PDA

View Full Version : Cost to Make Penny and Nickel Rises, Annual Loss Reaches $116.7 Million.



Ponce
6th January 2012, 11:35 PM
If my nickels are worth 11.18 cents each that then would mean that my stach is worth around $23,000....... hurray, hurray, hurray....but I don't think that way.......in the future a nickel will buy something that a dollar bill can not buy.......I see my nickels the same way that I see my silver and going one step lower all that loose change in my 5 gallons jars.
=========================================


Cost to Make Penny and Nickel Rises, Annual Loss Reaches $116.7 Million.

January 2, 2012 By Michael Zielinski

The cost for the United States Mint to produce and distribute the cent and nickel rose to their highest levels, and are now more than double the respective face values. For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, the unit cost for the cent was 2.41 cents and the cost for the nickel was 11.18 cents.

The cost for the two lowest circulating denominations increased compared to the prior year due to higher material costs and a change in the method of allocation for sales, general, and administrative expenses. In previous years, the Mint allocated SG&A expenses based on gross margins. For the 2011 fiscal year, costs were allocated based on the costs to manufacture, market, and distribute. The new approach conforms to accounting standards and leading commercial and public sector practices.

Unit Cost to Produce and Manufacture Cent
FY 2011 FY 2010
Cost of Goods Sold 0.0197 0.0176
Sales, General & Administrative 0.0041 -
Distribution to Reserve Banks 0.0003 0.0003
Total Unit Cost 0.0241 0.0179

Unit Cost to Produce and Manufacture Nickel
FY 2011 FY 2010
Cost of Goods Sold 0.0938 0.0916
Sales, General & Administrative 0.0176 -
Distribution to Reserve Banks 0.0004 0.0006
Total Unit Cost 0.1118 0.0922

This represents the sixth year in a row that the cost to produce and distribute the cent and nickel have exceeded their face values. For the 2011 fiscal year, the two denominations were produced at a loss of $116.7 million. This amount is nearly triple than the loss of $42.6 million generated from the two denominations during the prior year.

From 2006 to 2011, the cent and nickel have now generated losses of $359.80 million.

Fiscal Year Cent Unit Cost Nickel Unit Cost Seigniorage (millions)
2011 0.0241 0.1118 ($116.70)
2010 0.0179 0.0922 ($42.60)
2009 0.0162 0.0603 ($22.00)
2008 0.0142 0.0883 ($47.00)
2007 0.0167 0.0953 ($98.60)
2006 0.0121 0.0597 ($32.90)

Total ($359.80)

Although the cent and nickel have generated significant losses in recent years, the positive seigniorage generated by higher denomination circulating coins has offset the losses. For the 2011 fiscal year, production of the dime, quarter dollar, and $1 coin for circulation generated seigniorage of $488.8 million.

In December 2010, Congress passed the Coin Modernization, Oversight, and Continuity Act of 2010, which authorizes the Treasury Department to conduct research and development activities with regards to circulating coin compositions. Any changes in composition would still need to be accomplished by an act of Congress. The US Mint has engaged a contractor to conduct the research and development, which will serve as the basis for the report to Congress due in December 2012.

On December 15, 2011, Rep. Steve Stivers introduced two bills which would require the the composition of the cent and nickel to be produced primarily of steel within 90 days of enactment. The bills have two cosponsors and both been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

http://news.coinupdate.com/cost-to-make-penny-and-nickel-rises-1139/

Sparky
7th January 2012, 12:36 AM
Ponce, it doesn't say they are worth 11.18 cents. It says they take 11.18 cents to make. The metal is worth 5.2 cents.

But your point is still valid.

Twisted Titan
7th January 2012, 03:05 AM
You can feel it coming............

Get your bricks while Gershams Laws is still ignored by The Masses

Joe King
7th January 2012, 04:08 AM
After they quit making coins out of silver, it doesn't seem as though it took too many years to lift the melt ban on them. With all the pennies that have been minted since 1982, why wouldn't they lift the melt ban on them by now? it's been 30 years. We can't possibly be dependant upon 30+ year old pennies in order to have enough in circulation to satisfy the needs of Commerce.

What if they never lift the melt bans on pennies and nickles?

Ponce
7th January 2012, 09:32 AM
You simply would be able to buy more with them.....

Sparky
7th January 2012, 10:36 AM
After they quit making coins out of silver, it doesn't seem as though it took too many years to lift the melt ban on them. With all the pennies that have been minted since 1982, why wouldn't they lift the melt ban on them by now? it's been 30 years. We can't possibly be dependant upon 30+ year old pennies in order to have enough in circulation to satisfy the needs of Commerce.

What if they never lift the melt bans on pennies and nickles?

There was no ban on penny and nickel melting until 2006, when the cost of zinc and copper started to accelerate.

Joe King
7th January 2012, 11:45 AM
There was no ban on penny and nickel melting until 2006, when the cost of zinc and copper started to accelerate.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying that. I'd assumed it was banned at the time the switch was made, because the standard excuse when doing so is that they need the coins to stay in circulation.

samanthapa
17th February 2012, 10:12 PM
Expressed above is the actual statistics regarding penny and nickel. It has long been common knowledge that it costs over a penny to make a penny and over a nickel to make a nickel. That is why Obama calls for lower cost of making pennies and nickels (http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/2012/02/15/lower-cost-pennies/). The recently submitted “Obama budget” suggests changing the composition to make the two coins more cost effective because it could save $100 million per year! Imagine that! The money saved could be utilized or funded to more important matters. Now, would you want to change the money's composition?

TheNocturnalEgyptian
18th February 2012, 01:21 AM
They are constitutionally mandated to produce coin for circulation. So they do.

This can change if 75% of the states agree on it. Personally I am amenable to alternative currencies at this point. Think, we could actually design a good one.



Now, would you want to change the money's composition?

Yeah, a system of Gold, Silver, Copper, & Paper sounds pretty nice to me. I can think of several other ways to go with it, too.

Personally I believe that the "benefit from the creation of currency" should be spent back into the betterment of society. Today, it goes into private hands.

Neuro
18th February 2012, 08:19 AM
Actually it doesn't cost them a penny to produce nickels and pennies. They pay for it in worthless fiat from the Federal reserve digital money 'press'.

You are pretty Samanthapa, unless you are Joking with that picture of course! ;)

BrewTech
18th February 2012, 08:31 AM
Actually it doesn't cost them a penny to produce nickels and pennies. They pay for it in worthless fiat from the Federal reserve digital money 'press'.

You are pretty Samanthapa, unless you are Joking with that picture of course! ;)

Both of "her" posts have embedded links pointing to the same blog.

Methinks it is a sophisticated spammer, but the posts and links are somewhat on topic, so...

Cebu_4_2
18th February 2012, 08:43 AM
The blog is mostly about 'loans' and that sort. Who in their right mind puts a mug shot of them self on here anyways? This place is quite secretive.

DMac
18th February 2012, 08:49 AM
Expressed above is the actual statistics regarding penny and nickel. It has long been common knowledge that it costs over a penny to make a penny and over a nickel to make a nickel. That is why Obama calls for lower cost of making pennies and nickels (http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/2012/02/15/lower-cost-pennies/). The recently submitted “Obama budget” suggests changing the composition to make the two coins more cost effective because it could save $100 million per year! Imagine that! The money saved could be utilized or funded to more important matters. Now, would you want to change the money's composition?

lol

Sparky
18th February 2012, 02:39 PM
...Who in their right mind puts a mug shot of them self on here anyways?
...

That's not you? ;)