I got screwed by 2 different refineries

[goldsilverpro]

There's a chem analysis of circuit boards in this document. If it's correct, processors could maybe make a bit of money off the tin, but essentially there's no profit in the nickel or lead.<<

Forget about the chemical analysis. It's meaningless. In the majority of the cases, the only profits I know of that the average refiner makes are from the PMs and copper. Collecting the tin would require a totally altered approach to the processing and I doubt that any are doing it. It would most probably lose them money. What do you think happens - they just melt the complex mixture and then it automatically separates into the individual metals?

 

[rbrooks715]

Forget about the chemical analysis. It's meaningless. In the majority of the cases, the only profits I know of that the average refiner makes are from the PMs and copper. Collecting the tin would require a totally altered approach to the processing and I doubt that any are doing it. It would most probably lose them money. What do you think happens - they just melt the complex mixture and then it automatically separates into the individual metals?<<

why shore. i just thunk they waved they majic wand and presto chango. gold from lead.

now that you have assumed the mantle of knowledge, why don't you show the board the profits. the values obtained. the costs involved. give us a break down. a ratio to grade of boards. i would love to hear about your experience as an escrap processor or your experience as a refiner of material recovered from escrap processing.

btw- most don't just melt. there is a fairly extensive process of shredding, sorting, separation and milling. and that is after the boards have been stripped of as much junk as is feasible.

do you always automatically assume everyone but you is stupid.

still waiting for anyone, including you genius, to show some actual numbers.

someone needs to tell the folks in china and the ME there are no profits in recovering the lead, aluminum, nickel and tin from escrap.

makes me want to just give the poor processors my boards. maybe i should pay them to take them off my hands.

 

[Lou]

Chris,

It sounds like he's fed up enough that he's going to have a crack at it himself. I've been involved enough in e-scrap to say that it's not for me. I think that he will sing a different tune once he's doing it all in house (which is the thing to do if you can afford to setup and have the volume to justify it). Nothing tempers unreasonable expectation like trying to do it oneself! E-scrap is easier said than done as far as I've seen it.


"the second interesting constant are the number of individuals who make proclamations about a business they are not involved in. escrap is a rather strange and some what unique business. there are very few comparable's with metal scrap."

I'm not so sure what this statement is meant to imply. When I say I don't do recovery that does not mean I've not been to places that do it, or purchase gold and other PMs from companies who do.


"the notion that i must walk hand in hand, step for step, with a processor or refiner clearly shows what most really think about the integrity and honesty of those they deal with. "

It's not an insult to their integrity or honesty: it's called control of variables, the chief of which is people, who are but another process variable. Not everyone is dishonest, and conversely, not everyone is honest in these businesses. I'd rather not be laissez faire on a $500,000 lot, especially on material as inconsistent and hard to quantify as e-scrap. You only think you know what's in it based on previous results--it's empirical and you base your expectations on the supposition that highest results were the ones closest to the reality. In any case, the more involved you are, the less likely they are to take you as a fool. Know what you send out, and you will seldom be surprised.

 

[Palladium]

I don't know about everyone else but i've heard enough about your views and why it should be your way or whatever way you seem to thing it should be. Seems everyone here has tried to add some sense and knowledge to your ramblings of why the industry is screwed up. Seems you have nothing but combative reasoning to answer it with. Why don't you tell us what all the answers are?? Sorry guys i've just heard enough of this.

 

[rbrooks715]

I don't know about everyone else but i've heard enough about your views and why it should be your way or whatever way you seem to thing it should be. Seems everyone here has tried to add some sense and knowledge to your ramblings of why the industry is screwed up. Seems you have nothing but combative reasoning to answer it with. Why don't you tell us what all the answers are?? Sorry guys i've just heard enough of this.
I don't know about everyone else but i've heard enough about your views and why it should be your way or whatever way you seem to thing it should be. Seems everyone here has tried to add some sense and knowledge to your ramblings of why the industry is screwed up. Seems you have nothing but combative reasoning to answer it with. Why don't you tell us what all the answers are?? Sorry guys i've just heard enough of this.<<<

hmmm. what i have been asking is a question. which no one is willing to answer.

all i have seen is conjecture, doubt or personal opinions.

so, why don't one of you stand and give the answer.

see, if i knew the answer, i wouldn't ask.

personally i don't care what your opinion of me is. what i am looking for is an answer. if you can not provide it, why are you insisting i quit asking. what are you hiding.

lets go back to the original example.

$5/lb to process. who is getting $12/lb in recovery for motherboards and fingerless cards. what is the actual recovery, considering that a refiner is going to have to make a profit as well. and that is not figured in at that recovery rate.

the only answer most have given is board buyers are all too stupid to understand the business. we all expect too much for a return.

but i have yet to see anyone make a claim of $12/lb recovered for motherboards.

 

[Lou]

Insulting goldsilverpro is crossing the line, especially given that he's been involved in the precious metals business (including e-scrap) for over 40 years. Mind your manners or get out and figure it out by yourself. Your attitude has been getting worse and worse. I have no issue with you respectfully disagreeing with me or anyone else, as unreasonable and flawed as your expectations and logic may be. Seemingly you've been burnt and burnt bad by several companies. Sorry. It's happened to me. It got me into refining. In any case, get over it, or get out.


Comparing what the Chinese do to what goes on in an operation in North America or Europe is....need I even say it? Give it ten more years and you will probably have to pay board processors to take your boards if the EPA has its way.

 

[rbrooks715]

naw. no one gets a free pass to insult. he wants to insult others, he better get used to getting a little back. or continue to hid on a forum that will protect him. manners are universal. and not exclusive. he isn't any older than i am and he hasn't been doing this much longer than i. and if he really has the knowledge, why doesn't he just share it. here's a thought. he can just show that he is has been getting enough value recovered to cover the costs involved. pretty simple really. one should not assume everyone is stupid simply because they do not have the same knowledge of a specific process or procedure. and even if they are, it is not polite to mention it.

i have spent a bit of time reading a lot of these threads. it seems to be a practice that as soon as anyone questions a refiner or processor, many of the board members immediately jump in and try to put a stop to it. even a simple question of what transpired, was it sold, was it processed, was it refined, what kind of material, gets rebuked.

as it seems there is no one who is going to ever answer the questions. i leave you with a thought.

when you take your vehicle in for service, do you follow the mechanic all day while he fixes it.

do you follow the surgeon who performs your procedure.

why not.

and with that, i will conclude that the answers i seek are available, just not here.

you all have a great night now, ya hear.

 

[Lou]

I wish he'd taken his own advice.


Better luck on Wikipedia, Mr. Brooks. Good bye.

 

[jimdoc]

I second that. He has crossed the line of no comebacks.
He can demand answers somewhere else.

Jim

 

[nickvc]

It seems as if all the science and logic put forward by those who have been involved at the sharp end in this business and who were trying to give answers to his posts couldn't give him an answer to his liking, and I must agree having a pop at GSP was wrong in so many ways not least because he's a nice fella who gives so much here, and definitely because he's a moderator.

 

[Harold_V]

I had a wonderful post on the board directed at this gentleman, thinking he had not been banned. I then discovered that he was banned (rightfully so) so it was deleted.

I take exception to anyone that can't deal with advice when it is requested, choosing, instead, to kill the messenger. If they know so much, what are they doing, wasting their time on this forum?

This dude was out of line and needed badly to be banned. I tip my hat to Lou, who pulled the pin.

A common problem we've seen on the forum is individuals looking for support of a concept, often hare brained, instead of seeking advice. That's not going to happen on this forum. If dreamers are looking for support for ill-gotten concepts, that's the last thing they're going to get here. We have an image to uphold, one supported in fact by science, not witchcraft. Dreamers need not apply.

Harold

 

[eeTHr]

I think rbrooks' basic distrust of scrap processors extended over onto refiners. And them is us!

Considering that, all his anger slanted everything he posted, which always seems to reduce the understandability of whatever the person is trying to express, and makes the reader less entheusiastic about trying to understand him, too.

I was having a hard time trying to compute his math, but some of it looked like it could be right, when he was working the charges backwards to the board buyers.

One problem was the use of different terminology by different people trying to talk about the same things. Very confusing.

I still haven't figured out why the processor would take $5/lb. plus half the remainder. He expressed it as "sharing his profits," as though he was doing the client a favor. He called it "profit sharing," for anything over $15/lb. (for that particular deal only). Is that really fair? I mean, should the remaining "extra" value really be his "profit" to begin with?

If I go to the grocery store and buy an item for 5 bucks, and hand the clerk a ten dollar bill, does he consider my $5 change as the store's "profit." And does he then give me half of his "profit," $2.50, back as a "favor"? Something just doesn't seem right about that.

It would mean that the richer your scrap is, they "reward" you by giving you less of your value back! Oh boy, lucky me!

Isn't the processing cost about the same if there is more gold in the scrap, as it is if there is a "medium" amount in it? Are they giving you less because they had to deal with all that nasty, heavy gold? Or is it just a form of XRF roulette, and the higher the percentages in the readout, the less of it you get?

No, I don't know hardly anything about scrap processing. But what the heck is going on with that "profit sharing" stuff? Maybe my calculator is broken or something. :lol:

 

[skippy]

There's a chem analysis of circuit boards in this document. If it's correct, processors could maybe make a bit of money off the tin, but essentially there's no profit in the nickel or lead.<<

Forget about the chemical analysis. It's meaningless. In the majority of the cases, the only profits I know of that the average refiner makes are from the PMs and copper. Collecting the tin would require a totally altered approach to the processing and I doubt that any are doing it. It would most probably lose them money. What do you think happens - they just melt the complex mixture and then it automatically separates into the individual metals?

GSP, my thought was to point out that composition alone makes nickel and lead payout totally irrelevant. As far as the tin, I know crude copper is usually oxidized before electrolysis, and I couldn't rule out that the tin could be recovered from the slag. Basically I was giving the whole value from base metals idea the most generous appraisal I could, while knowing it was a unrealistic expectation for economic and process reasons.

( in case anyone noticed the post at the top of this page has rbrooks quoted as saying 'There's a chem analysis of circuit boards in this document. If it's correct, processors could maybe make a bit of money off the tin, but essentially there's no profit in the nickel or lead' but that was actually me who posted that - for whatever reason it lacked the html quote history)

 

[MiguelRosas]

I still haven't figured out why the processor would take $5/lb. plus half the remainder. He expressed it as "sharing his profits," as though he was doing the client a favor. He called it "profit sharing," for anything over $15/lb. (for that particular deal only). Is that really fair? I mean, should the remaining "extra" value really be his "profit" to begin with?

If I go to the grocery store and buy an item for 5 bucks, and hand the clerk a ten dollar bill, does he consider my $5 change as the store's "profit." And does he then give me half of his "profit," $2.50, back as a "favor"? Something just doesn't seem right about that.
:lol:

eeTHr -

This was in regards to my client. It is a little confusing, but what we are doing is actually to the advantage of the client - and gives us (and them) skin in the game.

When this client brings in a lot - it is normally in the 2,000 - 4,000 lbs range. It would be impossible to see if the material on the bottom of the pile is just as gold plated, as the material on top. So what we agreed upon was, instead of paying $13 (or $14, or $15 or whatever) per pound, we are advancing the client $10 per pound.

With this client (and only this client) we are "charging" a $5 per pound fee. However, if the assay comes out to a value of only $12 per pound - we only made $2 per pound.... NOT $5.

This client claimed (and is correct) that his material will Assay at $40 per pound. He originally just wanted $20 per pound, no advance, just settlement at that value - BUT we did not want to take the risk.... So we came up with this formula.

2,000 lbs (example)
$10 per pound advance = $20,000
assay results are $40/lbs = ($80,000)
our $5/ lbs charge = $10,000

OUR CHARGE + ADVANCE - RESULTS = $50,000

We split the profit = $50,000 / 2 = $25,000

Clients take home = $45,000
OUR take home = $35,000

IF he wanted just his $20 per pound settlement he would have gotten $40,000..... In this case he get $45,000

The problem that RBrooks saw was the fee - not the end results of a WIN WIN for both of us.
------------

In your example instead of us keeping your change, imagine the price of the product you ALREADY purchased went down from $5 too $4. Are we obligated to give you the difference at a future date? At the time of purchase we gave you back your $5 change....... NOW we are going to split the $1 decrease.... so that original product only cost you $4.50

(this is a horrible analogy bc there are no "fees" associated with grocery products - however this does illustrate how we are spliting the profits after the fact)

Hopefully that didn't make things "That" much more confusing - but if it did, I'm Sorry.
-------------

I have no comments in regards to RBrooks - I defend my position in that we are in fact doing the best for the client while remaining profitable with minimal risk.

 

[eeTHr]

Miguel---

It appears to me that brooks was comparing processors to refiners. Usually the refiners quote a percentage of spot value, as the return to the client, like 95% or 98%, and so forth.

Your costs to process seem to be much more than than it generally costs refiners to do their work. But the reasoning on the return looks like it should be done in nearly the same manner, just a different percentage.

With you having to do much more processing, there would obviously be more variables involved, which results in less predictability for end result.

It appears that your $5/lb., in your example, would be to make sure you cover your processing costs (you used the term "profit" in your email to him, which seems incorrect, since you also said "profit" in describing your half of the "profit sharing." That could be confusing). And it is certainly understandable that you want to cover your costs, if that is what the $5/lb. is actually intended for.

In your $40/lb. example, if your processing costs were $5/lb., that would leave $35/lb. net value. Of that 35 net value, you had already given the client $10/lb. in advance. So you have spent $15/lb. on this lot so far.

Then it turnes out, after processing, that there is an additional real value, beyond your $5 costs and his $10 advance, of $25/lb (Making total value of the lot $40/lb.).

You are splitting the additional real value (it's not your "profit"), 50-50 with the client, in addition to what you have already paid him in advance.

There are a couple problems which can arise from this example, more so for some, than for others.

This terminology of "profit sharing" creates a problem. Most businesses work on a "profit margin," which is fairly consistant overall. With your example, you are giving the impression that if your client gets lucky, and has more value in his scrap, you simply increase your profit margin, based on his good fortune of having a more valuable scrap lot. It also infers that you are taking money from him, in order to compensate for some other clients' lack of values in their scrap lots.

So that's one apparent problem. You know that it's only set up this exact way for this one client, based on your determination of his reliability of predicting his lots' values. But anyone else could easily construe it much differently.

The other apparent problem is that you seem to be working with a huge profit margin. Because the $5/lb. appears to be your costs of processing, your half of the remaining $25/lb. in actual value, would be $12.50/lb. That would be a 250% mark-up of your costs, or a 71.43% profit margin. And that is a huge margin, compared to other businesses.

So it seems like your example was intended to show how much you paid out to that one client, but it was interpreted, and not without reason, otherwise.

rbrooks' main complaint seemed to be a lack of transparency by scrap processors. And your example was not really providing any of the information which he was looking for. Rather than explaining the basics of what he wanted to know, it seemed like instead, you were dancing around the matter by showing a fancy formula, which turned out to be only an isolated instance, anyway, and not even closely related to his question about the scrap which he described. In other words, it was an answer to a question which he didn't ask. In my experience, if a person is already upset about a situation, that kind of answer will only upset him even more, and for good reason.

It would be good transparency if you could straighten the matter up, by somehow explaining your reasoning behind what appears to be a huge profit margin, and how things really work for processors. And this would be a good forum to do that on.

 

[nickvc]

A very well thought out and reasoned response eeTHer and one that similar thoughts going through my mind also. I applaud Miguel with trying to be upfront about the way his company operates but the whole method of reckoning seems a little odd but as he seems to be the only processor willing to be open perhaps this is the way they all operate. The one thing that struck me was the $5 processing charge I get the feeling that may be totally unrealistic and the real costs are covered by the profit share, this may be a necessary deception to appear competitive in the market which everyone seems to agree is far from transparent as to regards of returns and actual charges/retentions.
I really could understand Brooks point but he should have stayed off the personal comments and gently pushed for answers and clarification and I feel many on the forum feel the same. I liked the way Harold ran his business with transparent charges and realistic margins to remain in business, the German refineries work the same, realistic charges but it appears true results and hence a better payout. It appears that most work on unrealistic charges and hidden retentions to make the money that is really needed to cover costs and also make a profit.
Miguel this isn't an attack on you or your business as I have said I like your clear honest replies and still maintain half the problem is unrealistic expectations from customers and the rest by the smoke and mirrors approach of most within the processing side of escrap, the fact that no one seems to know the exact value of boards at the copper refineries or will be open about it compounds the problems.
I feel this thread might run for some time it's just a shame that the only processor to comment is Miguel on behalf of his company, for that, if I were in the US and dealt in escrap , alone I would rather deal with him than others who refuse to be open to the scrutiny of the forum and it's learned membership.

 

[eeTHr]

...it's just a shame that the only processor to comment is Miguel on behalf of his company, for that, if I were in the US and dealt in escrap , alone I would rather deal with him than others who refuse to be open to the scrutiny of the forum and it's learned membership.

That's a good point.

I remember when I had a mobile tune-up service, there were some customers who just knew that "all mechanics will try to rip you off." Then, when I was a contractor, there were those who just knew that "all contractors will try to rip you off." And I'm not sure that giving them a good, straight deal ever convinced some of them, because they had been burned too many times!

Plus, there are some marketing "computations" which seem to be traditionally used and so, just accepted to the point of becoming normal. Like sale discounts where they mark up the "regular" price, before they give the "discount," and thus still make the same profit on the "sale" items. It's kind of like politics---everyone knows what they are doing, but we just become accustomed to it. The point being that when all the competitors are doing it that way, it's hard to simply be straightforward because of what people expect you to do.

But I think the time is coming for someone to break that mold, and start being more transparent.

Being the only processor willing to communicate on here, it seems likely that Miguel would be suseptible to taking the heat for all the others, at least for awhile. If he can brave it out, it could be worthwhile to him.

 

[MiguelRosas]

I feel this thread might run for some time it's just a shame that the only processor to comment is Miguel on behalf of his company, for that, if I were in the US and dealt in escrap , alone I would rather deal with him than others who refuse to be open to the scrutiny of the forum and it's learned membership.

But I think the time is coming for someone to break that mold, and start being more transparent.
Being the only processor willing to communicate on here, it seems likely that Miguel would be suseptible to taking the heat for all the others, at least for awhile. If he can brave it out, it could be worthwhile to him.

Thank you very much for taking an objective approach to both sides of the discussion.

There is no doubt that I am here to stay, and although I cannot speak for other national refiners, I have no problem addressing questions or concerns, and trying to be as open and honest as possible. If the street provides feedback that can better our business - then of course I am open to entertaining the idea to my executive board.

Regarding the terms of "profit" / "fees" and "Profit sharing" - I could have picked my words better. NICK - I agree with you completely that my example does illustrate our high profit on this lot, but this does not reflect each E-Scrap client we have. But if the client finds this to be a fair deal - and everyone is happy, are we not all in this to make money?

Like I said early in the discussion, (and my email) we are not specialists tailored specifically in E-Scrap processing - hence why we discuss payment on a case by case basis, instead of the more traditional "Flat rate - 95%" settlement you are use too.

I'm more than happy to enter in a professional and respectable debate with anyone regarding Hi-Tech's services and fees - since it is a up hill battle, I knew what I was getting in to.

:lol:

 

[nickvc]

Miguel I have no problem with any business making a profit but the point I was trying to make was that perhaps the $5 treatment charge is in fact too low to cover the actual costs and that the implied profit was maybe overstated and included some of your actual costs....
I worked for one of the largest refiners in the world and I think the point I'm trying to illustrate is that their upfront charge for refining jewellers floor sweeps were ludicrous,as in a pittance that wouldn't pay for the assay, but the retentions were massive to actually cover the true costs and to make a profit!
The point I made about the German refineries is also on the same theme but the reverse side of the coin, big upfront charges with minimums that guarantee a profit and it's up to the customer to ensure it's worth his cost to send the material to them and to get the best rates by having the right quantities and mix of metals.
I don't know if your company actually processes the boards and produces a dore bar or just crushes, grades and samples them to trade a known assayed product to send to the processors, who will then produce a dore bar which is then sent to the copper refineries, I'm amazed that no one seems to have set up a copper refinery in house to recover all their own copper and to be able to recover the slimes and actually process them in house.
We have amateur, very skilled amateur, refiners on the forum who refine virtually all precious metals to a high quality easily saleable product from just about every source known but none of the bigger boys seem to bother with the copper which is one of the oldest and most documented electro refining methods known, with the increase in all metal prices I would have thought the costs would soon be recovered.
Miguel as I stated above your approach I find very honest and open and I feel you will become an asset to your company and this forum, especially if you clear some of the mist that seems to hide much of what happens within the board processing world and give us all an honest view of what actually costs and real returns are.

 

[Geo]

ive dealt with scrap metal in one form or another for most of my fourty something years and i admit that most of it was as labor,but i understand what it means to invest in something expecting a larger than life return on your money.as a rule imo 10% profit should be enough for anyone to be happy with as most scrap yards make less than that.Escrap is a material that even if your looking right at it can still never be weighed and measured and held for certain that it will contain any exact amount of liability or profit,theres just too many variables.as a wise man once told me "its not what it IS,its what you can sell it for".a refiner,i would think,would work on returns of material instead of projections of profits.theres a small refiner in Georgia that refines Escrap and you get a detailed analysis of metals returned and the option of paying for the refining or payment from metal return,even copper.