I spotted this piece of misinformation on the above page. While this may simply have been a careless mistake by a journalist, ignorant of his chosen subject, rushing to churn out an affiliate programme "review", there was another more serious and insiduous piece of propaganda or misinformation on the same page.
There was also no disclosure the the "review" was part of an affiliate programme whereby the host site owner and/or journalist gets a fee or commission from the advertiser.
This screenshot shows the other "error":
Royal Mint Bullion – The Vault – Misleading Review by Robert Devoe on MoneyCheck dot com
There are other errors and omissions on the page:
After "A 1-ounce piece of gold sells for $68.74 at press time", the writer adds ($2,199.86 per troy ounce). At a first glance at this it was unclear whether this is intended to indicate the the price quoted was valid when the spot market price for gold bullion was $2199.86; but gold has never been so high, so assuming that he meant to say that $68.74 was the price for one gram, I did a simple calculation 2199.86/68.74, expecting to get the answer 31.1035; but the answer is 32.0026; this seems to show that the writer cannot do simple arithmetic / maths, even using a calculator. Perhaps he was trying to do a calculation based on the number of troy ounces in a kilo, but the answer to this is 32.1507; I cannot figure out what he intended, but whatever it was, he has given any reader inaccurate and misleading information, even allowing for his ambiguity.
What would have been a useful piece of information was the percentage premium included in the price of the 1-ounce / 1-gram bar. As the MoneyCheck page included a partial screenshot of a Royal Mint page, with some spot pricing, I thought I may be able to make some sense of things, but no!
Tthe Royal Mint screenshot shows spot prices in pounds sterling, whereas the reviewer has chosen to state prices in dollars (I presume he means US dollars, although this is not explicit).
By failing to state the spot market price at the time of his price comparisons, he has made it all but impossible for any reader to come to any meaningful conclusion.
He states that "A 400-ounce bar sells for $604,060.28 dollars, making it cost $1,510.15 per ounce. That’s a discount of $689.71 per ounce."
A discount compared with what?
I took a guess that he meant compared with buying a one gram bar, and the calculations bore this out, but…
This is an absolutely stupid comparison. As before, a useful piece of information would have been to state the percentage premium above the actual spot gold market price. Possibly he is not bright enough to know this, doesn’t care, has regurgitated something told him by the Royal Mint, or that he prefers to flash the word "discount" to fool readers into thinking they can get a bargain.
It might also have been more sensible to state that buying a one gram bar involved paying 45.67% more per ounce than for a 400 ounce bar.
A further point is that very few gold investors buy either a 400 ounce bar, or a one gram bar. The obvious reasons for this is that few people can afford to invest in $600,000 multiples, and that the premium on very small bars such as one gram exclude them from any intelligent portfolio; they should be considered as a novelty ot gift item at best.
I get the strong impression that this review is not objective or impartial. As I have noted, the MoneyCheck review is part of a Royal Mint affiliate marketing programme, whereby if people buy from the Mint after using the links from MoneyCheck to the Mint, then MoneyCheck get paid for it. I find it very difficult to believe that this has not influenced the review,
Yet another fautly "fact", although the Royal Mint has probably been operating in some form for about 1100 years, Royal Mint Bullion appears to be only a trading name of Royal Mint Limited, which was only incorporated on 16th July 2009, according to Companies House. The writer appears to have simply believed what he read on the Royal Mint Bullion website, and made the mistake of believing the Royal Mint, and failing to check the facts.
The writer states:
"Their diverse offerings with metals such as silver and platinum, and the capability of both buying and selling assets with them makes the company one of the more competitive sellers of precious metals."
This is also false. the Royal Mint is one of the most expensive and uncompetitively priced sellers of gold bullion in the UK, although to be fair, in his conclusion, he does say "CONS
Higher Prices than other dealers", although this is rather understated.
Their storage prices are double our company’s storage charges.
He also fails to mention the Mint’s buying prices.
There is probably a good reason for this, when I last looked at their Bullion site in detail, they refrain from giving any buying prices, or indication of discount compared with spot gold.
I guess this is a case of buyer beware, once you have overpaid the Mint for your coins of bars, paid double the storage fees, you probably don’t know or care if you get ripped off when it comes to sell.
Tagged: , Gold , Only , $68.74 , Per , Ounce , Inaccurate , Misleading , Review , Royal , Mint , Bullion , by , Robert , Devoe , MoneyCheck.com