| Author |
Replies: 50 / Views: 8,015 |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote: To my knowledge, the legislation doesn't ever say "based upon". The laws are very specific that no profit should be involved. Don't confuse the bullion sales that have to go to 5 or 6 entities from the mint who buy in 6 and 7 figures with a medal. They make money off the bullion coins as well which is why they only sell them to a couple of big buyers and let them worry about spot
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1374 Posts |
Without a doubt, the Mint does make a profit on bullion sales (although once again, the legislation doesn't authorize a profit). Here's the relevant table from the 2017 Annual report  They almost met the letter of the law in 2017 with a profit of only .8% (a prudent margin IMHO) versus 0% as required by the authorizing public law.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote: They almost met the letter of the law in 2017 with a profit of only .8% (a prudent margin IMHO) versus 0% as required by the authorizing public law. I think the modern US mint is a joke world wide, but brother you're chasing ghosts on this no profit allowed misread
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1374 Posts |
Misread  The legislation seems clear to me Quote: (f) The Secretary shall sell the coins minted under subsection (e) to the public at a price equal to the market value of the bullion at the time of sale, plus the cost of minting, marketing, and distributing such coins (including labor, materials, dyes, use of machinery, and overhead expenses).
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188213 Posts |
I feel that the part that says "plus the cost of minting, marketing, and distributing such coins (including labor, materials, dyes, use of machinery, and overhead expenses)" allows for generous interpretation.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5029 Posts |
 with jbuck. BadDog your reading these as if they are black and white. Any contract or law or legislation has "loopholes" or clauses that seem straight forward but aren't. The one jbuck highlighted is not as straight forward as I am sure the writers and reviewers thought it might be. Or possibly they wrote to allow some flexibility on purpose. I do not think they are gouging anyone to go back to the original point made some posts back.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1374 Posts |
Well, I seem to be on my own on this one. Since you all feel the Mint is allowed to make a profit, what profit are they allowed to make? 5%? 10%? 100%? It just doesn't work that way. When coins are authorized by specific legislation, the intent of the legislation is to provide the coins to the collecting public at no cost to the government. The legislation indicates what some of those costs may be. If there are others that aren't specifically identified then the Mint is allowed to recoup those as well, but it is not allowed to charge prices with the expectation of making a profit. The price it does charge is of course an estimate that is designed to cover the cradle to grave cost of the product. I totally agree that it is prudent to charge a price that ensures the costs are recovered, with a SMALL margin. If you look at the Mint's annual reports, you'll see that the Mint is pretty good at this and typically makes a net margin (you'll notice they never call it a profit) of only a few percent. My point with the Presidential medals is that it is rare for the Mint to produce essentially the same product in two different metal contents. Because they are doing this, it allows you to pretty much directly compare the prices of the two products. When I do this, I think that the costs of producing, marketing, distributing, etc of the two products should be fairly similar with the exception of the cost of the silver. The two products don't appear to be priced this way. Commems believes that the costs associated with the silver version of the medal are significantly greater than the costs associated with the bronze version. It is this dichotomy that I have difficulty believing/understanding. Commems wanted to compare the ASE prices to the medal prices to justify the price of the medals. I believe a better comparison to look at is the regular proof set versus the silver proof set. Here once again the mint is producing the same product, just in different metal content. The prices are $27.95 for the proof set and $49.95 for the silver proof set, or a difference of $22. The silver proof set contains about 1 1/3 ozt of silver or about $22 of silver. The reverse silver proof set was priced at $5 more than the regular silver proof set. A reasonable increase to cover reasonable additional costs. BTW, here is the Mint's policy on how they determine pricing. IMO the key quotes are: Quote: The United States Mint works on a cost-recovery basis. and Quote: The United States Mint's numismatic programs are self-sustaining and operate at no cost to the taxpayer.
Edited by BadDog 08/18/2018 3:31 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4901 Posts |
Quote: When I do this, I think that the costs of producing, marketing, distributing, etc of the two products should be fairly similar with the exception of the cost of the silver. The two products don't appear to be priced this way. Excellent point...
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote: Since you all feel the Mint is allowed to make a profit, what profit are they allowed to make? 5%? 10%? 100%? Whatever they want, but their products aren't good enough to get the premium percentages other countries can get. I do agree with you that aside from materials there isn't likely to be a significant cost difference aside from the material for the silver and bronze medals. That said though, aside from circulation coinage they are a business and have no obligation to operate entirely at cost
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1374 Posts |
Quote: . they are a business and have no obligation to operate entirely at cost Not quite. The US Mint is a Federal Government agency that is part of the Treasury Department (I know you know this). As such, the rules they operate under ARE different than a commercial business. One of those rules is that the Mint Quote: . works on a cost-recovery basis. not a profit basis. As I keep saying, the Mint does make a slight profit, but that is not because it is trying to. It IS trying to recoup all costs associated with the cradle to grave life cycle of its products. To ensure it does this, they will price their products a bit above cost to allow for the unknown unknowns that plague all programs and hope they get it right. They do a pretty good job as their net margin is typically just a few percent, but if they did a really GREAT job, that margin would be zero. In the case of the Presidential medals, I just think that they are way off base in their pricing. I suppose saying they're price gouging is a bit harsh, as I don't really believe that is their intent, but it does somewhat come across that way IMHO.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote: They do a pretty good job as their net margin is typically just a few percent, but if they did a really GREAT job, that margin would be zero.
It's literally impossible to plan that out and achieve that without coming back in time with a future balance sheet. Quote: In the case of the Presidential medals, I just think that they are way off base in their pricing. Honestly I think they're fairly spot on. I don't see those selling well which means they need to charge more for what they do sell, but I do get the point you're making that if they could sell more they should be cheaper
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12819 Posts |
I feel like the answer has to be "yes" on this, but will there be an actual Reagan medal this time? Or are they going to package up another standard-issue ASE instead?
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188213 Posts |
Quote:I feel like the answer has to be "yes" on this, but will there be an actual Reagan medal this time? Or are they going to package up another standard-issue ASE instead? They will make a silver version of the existing bronze Reagan medal. Which is what they should have done for the C&C set. 
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12819 Posts |
Makes sense and yes, they should have. I think a medal, the Presidential dollar coin, AND an ASE would have been a fitting C&C set for Reagan. May have hurt sales though with the extra $50 for an ASE.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188213 Posts |
They at least had the Ron and Nancy medal in there, which was nice, but I would have preferred a silver medal to the ASE just to be consistent with most the other sets... I said most, since Lincoln had a commemorative dollar which is less silver! 
|
| |
Replies: 50 / Views: 8,015 |