HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Letter from Ames Silversmithing with concerns, November 13, 1985 Ames Silversmithing
GOLDSMITHS & DESIGNERS
220 MAIN STREET FILED
AMES, IOWA 50010
(515) 232-0080
NOV 1 31985
CITY CLEM,
November 13, 1985 CITY of AME
I am writing this letter to address the proposed precious metals
ordinance 17.25 for the City of Ames. We are active buyers and sellers in
the precious metals market, and for this reason, I feel I can offer some
insight as to why this ordinance should not be passed.
First, let me explain that we have been very cooperative with the
police in looking for and reclaiming stolen jewelry. There have been two
or three cases in the past where our direct cooperation led to the arrest
and conviction of persons who have broken into homes and stolen jewelry.
We will continue to do so in the future.
The police have stated that thefts have increased from $500,000 in
1983 to $578,000 in 1984. What they failed to explain was that less than
7% of the $578,000 was jewelry. Nearly 15% was televisions, radios, and
cameras. It seems very misleading to say that an ordinance to regulate the
buying and selling of precious metals is needed because thefts have
increased. In fact, .with the exception of one year, the dollar value of
gems, jewelry, and precious metals stolen has actually decreased over the
last four years. I believe that this is a direct result of our cooperation
with the police. So little jewelry came through in 1984, I am led to
believe that the majority of what is stolen leaves the city for sale
elsewhere. I also believe if this ordinance is passed, any chance we have
of seeing locally stolen goods surface would be lost. What thief would
willingly give his name, address, social security number, etc. , to sell
stolen jewelry. The stolen goods would immediately leave town to be sold
where an ordinance is not in effect.
My main concern with this ordinance lies in the 10 day retention
period. As I 'm sure you're aware, the precious metals market can be
extremely volatile. Since margins are often small , usually 3-5% in the
buying and selling of gold and silver bullion, a rapid decrease in the
price would cause serious financial losses on our behalf. Let me give you
an example of how a trade works.
John Doe comes into my store with fifteen 1 ounce gold Kruggerands to
sell . The market price for gold is $320.00 per ounce. I know I can sell
this to my broker at 2% above the market price, or $326.40. This extends
out to $4896. I call my broker and lock in the price. I offer John 2%
under the market, $307.20, or $4608. I have guaranteed myself a $288
Ames Silversmithing
GOLDSMITHS & DESIGNERS
220 MAIN STREET
AMES, IOWA 50010
(515) 232-0080
profit. But let's say that I am forced by the proposed ordinance to hold
the materials for ten days. I can' t lock in a price because I must deliver
the material within 72 hours. I am now open to the fluctuations that may
occur in the next ten days.
As a specific example, from September 22, 1982, to October 4, 1982,
the price of gold fell $55.75 per ounce. If this were to occur while I was
in possession of the 15 ounces of gold I bought from John Doe, we would
lose $836.25. Who will be accountable for these losses? The police? The
city council ? The mayor? No, I will . Proponents of the ordinance might
say, "Yes, but what if the price of gold goes up?" While it's true that
this could occur, I am in business to make a profit, not to be a gambler.
I would much rather, lock in my $288 profit than gamble with the market.
That's how one of the largest gold and silver dealers in the country went
bankrupt.
The record keeping to keep track of the information would probably
force me to hire a new employee, or take me away from the principal
responsibilities of my job.
My last concern with the ordinance involves a matter of just not
personal feelings, but more importantly, constitutional legalities. I am
very much against this ordinance giving ANY police officer a blanket
provision to come into my store at ANY time and take into possession ANY
article believed to be stolen. If I mistakenly buy a piece that is stolen,
I will be more than happy to cooperate with the police to see that the
piece is returned to its rightful owner and that justice is done. But
giving the police the right to confiscate something only on their
assumption that it may be stolen is a completely different story.
Let me detail one last item concerning this ordinance. In 1981, it
was proposed that a similar ordinance be enacted. I met with then Police
Chief Siedelman, Capt. Ballantine, and Det. Larry Olson concerning this. I
offered to be fully cooperative, but felt that I needed some guarantees. I
asked that if I did indeed purchase something that was stolen and turned it
into the police along with the information that we had, that I be
guaranteed reimbursement for that piece within a short time frame. In
return for this guarantee, I would continue to be an active buyer, taking
down the necessary information to trace the sellers. I would also
volunteer my time and testimony in order to make an arrest and conviction.
This they were not willing to do. I was expected to lay my money on the
line with the very real possibility that I would never get it back. The
police expected me to cooperate with them but they would not cooperate with
me. With no guarantees, you can see where the honest buyers and sellers
would suffer and the dishonest prosper.
In closing, I hope that you will not allow this selective type of
ordinance to be passed. If the jewelry industry is to be singled out, so
Ames Silversmithing
GOLDSMITHS & DESIGNERS
220 MAIN STREET
AMES, IOWA 50010
(515) 232-0080
then should the buying and selling of TV's, radios, cameras, sporting
goods, etc. I think you see how ridiculous this could become.
Please feel free to call or write if you have any questions or
comments concerning this matter. 1 would be more than happy to discuss
them with you.
Sincerely,
Gary Youngberg