Talk:BlueHippo Funding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Joseph Rensin[edit]

For some reason someone deleted the info on the founder of Blue Hippo. I put this info back in as it is obviously relevant. Iseeyou2008 04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for Bruce Mattare. Restore: (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the Dox information for Joseph K. Rensin, I am posting it to Wikipedia as we speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackTechnology (talkcontribs) 17:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled Comment[edit]

Purely for comparison prices/evidence for the info provided: comparable systems for 1/4 to 1/8 the price:

Dell Inspiron 1200 Value Notebook 6.55lb Celeron M 360 1.4Ghz 256MB/40GB, CDRW/DVD, 14in, standard warranty, XP Home, - Now only $399 after $50 rebate and $100 off Coupon Code: 8W0VRFRHVLS4CS Exp Th 11/2 5:59am CT or after 4000 uses. $49 shipping.

TigerDirect has the far more powerful Gateway 827GM Refurb Media Center PC - AMD Athlon 64 3500+ / 512MB DDR / 200GB HDD / DVD±RW Dual-Layer / CD-ROM / Media Reader / ATI Radeon Xpress 200 Video / TV Tuner with DVR / Windows XP Media Center 2005 for a low $549.99, $35 shipping.

True, but both these computers have at least twice the memory, a DVD-player (which the Blue Hippo desktop system does not have). Furthermore, the first system listed here is a notebook computer, not a desktop. I think we're overvaluing the Blue Hippo system. I'm sure I could find a system comparable to the Blue Hippo system for much less. I'll post back with one, though it'll be difficult, since most systems offered today have at least 256 MB memory.

I think the price comparison of "$200" is way too low. BlueHippo seem to be offering discontinued Gateway machines (the latest Gateway offers has 512MB memory and a 160GB HDD, for $399). I figure perhaps $250 for the computer, and $100 for the monitor. (I'll note that none of above comparisons add in the price of the monitor.) I think upping the comparison price to $350 is reasonable. I'm "being bold" and updating it. -- Ch'marr 23:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing so. Someone changed 400 to 100, I then changed it from 100 to 200, you changed it to 350, based on newer research and offers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talkcontribs)
Yeah, I think 100 and 200 are far too low. Sure, you could get the equivalent system if you bought individual pieces yourself from the cheapeast suppliers around. But, we're not trying to compare the Gateway machine to the absolute cheapest machine out there. If we can use the highest 'reasonable' price, and still make BlueHippo look like a bad bad deal, then that's the best comparison all around. -- Ch'marr 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


The accusatory tone of this article needs to be toned way down. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've worked it over a bit. I wouldn't say it's done yet, but it's a lot better. what do you think? BadgerBadger 22:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Although there are still problems, I object to your change in the first paragraph: "...(offering deals that are) substantially worse than standard for the market," to "Critics have claimed that the products offered by them are substantially below typical market quality standards." It drastically changed the meaning, for one thing (the deals are worse than standard, not the products themselves); but it also turned a statement verified later in the article into an ambiguous, unsourced claim. This company charges five times the normal price for a computer, requiring over twice the box price in payments before you can take it home; by any measure, things like that make their deals "substantially worse" than the standard, and any neutral introduction about them must note this. I do think that the article needs a more neutral tone, but attributing its description of the subject to unnamed sources is plainly not the right way to go about it. --Aquillion 01:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

:::The version I edited used the ambiguous phrase "offering them deals on computers, flat-screen televisions, and similar items that are substantially worse than standard for the market." which could arguably be interpreted either way. There is no source given for this, it is stated as an explicit unsourced fact. I'm changing it to reflect that the deals and not the product quality is substantially worse. In the interest of NPOV I still think it would be best to use "critics contend" or such. It does strike me as a very bad deal which ought to be noted as such, but I think analyzing it within the article would be Original Research and we both know that that is not allowed. Do you think you could find a good third party source for it? BadgerBadger 02:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, perhaps the best thing to do here would be to establish a Criticisms section? BadgerBadger 03:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
You know what, you're right. I'm changing it to simply note that the prices are above market standard. But we do need to find a citation for it. :P BadgerBadger 03:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't establish a criticisms section. Just present the information in a neutral point of view. Wikipedia shouldn't endorse or not endorse any particular view about any particular subject. It is possible to present the information neutrally without having a criticism section. Peyna 04:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. Criticisms sections are usually only used on extremely controversial topics. BadgerBadger 05:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with establishing a criticism section as long as it is NPOV. It seems to be me this is needed since the majority of information is about criticism of BlueHippo's practises. I've placed a POV tag on this article as it will need a bit of cleanup to be NPOV. —Mitaphane talk 03:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

More NPOV[edit]

Zoe pointed out that the "some have claimed... dangerous" line is bad because the contention is unsourced. I wrote it this way in light of the accusatory tone of the original article. The original spelled out the personal information required in detail. I basically just eliminated this and added the some have qualifier. So now, in consideration of Zoe's criticism, I've tried an alternative route. Rather than qualify the criticism, eliminate it but instead list the basis for it. What do y'all think? BadgerBadger 03:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


Is this a legit company? Well, I mean, aside from the usury, does it really exist? I just noticed a link to their homepage on a GNAA-run site . . . - Jersyko·talk 04:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, they are legit in the sense that they exist. You can't turn on CNN in the mornings without seeing their television ads. One of the worst out-in-the-open scams out there. It's amazing. Even if you don't have good credit and can't get a credit card to order online from Dell, etc., stuff the equivalent of the payments into a sock for a couple of months and buy a low-end system from Circuit City or Best Buy or even Walmart or someplace, for goodness sakes. --Millard73 14:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, again[edit]

I've cleaned it up quite a bit by starting with and updating it to reflect new information. All that remains are a couple citation issues. Jumbo Snails 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of alternative section[edit]

I'm removing the list of alternatives to the company. I'm not sure what the comment in text means about google source, but that's not the issue; It violates wikipedia policy. First, it has a hint of POV. Second, it violates WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. It's got to go. —Mitaphane talk 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Old And Unverifiable Information[edit]

I've removed some claims made where the citation was incorrect or unverifiable. Also, as the products sold by the company have changed, I removed references to the brand information as well as the "quality" descriptor. --???

The former Software section: needs an updated URL so it can be re-added. While it had a reference, the cited web page is no longer available. --Elvey 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Name change?[edit]

According to their Web site, the name of the company is BlueHippo Capital, not BlueHippo Funding. JMyrleFuller 03:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible future repercussions[edit]

From reading the page, it appears that BlueHippo has the same business model as the subprime home lenders like Ameriquest and New Century. We'll have to see if the bubble bursts as much. - Desmond Hobson 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that BlueHippo could constitute as any sort of market trend much like the subprime morgage industry did. Mike Murray 03:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really like the subprime mortgage fiasco[edit]

"We'll have to see if the bubble bursts as much."

Not likely. Blue Hippo is already WELL in the black before they ever ship the product to the customer. Every customer could default and they would still profit. Handsomely.

A pissed-off state attorney general is more lkely to be their downfall, imho.

Oregonerik 18:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... There's a sucker born every minute. Good to get the word out, but still, this article does need NPOV work and sources. EthanL (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've Had the Displeasure of Dealing with Mr. Rensin[edit]

It would be very enlightening if someone with access to SEC records were to post a few sentences regarding Mr. Rensin's role in the catastrophic collapse of his previous company - CrediTrust - a publicly traded collection company that purchased portfolios of bad debt utilizing predictive credit scoring technology. The company used these scores and early results from 6 month collection efforts as basis for valuing the 5 year payout on such portfolios. This information was the basis of financial statements and projections given to investors and creditors. I do not know if it was ever raised in the SEC hearings or various shareholder suits, but I know firsthand that the scoring tools his company used to predict the 5 year portfolio yeild when "securitizing" these portfolios were only capable of giving 6, 12 & 18 month return horizons. As a further insight into Mr. Rensin's character - CrediTrust never paid for the development and delivery of these predictive models - tools with which it made all its purchasing decisions. Prior to the creation of CrediTrust Mr. Rensin was a bill collector running a Mom & Pop collection company, the name of which escapes me.

BBB has put out a alert on them[edit]

Avoiding POV[edit]

I know it's hard. These guys are big-time scammers.

Here's what I suggest: Quote relevant parts of complaints from the states' attorney generals (Florida, West Vriginia, Maryland) as well as consumer groups and the New York Times. That's neutral, verifiable, and is not original research. It also might prevent a lawsuit. They have threatened the Times, and while they're not likely to actually sue a world-famous newspaper with lawyers on staff, Wikipedia is not in that position.

Clobber Blue Hippo, but do it the right way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The blue hippos clobbered themselves - with a bat and mace the FTC handed 'em.  :-) And we have famous attorney Mike Godwin on staff. Policies require content that is neutral, verifiable, and is not original research. They do NOT say pre-emptively self-censor based on rumors of unfounded threats. BTW, do you have a citation for that NYT threat? --Elvey (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Blue Hippo Mascot.[edit]

Um...I'm pretty sure that looks like Mario from Animaniacs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

POV again[edit]

I see this has been discussed before, but this article clearly runs afoul of WP:NPOV. It reads as though it were written by someone who had a bad experience with the company, but the POV should never be that obvious. I will try to tag or remove the most glaring issues soon.--Kubigula (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some severe POV pushing has not been properly addressed : is a set of edits introduced by a user who has made no other edits before or since. You also missed some (HTML) comments in the article. -- (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is now an odd mix of pro and anti BlueHippo content. It would be nice if the pro-Hippo content was referenced, as it helps balance the article. As it is, the critical elements are much better referenced.
I saw the HTML comments, but I don't understand how they are supposed to verify the content. Can you explain?--Kubigula (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
What part of "Timestamped URL demonstrating this was posted in an earlier version of this page; see the history." don't you understand?

What part of it do you understand? -- (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I surmise that at some point there was a screen capture showing the BlueHippo ordering screen and demonstrating that no SSL security was in place. However, I see several problems with this - verification of a statement shouldn't be hidden in HTML; it smacks of original research; and it doesn't provide verification of the other claims in the section. Without a source actually discussing BlueHippo site security problems, I think this section is a problem.--Kubigula (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC) fixed a problem you introduced. If you don't like the citation, you're always free to improve it, but you say you "I saw the HTML comments" and STILL marked it as lacking a citation. Would a CVE reference be an adequate source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It did not fix the problem, as an HTML comment or a timestamped URL is not an adequate way to verify content. Unsourced or inadequately sourced negative content is problematic for Wikipedia, and this article already leans pretty heavily towards criticism. I did a brief search to see if I could find a decent source on this issue, but I came up empty. We need something from a reliable source discussing security problems on the BlueHippo website; what we have is basically someone's original research. I'm removing the problematic section pending better referencing. On the plus side, the balance of the article is reasonably well sourced. So, while I am still a little concerned about the amount of criticism in the article versus other content, I am withdrawing the NPOV template.--Kubigula (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

BlueHippo files chapter 11, citing cut off from credit and funds by parent bank.[edit]

It appears that when the FTC filed a contempt charge against consumer electronics purveyor Bluehippo, the company's bank, First Region's Bank, took notice and froze their accounts. Now they have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, claiming that they can't repay their creditors, what with the frozen bank accounts and all. This will not end well.,0,7424114.story

Let's consider this company to be hostile towards the common consumer and treat them as such.

They are considered to be a computer LAYAWAY company, turning profits from the defaulted contracts and unshipped computers (can't give a unpaid system to a client that has not fulfilled the layaway contract, so they default and keep the cash). Nighthawke75

BlueHippo can't pay debts, changes status to chapter 7.[edit],0,2906680.story

"BlueHippo had sought bankruptcy reorganization protection last month when its payment processor's bank unexpectedly blocked its funds, leaving the company unable to pay creditors. BlueHippo petitioned a Delaware bankruptcy court judge to allow the funds to be released to the company, but its request was denied on Dec. 2, according to court records.

Without access to the funds held by Checkgateway LLC, BlueHippo "will not be able to satisfy administrative expenses that will continue to accrue if these cases are maintained in Chapter 11 [reorganization]," according to the filing. The company has a bankruptcy court hearing on its Chapter 7 motion on Dec. 23."

Neither the owner or the company's lawyers had anything to comment regarding the status change to liquidation. Nighthawke75 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighthawke75 (talkcontribs)

What did they do?[edit]

I've read this article three times now and still can't make head nor tail of what it is they are supposed to have done. What I've understood is that they purported to provide finance, lots of people complained, and they reneged on an undertaking with the FTC. There's lots about the actions, but very little about what brought them on. The article needs to be more specific about their sins. (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


This article is written by first introducing some basics but clearly with the intent of disparaging. Though the story ends bad for BlueHippo this type of practice should not be tolerated, not the place for gripes.--RedmondKane (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on BlueHippo Funding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)