Should the US Mint Be Privatized

A weeks ago, an article appeared on the numismaster.com site, and subsequently in the October 6, 2008 edition of Numismatic News. The article, Get Government Out of Coin Manufacture said:

Coin dealers and collectors are still reeling from the U.S. Mint’s announcement that it had run out of American Eagle gold coins. But what ought to surprise every American isn’t that a government agency came up short. It’s that the U.S. government should be making little metal discs at all.

Today, a counterpoint was posted. In Hamilton was Right in Creating U.S. Mint, the author concludes:

The U.S. Mint is the world’s largest manufacturer of coinage. They are subject to market conditions that have to be managed, as would any manufacturer. Maybe the manufacturer’s board of directors (Congress) and it shareholders (the taxpayers) should question how the managers are doing their jobs. Making them accountable will fix more issues than ignoring 216 years of history.

I may be biased, but the author of the second article has it right. We should hold the management of the US Mint responsible for the problems they have experienced. If you have a difference of opinion from either of the authors, feel free to leave a comment here.

Does Plastic Trump Coins?

During the year, there have been a few articles written speculating why the number of circulating coins have decreased. On article said that the “bank hates your coins” and looks to deter you from cashing them in. Another article presented the case for credit cards and other means of electronic transactions that is cutting into coin production.

Both articles present a case for the lower demand for coins as being the reason for these acts. While the demand for coins may be down and the Mint’s production is also down, both articles do not take into consideration the inventory and movement of coin inventory by the Federal Reserve.

How the Federal Reserve manages inventory has been the subject of investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In the report published in March 2008, the GAO found that while the various Federal Reserve branches have been able to meet the demand for coins to enter commerce, the GAO questions whether the Federal Reserve properly manages its inventory.

One suggestion that the GAO acknowledges that the decline in coin production may be a result of the mismanagement of inventory by the Federal Reserve when they wrote that the “data from one major coin recycling company, the value of coins returned to circulation through recycling grew from approximately $1 billion in 2000 to $2.6 billion in 2006.” With more coins in circulation, the need for new coins to meet demand may be lowered.

Further, as part of inventory management, it was acknowledge that the Federal Reserve banks “look for opportunities to transfer coins within their district to meet projected demand. For example, one Reserve Bank office may want additional coins, while another office may have more coins than it wants to hold to meet short-term demand. The Reserve Bank office works with the coin terminal operators to move the coins as needed.” This will reduce the need to order new coins from the US Mint.

The reports finds that the Federal Reserve does not grasp the concept of an optimal inventory with some coin terminals having lower supply than others. Even with inventory goals, the Federal Reserve does not properly manage to those goals leaving inventories in a state of flux. The report even suggests that the spike in coin production in 2001 was not a result of better economic times, but a mismanagement in ordering for circulated coins and overstating the demand for the 50 State Quarter program. This was alluded to in industry publications.

There have been anecdotal reports saying that bright early date 50 State Quarters are being found in circulation. This could be from people who bought rolls and put them back into circulation with the down economy and the Federal Reserve clearing out the back of the coin storage rooms. Additionally, companies like Coinstar has announced higher earnings based on increased usage of their machines, which places more coins back into circulation.

And none of this considers the effect on the production of currency.

With more money in circulation and the mismanagement of inventory by the Federal Reserve, concluding that the reduction in production by the US Mint because of the increased use of credit cards is questionable. It may be one factor, but not the single reason.

Paper v. Coin Dollars

Since the introduction of the Presidential $1 Coin, many numismatic venues have discussed how to make the program more successful. Reports are being made that Gallup has been calling people asking questions that lead to the impression they are researching the circulation of dollar coins.

When asked about how to increase the circulation of the dollar coin, the dominant suggestion has been to remove the one dollar federal reserve note from circulation. It is thought that the move would force people to use the coin when the paper currency is no longer available.

There are many emotional arguments on both sides of the issue. Whether one is for or against the printing of the one-dollar note, the US may be the only nation to print its unit currency in paper. Looking beyond the emotional arguments, each side has dominant arguments to support their positions.

Those who want to eliminate the one-dollar note use at the cost of is production as the dominant reason. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing reports that 95-percent of all notes printed are used to replace notes that are taken out of circulation. Using BEP’s 2007 production numbers, 4,147,200,000 one-dollar notes were printed. With 95-percent being replacement notes, 3,939,840,000 notes were printed just to maintain circulation levels. With it costing 4½ cents to produce one note of any denomination, the cost to just replace notes removed from circulation was $177,292,800 in 2007.

Rather than printing paper dollars, if the US Mint strikes coins the cost to replace those 3.9 billion notes would cost 15.9-cents (according to the Mint’s 2007 Annual Report [PDF]) per coin. The total production cost would be $626,434,560.

But do not let the 353-percent increase fool you. The BEP predicts the life of a one-dollar paper note is three years while the US Mint predicts the life of any coin is 30 years. To help with the calculation, let’s assume the price of printing notes will stay constant. In order to keep the $3.9 billion of one dollar notes in circulation for 30 years, it will cost the BEP $1.77 billion dollars. Since the Mint will be striking new coins for circulation and (theoretically) not replacement coins, the US government would save about $1.15 billion over 30 years. The following table illustrates these costs:

Denomination Production Total Number of Replacement Notes Cost of Production for Replacements Cost of Replacements over 30 years
Paper Dollar 4,147,200,000 3,939,840,000 $177,292,800 $1,772,928,000
Coin Dollar N/A 3,939,840,000 $626,434,560 $626,434,560

While this might be a compelling argument to stop printing one dollar notes, such a move has political ramifications for some powerful members of congress. With over 1500 people working in the Eastern Currency Facility in downtown Washington, DC, they are represented by several leaders of both parties. Amongst the protectors of the employees in the facility include House Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer (D-MD), House Campaign Finance Leader Christopher VanHollen (D-MD), Former Chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee Tom Davis (R-VA), Del. Eleanore Holmes Norton (D-DC), and the well respected Senator John Warner (R-VA). These powerful members of congress will not allow anything that will reduce the production capacity of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and where constituents could lose jobs.

This does not take into consideration that the President of the United States is from Texas, location of the Western Currency Facility.

Before congress changes the law to stop the printing of the one-dollar note (31 U.S.C. §5115(a)(2)), the BEP will have to supplement production in order to protect jobs. The way this could be done would be to print foreign currency. However, it seems that the BEP is having problems selling their services to foreign governments.

While there are no official statements from the US or foreign governments, the dominant request is for the printing of polymer notes. According to unconfirmed reports, BEP is experimenting with different types of polymer substrate without notable success. If the BEP can adjust their equipment to print on polymer paper, they can solicit business from other countries to produce their currency. Once the BEP builds its portfolio, they are prepared to go to congress to recommend discontinuing production of the one-dollar note. Until then, the BEP will continue to produce one-dollar notes in order to keep workers employed in key congressional districts.

If BEP starts to use polymer notes, it would raise the eyre of Senator Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy, the powerful senior Democrat from Massachusetts. Amongst Sen. Kennedy’s constituents are the employees of Crane & Company from Dalton, Massachusetts. Crane & Comapny has been the exclusive supplier of currency paper to BEP since 1879. Although BEP tried to open the competition for purchasing currency paper used in printing currency (see GAO Report GAO-05-368 [PDF]), the cost of entry into the market has prevented other manufacturers from competing for the business. If BEP would stop printing over 4 million one dollar notes without replacing it with similar paper production, the Massachusetts-based company could lose significant business.

Regardless of the measures taken by the US Mint to increase the circulation of the one-dollar coin, public perception is that the one-dollar paper note is easier to use than the coin. Unless key congressional leaders agree that ending the printing of the one-dollar note is in the best interests of everyone, including their political careers, the political reality is that printing of the one-dollar note is here to stay until a significant event causes a change in policy.

Paulson and Understanding Common Cents

History tells us that the first coinage legislation was devised primarily by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton with Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. These fathers of the United States understood that the new, struggling nation needed its own monetary system that had to be accepted by the public. The eventual law became the foundation of our monetary system.

When Hamilton decided a decimal coinage system was best, he was looking at how the people were using the Spanish Milled Dollar (8 reales) and cutting it up for minor coinage. The pieces were called “bits.” He also saw the continued circulation of British copper coins. The highest denomination circulated in the colonies was a sixpence since the king used the lower coinage in an attempt to control the populace. These coins were used a decimal fraction of the Milled Dollar. It was a natural progression.

Jefferson and Hamilton proposed new United States coins that would be used along side their British and Spanish counterparts until the country could produce enough coinage to drive the foreign coins out of circulation. Jefferson proposed that the new United States coins be similar in size to the coins in circulation. Thus the bill passed by the first congress included a half-cent as the same size of the half-pence, the one cent as the same size of the one penny, the half-disme was the same size as the threepence, and so on.

Hamilton pursued the minting of the half-cent because he felt that if the cent was the lowest denomination, the prices for common commodities would have to be raised. About the half-cent Hamilton said that to “enable the porrer classes to procure necessaries cheap, is to enable them, with more comfort to themselves, to labor for less; the advantages of which need no comment.” The half-cent was also necessary to replace the half-penny and provide change for the bit, which is one-eighth of a Milled Dollar.

The half-cent survived until the passage of the Coinage Act of 1857 which eliminated the half-cent, approved the minting of the small cent, and demonetize foreign coins circulating in the United States. Since the half-cent was not a popular coin, the economy adjusted and found that half-cent pricing was voluntarily eliminated Also, without the bit being legal tender, there was no longer a need to make half-cent change. Within a short time, a few years by some accounts, both the half-cent and large cent were no longer being circulated.

In the United States, we hold our founding fathers in reverence because of how their work has survived. While these men were not perfect, their wisdom and foresight has survived wars, crime, corruption, economic crises, and terrorism for over 200 years. It is a self-correcting system that was designed to grow with the nation. During this evolution, economic concerns and support for the poor have been paramount in economic policy.

This might have changed on February 29, 2009, when the current Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson told Spike O’Dell of WGN in Chicago that the penny should be eliminated saying, “The penny is worth less than any other currency.” Paulson, who can turn a phrase as well as his boss, also shows that he is out of touch with the rest of America when he said, “I walk around with very little cash in my pocket, like everyone else.”

Apparently Paulson, the former chairman of Goldman Sachs, does not venture far from his office at the Department of the Treasury into southeast Washington or into areas of northeast where lesser advantaged people live who do not have a pocket full of credit cards. And with credit issues being at the center of the current economic crises, it is irresponsible for the government’s leading financial manager to pitch pennies for those who have to pinch pennies.

Those who want to end the production of the cent says that cash payments would be rounded. But at whose advantage? When there was an issue with the half-cent, the market adjusted on its own. So when the coin was eliminated in 1857, there was almost no economic impact. However, prices are not rounded, sales taxes are calculated in fractions, and the coin is used many transactions.

The United States has been striking one-cent coins every year since 1793. It is the most common coin, yet has produced some legendary coins like the Large Cent, the 1856 Flying Eagle Cent, 1877 Indian Head Cent, the 1909-S VDB, and the king of all errors the 1955 Doubled Die Obverse.

While the elite like Paulson and Richard Safire never consider the person who driving their limousines, the rest of us worry about the impact on the economy and the injustice its removal from the market would bring. All they consider is that the rising price of zinc and the production process of the United States Mint, it costs 1.6-cents to strike one coin, which allegedly affects the taxpayer.

What they do not tell the public is that the US Mint does not receive any appropriations from the Treasury General Fund. All of the operations of the US Mint (and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing) are funded through the Public Enterprise Fund. The PEF is a special account where the profits from the sales of coins, called seignorage, are deposited. Whether the sale is to collectors, or to the Federal Reserve Bank branches who pay face value for the coins, the difference from the manufacturing process and the purchase is deposited in the PEF. When congress determines the budget for the US Mint, the money used is withdrawn from the PEF. Congress then uses the balance for other purposes.

The Mint and BEP are manufacturers of money that are profit making organizations, and they have a very good profit record—better than any top ranked company. They have become self-sustaining agencies with a financial record better than most other government agencies. Unfortunately, that does not enter the discussion of the detractors.

Another area the detractors discount is the good that can happen from the penny. Remember the Penny Harvest Field that was on display in December at Rockefeller Center in New York City? While the pennies are being counted for the 2007 effort, the 2006 project collected over $643,000 for New York area charities. For a coin that allegedly has little to no purchasing power, that is a lot of money to support good programs.

Many of us who started collecting at a young age would either rummage through our parents’ change or worked cutting grass, delivering newspapers, and other odd jobs where the payment helped fuel that passion. Pennies were easy. We would buy the ubiquitous blue Whitman Folders and try to fill the holes with what we find. It was an inexpensive way to start a collection and have some fun. Today, there are companies that bulk lots from hoards that can be searched to create a nice collection of circulated coins. It is the same principle accounting for the economic changes since I started collecting 38 years ago.

Whether you are a collector, investor, or concerned citizen, I urge you to consider all of the facts. While the Ruppert Murdock-owned Wall Street Journal mentions the near dormant Citizens for Retiring the Penny whose only argument is that pennies cost too much to make, organizations like Americans for Common Cents looks to educate people with carefully constructed and referenced facts.

As a collector and taxpaying citizen of the United States, I believe Paulson and his ilk are wrong and should not be in a position of power with an attitude he has shown. As I type this, he will be in his job no more than the next 319 days!

I will leave you with one last thought: If the cent is obsolete and economically infeasible with little buying power, then why is the Federal Reserve ordering so many for circulation?

Weekend Musings

I was very surprised to learn that the George Washington First Day Covers were sold out at the US Mint. There have been very few sellouts for the 50 State Quarters™ First Day Covers and others, like the Westward Journey Nickel™ First Day Covers, went off sale after the legal sales date expired. I wonder if this is a “first issue” or it will continue for all presidents? Maybe it will only be for popular presidents where Abraham Lincoln would sell out but not Millard Fillmore?

There has been talk of creating fractional American Buffalo 24-Karat Gold Coins but no indication from the Mint that this will happen. The Mint is offering uncirculated American Silver Eagle coins with the “W” mint mark on a subscription basis. I wonder if the expanded product line is too much for the Mint to handle the additional Buffalo gold coins and whether they are trying to protect the American Eagle gold program?

Although I am not a collector of medals, I am amazed at the artwork on the medals produced by the US Mint. While looking at the Mint’s online catalog, I found the new Yosemite Nation Park Centennial Bronze Medal and was just captivated by its design. It seems to capture the grander and beauty of Yosemite. Other medals are just phenomenal in their design. These medals are struck on 90-percent copper and 10-percent zinc blanks in Philadelphia. It may be worth looking into.

On December 14, 2006, the Mint announced a ban on the melting and limited the export of cents and nickels for 120 days (4 months). That period was up on Saturday, April 14, 2007 with no further statement from the Mint. Rumor has it that the Mint will issue a statement continuing the melting ban, raise the individual traveler’s limit from $5 to $25 and the numismatic shipments from $100 to $250. It is speculated that this will be a six month extension of the melting ban.

I would like to end with a non-numismatic review. Last night, my wife and I saw the performance of Titus Andronicus by the Shakespeare Theatre Company of Washington, DC. Titus Andronicus is Shakespeare’s most violent plays depicting the revenge strategies and violence of ancient Rome. It is a powerful play about the misplaced sense of honor some have to authority and tradition and how revenge based on that honor can feed upon itself to the detriment of everyone. It is an interesting commentary on today’s society regardless of your political persuasion. Director Gale Edwards did a fantastic job of bringing this play to the stage with great visuals and heart-pumping music. If you live, work, or visit Washington, DC during its run (until May 20), I highly recommend this play.

Image courtesy of the United States Mint.

Pin It on Pinterest