why is it so hard to simply make investments you can afford to make and not leverage yourself into bankruptcy because you couldn't take the risk you assumed? Is that really so unreasonable?A guy who made $20 million should just keep the houses and give them to his children when they get older.

I am going to guess that you have never invested in real estate before or gone through a lawsuit before. The point is simple but seemingly something you morally and financially superior individuals can not grasp. I am done going around in circles with you vultures. If it makes you feel better by thinking you know more than you do and being critical of someone else... have at it. For those who have more experience than you do in these matters, it just shows your ignorance.

No offense, but you're about as good at guessing as Mark Brunell is at financial management. I noted you couldn't really refute anything I said, but simply dismissed the entire position as being from someone who "doesn't get it."I suggest to you that it's really this simple: Don't put yourself in a situation where you lose your entire fortune in an effort to make even more. Invest what you can afford to lose, or at least be in a position to sustain the investment for a good period of time if things go wrong. Don't rely on things going your way in risky investments to live your life. If you think it's a lot harder than that...you're making it harder than that. Mark Brunell felt the same way.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Give me a plausible argument that can convince me that he didn't make poor choices/ignore the advice of experts/get greedy and over extend himself. Seriously, thats all I and others are saying.

He obviously made poor choices, or at least choices which didn't work out. I am sure he consulted the advice of "experts"; "experts" ran Goldman Sachs, too. What the original poster is saying is that Brunell has a big fat sense of entitlement for wanting to keep his Super Bowl ring. That's not a judgement on Brunell's business decisions, it's a judgement on his person which is completely unwarranted.

The "experts" at Goldman Sachs weren't personally liable for the company's losses. They walked away millionaires many times over. This comparison doesn't hold water.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Of course its the bargain they made. Unsecured lenders with nothing more than a personal guarantee know damn well they're rolling the dice on the success of the business venture they're backing. If the business tanks, everyone's gonna feel some pain. I'm just stating the facts, man.

I have to agree with you here. If people put too much of their money in investments backed by "The Mark Brunell" then they also weren't smart with their money.

 

[CalBear]

Give me a plausible argument that can convince me that he didn't make poor choices/ignore the advice of experts/get greedy and over extend himself. Seriously, thats all I and others are saying.

He obviously made poor choices, or at least choices which didn't work out. I am sure he consulted the advice of "experts"; "experts" ran Goldman Sachs, too. What the original poster is saying is that Brunell has a big fat sense of entitlement for wanting to keep his Super Bowl ring. That's not a judgement on Brunell's business decisions, it's a judgement on his person which is completely unwarranted.

The "experts" at Goldman Sachs weren't personally liable for the company's losses. They walked away millionaires many times over. This comparison doesn't hold water.

My point is that consulting a "financial expert" doesn't necessarily mean you will get good advice. And they walked away because they're unscrupulous thieves who rigged the system to their personal benefit, at great cost to their shareholders and the country at large.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

For crying out loud....Ok.... fine, here is a real life scenario that I will throw out to you. (making a long story short) A guy with some real estate investment experience has a good job.... maybe even one that some of you would say that he did not need to invest.... he then buys two crappy houses in very good neighborhoods way back when real estate was still doing nothing but going up. Tears them down and builds spec houses on the lots. He is not flush with cash, so be leverages the buying of the property and construction costs. He gets them done and sells them just about when the real estate market starts to poop. He is set to make a killing. One house goes through fine, the other one has the basement flood (suspiciously) before closing. The buyer refuses to close citing punch list items (to be done after closing) and the flood. The buyer is in breach of contract and does not close. The buyer files a lawsuit. Within the process, a letter is sent that basically tells the guy that built that house 'I get my way by suing people and I have driven others into bankruptcy- I want X. We know how much you make a year and how much your house payment is- you can't last with us', X amounts to credits that make the sell of the house well below even current market value- which would cause him to file bankruptcy anyways. Builder guy says screw you. Court battle goes on. Legal fees and carrying costs eat up his cash reserves and eventually after a couple of years, ends with him having to file bankruptcy.Now, that is pretty different from just telling you that a guy speculated on two houses and ended up having to file bankruptcy. Isn't it?

Why, yes it is. That's a very good story about how a regular person can put themselves in a bad situation. But it's a ROTTEN rationale for a guy who saw about $20 million going bankrupt.But using your story, why doesn't the guy simply make the payments on the other house, or at least the loan he took? Are you saying he's so tight with his money that he can't make those payments? Didn't he just sell the first house for a good profit? I think this guy with a good job wasn't very good with his money either, or he'd have a cushion in case things go wrong. Once again, if this guy is so tight on his cash flow, why not just do one modest house so he could afford the payments if it took time to sell (or had mysterious flooding and a really mean buyer who reveals himself to be a shark)? Why is it so hard to simply make investments you can afford to make and not leverage yourself into bankruptcy because you couldn't take the risk you assumed? Is that really so unreasonable?A guy who made $20 million should just keep the houses and give them to his children when they get older.

I am going to guess that you have never invested in real estate before or gone through a lawsuit before. The point is simple but seemingly something you morally and financially superior individuals can not grasp. I am done going around in circles with you vultures. If it makes you feel better by thinking you know more than you do and being critical of someone else... have at it. For those who have more experience than you do in these matters, it just shows your ignorance.

No offense, but you're about as good at guessing as Mark Brunell is at financial management. I noted you couldn't really refute anything I said, but simply dismissed the entire position as being from someone who "doesn't get it."I suggest to you that it's really this simple: Don't put yourself in a situation where you lose your entire fortune in an effort to make even more. Invest what you can afford to lose, or at least be in a position to sustain the investment for a good period of time if things go wrong. Don't rely on things going your way in risky investments to live your life. If you think it's a lot harder than that...you're making it harder than that. Mark Brunell felt the same way.

Mark Brunell's going to be fine. Judging from his monthly budget, which is a public record, he's living a better lifestyle right now and has much better future prospects than probably anyone on this board after NJ and Chet. One of the things that has allowed our economy to grow so successfully over the past 100 years is the fact that we have an entrepreneurial spirit in this country, backed by a well-defined legal insolvency structure that investors, banks and other participants can all rely on. The system worked well in the case and, other than the fact that the businesses failed due to the greatest economic downturn in our lifetime, everyone's expectations were met. We'd be nothing in this country without the Brunells who are willing to go in big chasing the dream (not that he's a big player by any means). We could really use a few Brunells in my city - Milwaukee - which is screaming out for someone with the balls to put some real money into real estate and restaurants like he did.