Bank Unwilling to Cash Check from Gold Sale

I spoke with him earlier. He was angry that someone would question his veracity. He gave the name of the city where this occurred, would not name the bank because it might precipitate a run on that bank, said that coin dealers are generally not very ethical (to put it nicely), etc., blah, blah, blah...

I countered that the civil authorities exist to punish transgressors, not for honest business people. I guess he will believe that when he sees evidence of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is a very cheap shot from someone who as simply ignored all the very accurate posts in this topic on how banking works in the USA. I have noticed that in the USA these days we have plenty of people who will believe anything but the truth, so I shouldn't waste my time in response. Yes I agree it it a pointless discussion but not because of the people here, but because the story is a big pile of steaming "you know what" that any serious bullion investor should simply ignore.

 

That comment by him right there tells me this is all bunk

 

It's the legally smart thing to do -- keep your mouth shut about specific names when speaking to strangers who may wish you ill fortune. "Hi, I'm Owle. Please spill your guts to me. What's that hum? I can assure you it isn't a recording device."

LOL. I'm surprised this thread is still active.

 

Why would there be a run on banks because a certain bank wouldn't cash a cheque for over half a million dollars? Just because they wouldn't cash it, doesn't mean they don't have the money to do so.
I really can't figure out the purpose of this story. It makes me feel stupid just reading it and commenting.

 

\\

I have never recorded any conversation, but you can be sure the telcoms regularly do.

Coin Dealer Newsletter this week reported that ICTA is getting panicky calls from coin dealers who are being warned by their banks that their accounts could be closed out if they are not in compliance with Patriot Act requirements. That is why it is important for both customers and coin dealers to be knowledgeable about how these rules work.

 

Oh that is nonsense. The Consumerist, owned by Consumer's Reports, routinely lists banks by name who have abused their customers.

 

What no one pointed out on this issue is what if the shoe were on the other foot with Mr. Sanders? A customer sends him or stops by his place of business with a check from an out of state bank in the hundreds of thousands. Would he release the equivalent in bullion after calling the bank to verify funds were present in that amount? I doubt it.

 

So whats your point................it's a ridiculous story to begin with, sounds made up by someone who hates banks. I knew the story was BS when I read the part about putting the cheque into a safety deposit box.
Cheques don't clear sitting in safety deposit boxes. Enough said from me.

 

People like Mr. Sanders don't lie.

They may be obstinate, but or have limited information, but they do not lie.

 

I think it unfortunate that you buy into that sort of "truth", i.e., that certain people "don't lie" because of who they are, the occupation they have, the type of business they run, the type of person they are, etc. When in fact, people do lie, and not lying has much to do with their personal moral compass, which no-one but the individual actually "knows" (and no one else) and absolutely nothing with anything else.

I personally would not trust a statement like this as far as I could throw the proverbial piano. :smile

 

Gambling with other peoples money

Sanders wrote....................

"For the past ten years in one case and three years in another I have been managing the unused cash --- funds not needed for at least twelve months -- for two organizations. I have kept as much as possible in silver and gold, and that has paid off wondrously well."

People that manage money for organizations, which I assume are non-profit, don't use an organizations money to invest in precious metals. If they do they are gambling with it and very reckless.
This should tell you a lot about the man. He may not lie but he's not very smart. ​

 

While I completely agree with what you are saying...I also think it isn't 100% correct (that probably made no sense). What I mean is, you are correct...everybody lies at least on occasion. However, there are certain professions where truth, honesty and trust are not only essential parts of the career...but in some cases are sworn oaths. Now, I don't know if this applies to Mr. Sanders...but I can assure you that it does for some people. For instance, I (like you) and a human being and I have lied in my life. I have no problem admitting that. However, in my professional life I can say without hesitation that I have never...not even once lied to a patient, bent the truth with a patient or ever suggested anything that I did not believe would be in their best interest. It is simply part of the career I have chosen.

 

I agree that certain professions do have truth, honesty, and trust being a "part" of that profession, and I am certain many people do uphold those tenets, but I still think it is part of the person's own morals that he sees his profession as an extension of his own being and continues to do so, even when confronted with situations he would not foresee. I'm glad you see it as a part of the career you have chosen, and I have no reason to disbelieve you about something you personally are testifying to about yourself and all. But I still would not trust a statement from another about someone in your profession or any other profession as being someone who would not lie simply because they are in that profession. The correlation is just not there. You may or may not be correct in making that assumption that someone else would not lie, but it's the correlating of someone's working life to a personal trait of lying or not lying that I'm scoffing at. Many people who are in positions of trust, where telling the truth and being honest in all dealings is part and parcel (so to be believed) of those positions get caught in lies and mis-deeds. Having an oath to take, in and of itself does not have an affect on someone unless that person also has the wherewithal and desire to always, and in all situations, no matter the consequences to him, uphold that oath....and that to me is having moral fiber. I believe it comes from within a person and not by way of an occupation or profession.

 

The difference between Camaro telling a lie at work and the Sanders guy, is if Camaro tells a lie to a patient he doesn't stand to gain as much as Sanders. Sure, puting a crown in somebody's mouth who really didn't need one costs money, but it won't net as much as scaring a few thousand people into believing a hokey story and running out and buying gold on the basis of that story.

Of course it's hard to feel sorry for those sucked into such nonsense and then swindled out of their money when it comes to gold investments, whereas if Camaro decided to become an evil dentist, nobody's going to know but him who really needed that crown or not.
Guy

 

I am surprised this thread is still alive as well. Having said that, I agree 100% with this post. Any professional handling funds in such a manner, (or investing the cash in stocks, or pork bellies, or betting it on the dog who goes #2 right before the race), is gambling with the funds and would easily be found liable by any jury for any losses incurred. Anything other than short term, AAA bonds and notes would simply be gross mismanagement of funds for the organizations. Now, if the organizations granted him permission to invest the funds long term, then PM could have a place in those investments, but still not 100% of ANYTHING, let alone something as volatile as a commodity.

Chris

 

Any such practice should be considered a reportable event and maybe even require issuing a qualified opinion of their financial statements. Where is the non-profit's accounting firm? Certainly they wouldn't let this transpire un-noted?

 

If the story is true, and if it were a non-profit, their accounting and auditing standards are much more lax than for profits. I do not think it would rise to the level of a reportable event as long as it was provable the investment was worth what was stated. So auditing wise I think it would be fine, (though a good auditor would let the Board know it was terrible practice to invest that way).

The serious problem would be Sander's was not matching up the investments with the risk management prudent in such a situation. This would not be disclosed in an audit opinion, (though likely footnoted), but would put Sanders in jeapordy of being sued if the organizations lost money, and if he was certified in any way put that certification in jeapordy. I think any SEC licensing would be suspended if this was found out.

Chris

 

You are correct. For non public charitable organizations, this would rate a report to the Board of Trustees but would not be reported in the financials. For a public charity, the rules may be different.