Are you saying it's deliberately set up to avoid owning gold, so that funds that (for whatever reason) are prohibited from owning gold can (sort of) pretend to own gold? If it's set up so that it doesn't actually own any gold, and what I want is to own gold, then why on earth would I ever buy it?bronsuchecki wrote: When we were designing PMGOLD we had a choice of creating a company/trust or creating a "structured product". The reason we went with the structured product way (ie defining it as fully paid call option for physical) was that it had lower operating costs (hence the 0.15%) and it allowed funds who could not hold physical (or buy an ETF with a trust holding physical) to buy it.
I still haven't read the PDS, and may not. Frankly, the ETFs are complicated enough. Why does it have to be so complicated? Doesn't Perth already effectively have 0 inventory costs (by selling unallocated)? What is the point of yet another mechanism? Is Perth's working gold supply now effectively sold twice, once as unallocated and again as PMGOLD - and you're gambling that the holders of unallocated and the holders of PMGOLD won't both want their gold at the same time?
If the music stopped, right now, how many chairs really exist? Just as many as the number of players? Half as many as the number of players? Less than that?
I don't mean to be rude, but PMGOLD strikes me as something I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot (or 3 meter) pole. And, it makes me seriously wonder about Perth's unallocated as well.