Losing Your Home - I'm a Journalist, Want to talk to you (Sacramento: foreclosure, credit)

[Aquaboy]

Tom Sullivan would be the perfect man to interview. On his KFBK radio show, when it was local, he presented himself as a financial "guru". He also claimed moral superiority over progressives, free thinkers etc.
I'd like to hear why he abandoned his values in a down economy.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by Aquaboy

Tom Sullivan would be the perfect man to interview. On his KFBK radio show, when it was local, he presented himself as a financial "guru". He also claimed moral superiority over progressives, free thinkers etc.
I'd like to hear why he abandoned his values in a down economy.

Good Point.

Tom? Rebuttal?

[NewToCA]

You folks picking on Sullivan have little to stand upon.

I'm not familiar with the guy myself, having moved to California shortly before he departed for New York. I never heard his programs, but I know his economic philosophy and his personal situation from reading about it the past month or so.

He apparently bought a home well within his ability to pay, and put down a substantial down payment (in excess of 20%). He also continued to pay his mortgage for a few years after leaving Sacramento, so you can't state that he hasn't substantially held up his end of the economic agreement concerning his home. I see no hypocrisy on his part here.

This downturn has gone well beyond hurting just the folks who bought more home than they could afford. Those posters who are "celebrating" the downturn need to realize that many folks who have lived in their homes for five or so years, and put down 20% when purchasing their homes, are often now in "negative" equity too.

[KC6ZLV]

Very few people put down 20% in 2005. A down payment that large was seldom required, and fewer people had $80,000 available for a down payment. Even with 20% down, fewer people made an income of $100,000 a year, which is what anyone with any amount of responsibility would have made before taking out a $320,000 loan.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

You folks picking on Sullivan have little to stand upon.

I'm not familiar with the guy myself, having moved to California shortly before he departed for New York. I never heard his programs, but I know his economic philosophy and his personal situation from reading about it the past month or so.

He apparently bought a home well within his ability to pay, and put down a substantial down payment (in excess of 20%). He also continued to pay his mortgage for a few years after leaving Sacramento, so you can't state that he hasn't substantially held up his end of the economic agreement concerning his home. I see no hypocrisy on his part here.

This downturn has gone well beyond hurting just the folks who bought more home than they could afford. Those posters who are "celebrating" the downturn need to realize that many folks who have lived in their homes for five or so years, and put down 20% when purchasing their homes, are often now in "negative" equity too.

I am trying to find the rational in your post. Are you stating that Tom Sullivan who has PREACHED fiscal responsibility to his radio audience is now being unfairly ridiculed for not practicing what he preached? HHHMMM.

I can and will state that he has not held up his financial end of the bargain. I listened to Tom's Radio show when it started in the Late 80's through most of the 90's. Yes the hypocrisy is thick in this scenario. He has been lambasting peoples and governments stupid financial decisions for years. I guess he can be included in his own ridicule now.

[Aquaboy]

All good points.
My point was simply that a radio personality who preached personal and fiscal responsibility gave those values away when it was too inconvenient to pay his mortgage. Now the banks and the taxpayers have to absorb his losses.
That doesnt sound like "personal responsibility' to me.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by bulldogdad

I am trying to find the rational in your post. Are you stating that Tom Sullivan who has PREACHED fiscal responsibility to his radio audience is now being unfairly ridiculed for not practicing what he preached? HHHMMM.

I can and will state that he has not held up his financial end of the bargain. I listened to Tom's Radio show when it started in the Late 80's through most of the 90's. Yes the hypocrisy is thick in this scenario. He has been lambasting peoples and governments stupid financial decisions for years. I guess he can be included in his own ridicule now.

He has practiced financial responsibility in his home purchase, and ownership.

He bought his home in 2004, and put down over 30%.


They paid $2.5 million for the home in 2004 and took out a $1.6 million mortgage, according to Placer County property records and MetroList Services Inc.

Financial guru Tom Sullivan seeks short sale of home - Sacramento Business, Housing Market News | Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/21/3120279/financial-guru-tom-sullivan-seeks.html#ixzz14oZshHlg - broken link)

[Rocketir]

Sounds like he was financially responsible, to his family. Why continue to take loses when you don't have too. Its not against the law to walk away from your under valued house.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

He has practiced financial responsibility in his home purchase, and ownership.

He bought his home in 2004, and put down over 30%.


They paid $2.5 million for the home in 2004 and took out a $1.6 million mortgage, according to Placer County property records and MetroList Services Inc.

Financial guru Tom Sullivan seeks short sale of home - Sacramento Business, Housing Market News | Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/21/3120279/financial-guru-tom-sullivan-seeks.html#ixzz14oZshHlg - broken link)

"Has" being the operative word in your post. Now he wants the mortgage holder to be responsible for the assets loss of value instead of himself. I don't care if he put down 95% and is now looking for the lender to rescue him. Its still hypocrisy on his part and financially irresponsible.

This is what happens when you buy into a leveraged position and the market goes south. It don't care if it is a stock or a house. He is a financial trader and knows the risks before buying into a leveraged position with the strategy of futures gains on the leveraged asset. Guess what? it didn't happen. Time to pay the piper. Oh wait he doesn't want to pay the piper. HYPOCRACY AND IRRESPONSIBILITY. He knew better.

[HonestOne1]

Originally Posted by Rocketir

Sounds like he was financially responsible, to his family. Why continue to take loses when you don't have too.

DOH!!! I hope that was either a joke or someone trying to win an award for dumbest quote of the day.

You could justify stealing from your neighbor's home as "doing what is best for your family". Hell, you could even shoot them if you needed more room.

Nice mentality.