Lunar Dragons - Tiny Australian Dealer Allocations
- Thread starter Matthew 26:14
- Start date
Matthew 26:14 said:
Matthew it is because those dealers buy the big lots that they are being given preference on the dragons. It is good business on PM's part to take care of their biggest customers. It seems like the fairest thing to do would be to allocate to the dealers in proportion to how many lunar rabbits they purchased from the PM last year. If the AU dealers are having their allocations reduced below last year's levels, then that is not right.
Lovey80 said:
AEL (Steve) said a well known dealer got his/her allocation shot down from 40,000 to 6,000. His word is as good as truth pretty much in this line of business.
Source: http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-181552.html#p181552
Guys, just want to clarify exactly what I was told first hand by one of the Perth Mint's largest Australian wholesale dealers.
He told me that when he asked about an allocation for the Dragons; he was told that if he wanted 40,000 coins it wouldn't be a problem.
Nothing was written down and he took their word that it was a done deal.
Being a smart cookie he sought to maximise sales before the rest of the herd caught up.
Unfortunately he did such a good job that he managed to sell 50% more coins that what the Perth Mint will supply him with, which at this stage is about 6000 coins.
Through no fault of his, he is now badly out of pocket to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.
I managed to secure an allocation off him last month and that is now flushed down the toilet leaving me with egg on my face as I try to explain to my customers why I can't supply them with a fraction of the coins they asked for.
I blame the Perth Mint for this stuff-up as they are world champions at screwing up things. I very much doubt it, but just maybe they will learn not to make promises they can't keep because there are consequences further down the food chain for dealers who has to cop the flack for their incompetence.
He told me that when he asked about an allocation for the Dragons; he was told that if he wanted 40,000 coins it wouldn't be a problem.
Nothing was written down and he took their word that it was a done deal.
Being a smart cookie he sought to maximise sales before the rest of the herd caught up.
Unfortunately he did such a good job that he managed to sell 50% more coins that what the Perth Mint will supply him with, which at this stage is about 6000 coins.
Through no fault of his, he is now badly out of pocket to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.
I managed to secure an allocation off him last month and that is now flushed down the toilet leaving me with egg on my face as I try to explain to my customers why I can't supply them with a fraction of the coins they asked for.
I blame the Perth Mint for this stuff-up as they are world champions at screwing up things. I very much doubt it, but just maybe they will learn not to make promises they can't keep because there are consequences further down the food chain for dealers who has to cop the flack for their incompetence.
systematic
Well-Known Member
murphy's law Steve ... bummer 
So if you were informed by your bank, on the phone, that your bank fees/atm fees etc were being waived from here on out - you wouldn't be upset if you got charged $5 for using an atm next time around?jpanggy said:
What you've essentially said is anything said by anyone from the Perth Mint on the phone is not credible at all and would therefore hold no merit.
Matthew 26:14
New Member
A verbal contract is as good as a written contract - the dealer should sue the mint for damages.
RetardedMonkey said:
Assuming you can sue for damages and hold the mint accountable to those promises, then yes you can hold on to those verbal agreement and plan your business accordingly.
Otherwise, you have just bought and sold a promise. Sounds just like fiat doesn't it.
jpanggy said:
If you're doing enough business to move forty thousand ounces of just one type of coin, you wouldn't just be calling up and talking to call centre staff. For that kind of volume you'd be dealing with senior management and you'd be rightly pissed if those decision makers went back on their word.
Its the same here on the forum - the only things you have that are worth anything are your word and your cold, hard cash.
40k ounce is small in business world.
A lot of people even in these forums can generate that amount of cash. Honestly speaking if you are dealing with precious metals, 40k ounce of silver only equates to 1k ounce of gold. The mint deals with amount larger than that normally. Ever since gfc, the mint has been dealing lots of stuff.
If senior managers are involved, then why not sue?
Dealers should have a strong case if the words of senior management was thrown in. Loss of revenue can be considered.
A lot of people even in these forums can generate that amount of cash. Honestly speaking if you are dealing with precious metals, 40k ounce of silver only equates to 1k ounce of gold. The mint deals with amount larger than that normally. Ever since gfc, the mint has been dealing lots of stuff.
If senior managers are involved, then why not sue?
Dealers should have a strong case if the words of senior management was thrown in. Loss of revenue can be considered.
jpanggy said:
Yes that's true, but we're only talking about one type of coin remember. The dealer could well be capable of moving 40k ounces in 1/2oz coins, another 40k ounces in 2oz coins, another 40k ounces in 5oz coins, another 40k ounces in 10oz coins, etc and that's before you even get onto the Kookaburras, Koalas, 10oz, 20oz and 1kg bars and that's before you even start on the gold.
Big A.D. said:
All other line for PM product don't have this issue, actually some didn't even meet their mintage limit. Meaning, distributors or dealers don't order that much anyway in the past. The only exception being the koalas with their unlimited mintage.
The recent issue is all centered around 1oz silver dragon. This particular coin is being milked for all its worth. Everyone wants a piece of that milking action.
Everyone is interested in it for one reason or another. Which is perfectly normal. But unmet pre orders are going to affect dealers that have made business decision on the assumption that their order will be fulfilled. How this turns out .... I don't know. We shall see.
And like I said, the dealers have a case if they can argue that they are promised by senior management. Therefore making the mint pay for their business loss.
