@Goldbully said:
Pop Report from today.......look at all those 70's for the big guys!
65.2% of the First Strikes are 70.
Got to love the PCGS boss lady going 75 for 75. 😊
If they submit 70 only, they can go 1000 for 1000. Don't create unnecessary innuendo
@Goldbully said:
Pop Report from today.......look at all those 70's for the big guys!
65.2% of the First Strikes are 70.
Got to love the PCGS boss lady going 75 for 75. 😊
If they submit 70 only, they can go 1000 for 1000. Don't create unnecessary innuendo
@Goldbully said:
Pop Report from today.......look at all those 70's for the big guys!
65.2% of the First Strikes are 70.
Got to love the PCGS boss lady going 75 for 75. 😊
If they submit 70 only, they can go 1000 for 1000. Don't create unnecessary innuendo
wonder if anyone at the mint wants to take it back to the old pricing structure
They didn't make money at that number, so probably not.
I wonder if anyone at the Mint wants to just stop making them altogether.
Really? They didn't make money, on a marginal basis, or they didn't make money after allocating overhead that they have to pay regardless of whether or not they make any particular product? Or, they made money, but they thought the market would allow them to make more?
Because, when silver is below $50 per ounce, let alone $40, and when they can make money selling an entire base metal uncirculated set containing 20 coins for $33.25, I'm pretty sure they don't need $91 to make money on a single one ounce silver coin. They just want it if they can get it.
Even though they were probably better off, and surely would have made more money, selling 150K at $76 each. If nothing else, more coins to spread that bloated overhead across.
I'm talking about the old number not the new number. The numismatic division lost money for multiple years which is why they raised prices
What old number? From 20 years ago?
As long as they are going to sell proof and uncirculated sets, they are going to have a numismatic division that is going to have overhead. How they choose to use government accounting to come up with whatever they come up with to calculate profit and loss is entirely up to them.
But nothing that sells literally tens of thousands of units, let alone hundreds of thousands, at a price that more than covers the cost of materials and labor, loses money on a marginal basis. Period.
No doubt some commemorative coins, over which they have no control, lose money. Because the direct fixed costs are so high, and the volumes so low for many of them. But no way numismatic AGEs or ASEs ever lost a dime on a marginal basis.
Sure, after throwing in the cost of the $1 Billion refurbishment of the future Air Force One, anything to which that cost is allocated will lose money. Argue all you want. I also took cost accounting in school. You make production decisions on an incremental unit cost basis.
Because fixed costs don't disappear. What disappears is profit if you lose more in reduced volume than you gain in margin when you raise prices.
Pull out your calculator. Fixed costs aside, which don't change no matter how many they sell, or at what price, they make more money selling 150K burnished ASEs for $76 each than by selling 90K at $91 each. AND, they can't even sell the 90K, where they used to easily sell more than 150K. No matter what the price of silver is.
Again, read the whole thing.
I responded to someone asking if the Mint wanted to revert to their old pricing. I said, no because they lost money at that number. (5 not 20 years ago)
You managed to devote 4000 words to arguing a point i never made. Congratulations
Thanks! But they didn't lose money, after stripping out commemoratives mandated by Congress, and overhead that is not directly attributable to a particular issue (such as dies).
Not 5 years ago. Not 20 years ago. Not ever.
Because they never sold anything close enough to marginal cost to make anything a loser. Again, other than commems with relatively high direct fixed costs and abysmally low volumes.
If they claim to have lost money on the numismatic program, it's only because they are using government accounting to saddle it with all sorts of overhead allocations that would have to go somewhere else if there was no numismatic program. Not because they actually lost money selling silver for $50, $60 or $75 per ounce when spot was a fraction of those levels.
No. They just decided they could price like the Royal Canadian Mint or the Perth Mint, because if they can sell 5,000 or 7,500 silver coins for $100 per ounce, no reason the US Mint can't sell 250,000 at that price. And here we are.
Comments
Upauendo!
😊
Reportado
Report? What? Huh?
Thanks! But they didn't lose money, after stripping out commemoratives mandated by Congress, and overhead that is not directly attributable to a particular issue (such as dies).
Not 5 years ago. Not 20 years ago. Not ever.
Because they never sold anything close enough to marginal cost to make anything a loser. Again, other than commems with relatively high direct fixed costs and abysmally low volumes.
If they claim to have lost money on the numismatic program, it's only because they are using government accounting to saddle it with all sorts of overhead allocations that would have to go somewhere else if there was no numismatic program. Not because they actually lost money selling silver for $50, $60 or $75 per ounce when spot was a fraction of those levels.
No. They just decided they could price like the Royal Canadian Mint or the Perth Mint, because if they can sell 5,000 or 7,500 silver coins for $100 per ounce, no reason the US Mint can't sell 250,000 at that price. And here we are.
re: losing money
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13945335/#Comment_13945335