Talk:Billionaire Boys Club

Untitled
The sources that you guys are using to justify the type of scheme the BBC of 1984 did, are:

1) Not the same case. This BBC happen in 2009, not the same as the 1983 BBC (or as one would say, The Original).

2) You are citing a Hollywood Reporter article about a remake of a TV show, THAT was probably citing this page as a source to begin with...Really?

3) the Newsweek article is regarding the 2009 case SEE #1

4) A book that could possible support your claims, but dubious at best.

I wont change it again, but if you're going to continue to claim this, you have to come up with WAY better sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.195.107 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Reforming" of BBC
I deleted the following paragraph from the article:

''In early 2008 the BBC was reborn by 7 college students 4 from SMU 2 from OU and one law student from John Marshall Law School in Chicago, IL. Their parents supported the organization. This social group was founded under the principles to change the ideals of the former BBC, and help make social connections between the World's next leaders.''

My reasoning:

1) This is a grammatical mess, and I'm not even sure I understand what it's talking about. What are SMU and OU? Presumably schools, but you can't throw abbreviations like that into WP without first using their expanded forms. And their principles are to change past ideals? What?

2) A murderous Ponzi scheme...was reformed? This seems dubious to me. At the very least the paragraph needs to be rewritten to make sense and explain why such a group as the BBC would be something people want to restart, but I'm inclined to hold out until such a thing can be sourced. If this is indeed an official club of some sort, it must at some point be mentioned somewhere - newspaper, college records?

3) Even assuming the paragraph's contents are all true, this is not a NPOV paragraph. The "world's next leaders" is a somewhat inflated view of anyone who's not actually a president of a country or something. Chaoticfluffy (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good call. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bilionaire Boys Club Resurfaces As Investment Scam
The co-founder and Chairman of BBC Equities,LLC, John J. Bravata, stated in the complaint filed July 26, 2009 by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division that he, "...chose the name BBC Equities to stand for 'Billionaire Boys Club'."

www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/209/comp21155.pdf

In a Detroit Free Press article published October 29, 2009, Alleged Scam Eats $300,000 Savings written by Susan Tompor, she states that, "The BBC stood for Billionaire Boys Club, according to regulators."

www.freep.com/article20091029/BUSINESS06/910290614/1002/Business/Suspected-Scam-Zaps--300-000-in-savings

BBC Equities was formed in the State of Michigan on May 1, 2006.

http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/bcs_corp/rs_corp.asp?s_button=sname&v_search=BBC+Equities&hiddenField=&search=SearchMheegan (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ponzi
How was this a Ponzi scheme? No one was ever given money in the guise to hide loses. Instead they treated the investor's money (a lot of it was from their own families) as if it was their own piggy bank. At best, it was a murderous embezzlement type scheme. It's completely not credible to link this to any type of Pyramidish scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.195.107 (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a plethora of citations indicating it was a Ponzi scheme. tedder (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're getting the 2009 case mixed up with the 1983 case (although they do belong on the same page). I believe that the original BBC case, was Ponzi like (meaning Joe Hunt may have thought it, but never really got a chance to really implement it).

I mean it's Ok as is (as long as you only keep the 1986 source).

I think my problem might be that the sentence just needs to be rewritten to reflect that it's very similar to but is in itself unique (meaning not all that was involved knew about the scheme to defraud, in fact, "legally" wise, only Joe Hunt knew...supposedly). As it reads now, everyone was in on it...which is true only with the 2009 case, not the 1983 case...again supposedly :)