Two words: Hurricane Katrina Or, perhaps more relevant to my area: Yellowstone Caldera There is some good info in other threads on the ANA and their recommended insurer Hugh Wood. Their rates seem to run about 1% of the value of your collection for their base plan, not including the annual ANA membership ($26-$46). A little steep for me since if the Caldera goes up, I probably won't be around to look for my bullion. But let's take a look at the numbers and you'll see why I won't be buying insurance for my bullion. Let's say one has $10,000 in bullion stored in a safe deposit box that runs $30 a year and insurance costs 1% of the value of that bullion. It sounds reasonable until you carry it out for a while, keeping track of expenses and factoring in 3% inflation. i.e. The value of your bullion rises by 3% per year, and so do the annual insurance and SDB expenses. At 20 years: Value of bullion: $17,535 Total paid on SDB rental: $806 Total paid on insurance: $2,687 Grand total paid on protection: $3,493 As a percentage of value: 20% At 40 years: Value of bullion: $31,670 Total paid on SDB rental: $2,262 Total paid on insurance: $7,540 Grand total paid on protection: $9.802 As a percentage of value: 31% At 60 years: Value of bullion: $57,200 Total paid on SDB rental: $4,892 Total paid on insurance: $16,305 Grand total paid on protection: $21,197 As a percentage of value: 37% That already sounds scary enough, but it's even worse if you also factor inflation into the spent expenses as well, which isn't factored into the examples above. i.e. The insurance and box rental for the first year are $130 in today's dollars, and 60 years from now, those $130 are still displayed in today's dollars, whereas the value of the bullion rose by 3% every year. All I did in this example was add 3% to the annual expenses to find the actual money spent. In this example, the grand total paid on protection will never exceed the value of the bullion, because even though you continue to pay for the SDB and the insurance, the value of the bullion is increasing with inflation while the amount paid for protection in the past is not. The percentage rises quickly in the beginning, but eventually reaches a plateau. I hope that makes sense. It doesn't make much sense to me to do it like that, but that's how I've seen other people do such analyses in the past. It makes more sense to me if we're adjusting for inflation on some parts of the analysis, then we should adjust for inflation in all parts. If we do adjust the value of the monies invested to factor in inflation to those as well, to find the effective money spent, the value of the bullion of course remains unchanged, but the totals paid for protection and percentages of value increase to: 20 years: Value of bullion: $17,535 Effective amount paid on protection: $4,559 As a percentage of value: 26% 40 years: Value of bullion: $31,670 Effective amount paid on protection: $16,484 As a percentage of value: 52% 60 years: Value of bullion: $57,200 Effective amount paid on protection: $44,616 As a percentage of value: 78% In this example, the effective amount paid will ultimately surpass the value of the bullion since both the value of the bullion and the total expenses are both being adjusted for inflation. (At the rates used, this will happen at year 77) This is much more realistic, but don't expect to see insurance companies using this sort of logic any time soon. If you divert that $100 per year from insurance to investment for a 5% return (historic average for small business stocks is almost 11%), you'd have $4,447 after 20 years, $19,834 after 40 years, and $67,134 after 60 years, and odds are very good that you'd still have your bullion too. Are things 100% certain to work out this way in both the expense analysis and the investment scenario? Of course not, because inflation rates and investment returns will vary. But the point is, if you want 100% certainty in life, you're going to pay for it. Often to the point that some things, like bullion stacking, no longer make any sense at all. The ONLY reasons I have a SDB is because I can get one at a steeply discounted rate, I secure other things in it besides just bullion, my bank is within walking distance of my work, and I enjoy having one. If I had to pay the full rate, I probably wouldn't have one. I would probably have a TL30 safe poured into concrete instead. I refuse to buy insurance for my SDB. YMMV of course, and insurance might make more sense for dealers than stackers, or people in high crime areas, but in most cases, insurance makes the most sense for insurance companies. --- If anyone is interested in seeing the spreadsheet I used to come up with these values, I think I can send it in a PM. It's ugly right now, but I can add column headers and notes to clarify things if need be, but it's really quite simple and you could probably do it on your own. All it does is start with $10,000 for the value of the bullion and increase that by 3% per year. In the first example, it starts with $30 for the cost of the SDB and increases just the cost by 3% per year and combines all payments made. The insurance stays at 1% of the value of the bullion for the entire timeline, and combines all payments made. Then the totals for SDB and insurance are combined and divided by the value of the bullion to calculate the percentage of cost. In the second example, everything is the same except each year the running total of expenses is also increased by 3% to account for inflation on the expense side of things.