Gyroscopic Investing

Curious as to the consensus. I have been averse to insuring gold for 4 reasons:
1. Hassle factor
2. Not convinced that I would get reimbursed (how to definitely show gold lost or stolen?)
3. Ongoing cost
4. Loss of anonymity!

BearBones wrote: Curious as to the consensus. I have been averse to insuring gold for 3 reasons:
1. Hassle factor
2. Not convinced that I would get reimbursed (how to definitely show gold lost or stolen?)
3. Loss of anonymity!

For #2 you would have to take digital pictures of each piece as well as save the purchase receipts.

MachineGhost wrote:

BearBones wrote: Curious as to the consensus. I have been averse to insuring gold for 3 reasons:
1. Hassle factor
2. Not convinced that I would get reimbursed (how to definitely show gold lost or stolen?)
3. Loss of anonymity!

For #2 you would have to take digital pictures of each piece as well as save the purchase receipts.

This demonstrates ownership. But how do you demonstrate that it was lost or stolen? In the case of a safe deposit box (vs held at home), this might be more straight forward. But for gold held in a SDB, I wonder what the consensus is regarding necessity of insurance, since it would seem that SDBs have a very low probability of theft or loss. Just not sure benefit outweighs ongoing cost.

BearBones wrote: This demonstrates ownership. But how do you demonstrate that it was lost or stolen? In the case of a safe deposit box (vs held at home), this might be more straight forward. But for gold held in a SDB, I wonder what the consensus is regarding necessity of insurance, since it would seem that SDBs have a very low probability of theft or loss. Just not sure benefit outweighs ongoing cost.

I'm sure an affidavit along with police report of the theft/robbery or similar documents from the bank would substantiate that.