Last week it seemed that the United States Mint should have reduced the prices for available numismatic gold coins based on a reading of their pricing policy. A notification published in the Federal Register documented a specific procedure by which the average of London Fix prices for a specified period would drive pricing changes. Applying this procedure would have resulted in a price decrease for the available First Spouse Gold Coins.
A response from the US Mint has revealed that there is more to the pricing policy than published in the Federal Register. There are additional criteria defined within an internal policy that can override the published policy. Until now, these additional criteria had not been provided or revealed to the public.
For more than a year, price changes have always followed the calculated average of the nine fix prices mentioned in the published policy. So apparently, this week was the first time that the internal policy guided the pricing determination.
The statement provided by the Mint follows:
On January 12, 2009, the United States Mint adopted a pricing policy which allows them to adjust prices for their numismatic gold and platinum products in order to mitigate the effect of the fluctuating prices of precious metals. The new policy was adopted to ensure that the United States Mint is able to recover all costs associated with gold and platinum products, while keeping changes in prices to a minimum. The new methodology is based primarily on the London Fix weekly average (using the nine fixes beginning Thursday morning and ending with the following Wednesday morning fix).
An internal policy defines the additional criteria that are used to determine price changes. These criteria use the Wednesday PM fix to determine the trend with the intention of minimizing changes to prices. Thus, if the average is above the existing range, but the Wednesday PM fix is in the existing range, prices will not be raised. Similarly, if the average is below the existing range and the Wednesday PM fix is still in the range, prices will not drop. Additional criteria based on the Wednesday PM fix address changes of more than one range, as well as spikes in the market, which could cause the average to be above the existing range, while the Wednesday PM fix is below the existing range, or vice-versa.
During the week that ended with the AM fix of May 26, 2010, the weekly average fell below the range that was in effect on that date. However, the Wednesday PM fix was within the range currently in effect, so the prices were not dropped.
When the new pricing policy was first introduced, the United States Mint Deputy Director stated, "Transparency, agility, and customer service are the catalysts for our new pricing method." Having an unrevealed internal policy which can override the published policy doesn't seem consistent with the claim of transparency.
Going forward, collectors who have been calculating the weekly average precious metals prices to aid in purchasing decisions will have another factor to consider.
Related posts:
Since when do we lean on unpublished policy ?
If you are dealing with the public nothing should be held back.
The mint has the ability to change as the day prices, move within the day. Spot plus mark up. If APMEX can do it ,so can the mint.
It is no different cost plus markup
I wonder when the “internal policy” was written & why the Mints original pricing policy did not say “based primarily on the London fix weekly average”. I was beginning to think the mint was finally getting there act together, but alas, I was wrong again—sad!
I think they did not lower the price because the Buffalo gold coins come out on 6-2.
Its not good for the public when they have multiple pricing policies that they can select between. I’m sure they will always select the approach that benefits them and injures you.
Just like the COMEX, the policy is whatever they say it is subject to change at any time depending on what they want it to be at the time. Our government, Wall St., and the Fed are all just one big criminal syndicate!
Not much unlike the oil cartel/Caesar, joined at the hip connection. Why be honest, fair and accountable when there’s a buck to be made. Discretion and integrity have become the barbarous relic’s of the governments new age accounting practise. Gleaned from the A. Anderson school of corrupt accounting; with assistance from the GLD/ETF twisted sister prospectus.
mint are crook
The US Mint interprets it’s rules (or should we say policy’s) on a day by day or should we say hour by hour. It’s no surprise, look how they justified not Minting the proof and burnished eagles in 2009. It’s public knowledge that those decisions not to mint the eagles have hurt their profitability in 2009. Now they must modify their pricing policy’s to try to compensate for the loss in revenue.
We need the old management back at the US Mint that was there in 2006. They minted more types and more variations of gold silver and platinum, and made record profits. They didn’t interpret policy’s or law’s, They minted what the public desired, Thus they made boat loads of profit. KISS MANAGEMENT. Keep It Simple Stupid
The US Mint is ridiculous as far as a numismatic agency goes. They over-produce series that most of us aren’t as interested in, and they substantially under-produce bullion (presumably because it’s lower margin). Let’s see the US Mint have 2, 5, 10oz silver like other countries do. Instead, they produce crazy amounts of wacky commemoratives that struggle to appreciate in value. How does the Perth mint get away with charging $90 for a 1/2oz silver coin? By making only 5,000 of them. The mint hasn’t grasped this concept yet, and very few of its modern products (besides bullion) are sought after.
You mean the gooberment lies to us !!!!!! Who, would have thought of such a thing !!! LOL
The Mint’s convenient policy has prompted me to cancel my last remaining subscriptions which I have purchased for over 10 years.
They have degraded the value of their offerings by over producing loads of junk and removing the truely collectable precious metals.
Is this the only unpublished policy that The Mint has to manipulate their profits? How many more Aces to they have up their sleeve? When you make up the rules as you go you become a criminal enterprise just like the Federal Reserve. Just remember to grab your socks and bite the bullet hard when you deal with thieves. Caveat Emptor.
“Our government, Wall St., and the Fed are all just one big criminal syndicate!”
An Enemy Has Done This.
Don’t mention the J*ws, or you’ll get eliminated like Helen Thomas.
On August 12th, 2010 I placed an order for the Platinum Eagle for the price of $1892.00 and received the coin on August 19th 2010. On Monday, August 16th 2010 the price of the coin fell by $100.00 to $1792.00. I was pissed, so I reviewed the U.S. Mint’s PDF pricing chart and consulted the London price of platinum for August 12th, it was $1512.00. The weekly average was below as well, at $1539.00. It was fell below of the ‘Average Price of Platinum’. According to the chart, it should have been priced at $1792.00. No where does the ‘Criteria Number’ come up and inform you it’s active. How the hell can one be assured? I called the U.S. Mint and spoke to a Senior Manager. She said metal was so complicated, she couldn’t explain the pricing to me. She repeatedly told me how complicated pricing was and how even she didn’t understand the Pricing Criteria. HOW DO I GET INVOLED WITH CLASS ACTION SUIT?