Perth Bullion Liquidation
- Thread starter nighttrader
- Start date
madaw1
Well-Known Member
The true is only wording " much more".
SilverDJ
Well-Known Member
Allocated must legally be kept off the company books, that's how it works, therefore untouchable by receivers and administrators as an asset to pay creditors with. If PB didn't ensure this then the directors are still legally responsible and could be sued and have likely committed fraud of some description. Going into administration/bankruptcy does not protect you from criminal liability.
Here is the website terms that states allocated is stored in your name (and therefore not the companies). So the administrators can't touch it, if they do, it's theft, and in that case owners should go immediately to the police.
Sham Bolic
Member
can comments be deleted here?
Sham Bolic
Member
This only happened because of the government (ATO forced liquidation)
SilverDJ
Well-Known Member
Your own comments, or other people's comments?
If it's the latter then you aren't going win any friends by suggesting that on a forum.
Sham Bolic
Member
Own comments of course
Members with paid accounts can delete posts and threads
Sham Bolic
Member
has anyone ever used the Perth Airport branch of Perth Mint - i emailed and called today to ask if i could sell my bullion there - on the phone they said no but by email they said yes. Most incompetent mofos ive ever dealt with - was like this 10 years ago last time i dealt with them and they are still the same!
Just one thing I want to check on in regards to insurance. I had a read at the deed of release but didn't find anything specific about forfeiting insurance claims, although I did see that by signing the deed, the person who signed it acknowledges to not go after the liquidator should the goods be missing etc, so I was wondering why people were saying this.
Also to note, although the liquidator took over the insurance policy from PBC, they are only holding it and not underwriting it so I was wondering if there was an issue, why not claim any missing goods under insurance as the liquidator is not affected unless they decided to take the risk themselves (which is probably not the best thing I would have thought of given the can of worms it would open).
And I do remember the liquidator saying people should get their own insurance after PBC went bust, so what is that all about?
Let me know if I'm missing anything here.
Also to note, although the liquidator took over the insurance policy from PBC, they are only holding it and not underwriting it so I was wondering if there was an issue, why not claim any missing goods under insurance as the liquidator is not affected unless they decided to take the risk themselves (which is probably not the best thing I would have thought of given the can of worms it would open).
And I do remember the liquidator saying people should get their own insurance after PBC went bust, so what is that all about?
Let me know if I'm missing anything here.
Sham Bolic
Member
most arent insured for much i think - complimentary $10k - as they felt that if there were ever to be something dodgy they likely wouldnt be liable or wouldnt pay anyway - for most, the security vault itself was supposed to be the insurance - no one foresaw an attack by our own government, at least i didnt
So if you paid the extra insurance to fully cover your contents, you should be fine because you could just claim insurance?
Under insuring comes with its own risk as well because its not the government that can come after you but theft (both internal and external) or fire breaking the building etc that can trigger an insurance event as well. In these situations I have described, the box holders would still be at risk losing their contents.
Under insuring comes with its own risk as well because its not the government that can come after you but theft (both internal and external) or fire breaking the building etc that can trigger an insurance event as well. In these situations I have described, the box holders would still be at risk losing their contents.
Sham Bolic
Member
It
Yes but it might be another $1000 a year for full insurance - with no guarantee they would pay anyway - there is already confusion over whether its valid after liquidation because the insurance was provided by the business but the liquidators took over the business - but their saying they wont release goods unless they are indemnified - so what good is more insurance if its not going to deliver in this case anyway - so i think most people basically dont trust insurance companies anyway - thats why they are in PMs and the storage vault is supposed to be secure
If you indemnify the Liquidator you may void the policy that the insurer had agreed to give.
I have been asking again and again for clarification on this and as the policy holder the liquidator should be able to get the insurers say or at least supply the contract so it can be clarified by a lawyer.
So far they've been telling me that they can't ask my question as the insurer had not answered their request to change the policy....
It's a potential catch 22, don't sign the deed and don't get an appointment. sign the deed and potentially waive your insurance. You have to make a bet that you trust everyone involved enough that you don't need insurance.
The order from the supreme Court made it clear about when the deed should be signed. At the time of collection and prior to release.
I have been banking on this to see my seal intact before signing, but RSM are not giving an inch because they say they want to have a signature before making appointment.
I figured others would have just paid the insurance too but obviously not seeing the amount of response here. It cost less than 0.4% of the value covered.....
Hi, once again, do you know where in the deed of release it says that once you sign the deed, you forfeit any insurance claims as I couldn't find anything about it? I see items on not making any claims towards RSM, but nothing about forfeiting insurance claims.
Also, once again, I thought RSM would be the holder of the policies on behalf of the box holders, not the actual underwriter, which I'm wondering why they would have any skin in the game if insurance claims were made, they could just go to the insurance company.
All insurance policies will be affected if you indemnify another party against loss of the insured asset.
What I've been saying is signing the deed is POTENTIALLY voiding the policy. This MUST be confirmed by the underwriter, and if they are ok then there is no problem with the deed of release.
RSM now owns the policy that was sold to box holders by PBC. It's their responsibility to talk to the underwriter as the policy owner.
They are asking us to go ahead with signing, REFUSING TO CONFIRM the underwriter is ok with the indemnity etc. In the deed.
If you indemnify RSM as per the deed of release, insurance most likely cannot sue them if RSM are responsible for loss, thereby leaving a loophole for the insurer not to pay if a loss occurs because in the deed of release you agreed you are ok to take a loss as long as RSM is responsible.
So, you go there, your box is not present, call the insurance, they work out you've indemnified RSM, now their option to avoid paying out is to find RSM is responsible
I hope this explains better
What I've been saying is signing the deed is POTENTIALLY voiding the policy. This MUST be confirmed by the underwriter, and if they are ok then there is no problem with the deed of release.
RSM now owns the policy that was sold to box holders by PBC. It's their responsibility to talk to the underwriter as the policy owner.
They are asking us to go ahead with signing, REFUSING TO CONFIRM the underwriter is ok with the indemnity etc. In the deed.
If you indemnify RSM as per the deed of release, insurance most likely cannot sue them if RSM are responsible for loss, thereby leaving a loophole for the insurer not to pay if a loss occurs because in the deed of release you agreed you are ok to take a loss as long as RSM is responsible.
So, you go there, your box is not present, call the insurance, they work out you've indemnified RSM, now their option to avoid paying out is to find RSM is responsible
I hope this explains better
Liadlus, sounds like you're pretty upset. But putting a personal number on a public platform might not do you any favours.
Pete is the one who will help you. Will he approve of this?
Plus, some people have been working for weeks trying to get some attention, please don't f##k it up for them!!!!
Pete is the one who will help you. Will he approve of this?
Plus, some people have been working for weeks trying to get some attention, please don't f##k it up for them!!!!
If he knew his number was going up here I've got more hope than before!!
Fraser
Active Member
I have been sending my Perth (stock broking) clients to the Perth Mint to buy silver with excess cash.
Admittedly some of these orders have been chunky, BUT one small guy reported back yesterday that Perth Mint are now SOLD OUT of 100oz bars (and possibly also 1kg bars) and are on "back order for 3 weeks". With the girl at the window claiming that there has been a run on bars leaving the Mint.
I don't like coincidence and wonder if it has something to do with Perth Bullion.
Because in the Keynesian wet dream, everyone is forced out of physical and into paper.
So maybe the plan is to shut down small players and then announce "none for sale" at the Government Mints?
I dunno - but (to me) global markets look like they are ready to crack...
Particularly with the stock market volatility and Russia and China buying so much physical.
And the next G7 meeting is in two days - so maybe we'll get a nice surprise!
Admittedly some of these orders have been chunky, BUT one small guy reported back yesterday that Perth Mint are now SOLD OUT of 100oz bars (and possibly also 1kg bars) and are on "back order for 3 weeks". With the girl at the window claiming that there has been a run on bars leaving the Mint.
I don't like coincidence and wonder if it has something to do with Perth Bullion.
Because in the Keynesian wet dream, everyone is forced out of physical and into paper.
So maybe the plan is to shut down small players and then announce "none for sale" at the Government Mints?
I dunno - but (to me) global markets look like they are ready to crack...
Particularly with the stock market volatility and Russia and China buying so much physical.
And the next G7 meeting is in two days - so maybe we'll get a nice surprise!
Last edited:
sctpc
Active Member
I have never bought from perth mint but have a little bit of there product and the people I buy from have regularly not been able to get some types of silver or gold due to the fact Perth mint make batches and if there is a run on a type they only make a batch once a month, I wish silver was a problem but its the type, bit like the 2019 Eagles running out as Sunshine Mint couldn't make enough planchets. yet in Australia we had no trouble getting them