Lear Capital Review 2026: Published Fees, Lower Rating

Affiliate disclosure: The publisher may receive compensation from precious-metals companies, including this one. That compensation does not change what court, regulator, BBB or company records show.

The published schedule

Every figure below was read from the company’s own published fee page.

Two observations. The storage choice is the only variable in the recurring figure: segregated storage costs $50 a year more than non-segregated, and the difference concerns whether the specific bars or coins allocated to the account are held separately or as part of a pooled holding. And the company distinguishes Gold IRA funding from direct precious-metals purchases, where minimums vary by product.

Publishing a schedule at all is unusual here

Requesting the fee page at the same canonical location on each of the five largest providers’ own domains returned four 404 errors. The fifth publishes its fee explanation as a video behind a contact form. The full test is on the transparency scorecard.

Against that background, publishing a named schedule with amounts attached is a meaningful disclosure decision. It is worth stating precisely what it is and is not: a published schedule allows the smaller part of the cost to be checked before contact. It says nothing about whether those figures are competitive, and it does not contain the largest cost.

The BBB rating, and what it measures

Lear Capital carries a B minus BBB rating. Most companies in this comparison carry A or A+.

That gap is worth understanding rather than simply noting. A BBB rating reflects that organisation’s own criteria, principally how a business handles and responds to complaints, together with time in operation. It is one body’s assessment of conduct. It does not measure pricing, does not assess suitability, and does not touch the dealer premium.

A lower rating is therefore evidence about complaint handling specifically. It is not evidence about cost, and a saver who reads it as a proxy for expensive is reading in something the rating does not contain. The complaint narratives on the profile are the part worth reading, because they describe what customers say actually happened.

The legal record

Public records for this company include three separate matters, and coverage routinely merges them into one. They are not the same thing.

• An action brought by the New York Attorney General, with a settlement announced in 2022.
• A multi-state regulatory resolution involving several state securities and banking regulators, with a distribution mechanism for affected customers.
• A Chapter 11 filing in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, case 1:22-bk-10165.

Each carries a different evidentiary weight. An allegation in a filing is a statement by one party and establishes nothing on its own. A settlement or consent order resolves a matter on agreed terms and frequently states expressly that it involves no admission of liability. Only a judgment or final order represents a determination.

The documents are separated and sourced individually on the Lear Capital public record page, which reports each from the agency release or court docket rather than from secondary coverage.

What the published schedule does not contain

Three parties charge in a precious-metals IRA. The custodian charges administration. The depository charges storage. Both appear in the table above. The dealer is normally compensated through the price of the metal itself — the difference between the price charged per unit and the metal’s value at the spot reference used in the quote.

That charge appears on no schedule and no account statement, at this company or anywhere else in the market. It is frequently larger than the entire recurring cost above. Ranges observed from regulator guidance and enforcement records are documented in the dealer markup benchmark.

A published schedule is genuinely useful and it is not the whole cost. Both statements hold.

What to request before funding

• The spot reference used, with the date and time it was taken
• The price per unit for each product
• The resulting premium as a percentage
• Which storage model applies and the resulting recurring figure — $235 or $285
• Buyback terms in writing, including whether the buyback is contractual or a stated intention
• The complaint narratives on the BBB profile, read directly rather than summarised

The full checklist, with what a satisfactory answer looks like for each item, is on the quote checklist.

What could not be verified

• No standing markup or premium figure is published by this company or any dealer in this market.
• No audited buyback discount could be established from public sources.
• The current status of the bankruptcy docket should be checked directly rather than assumed from any article, including this one.

Methodology

Fee figures were read from the company’s own published fee page. The legal record is reported from agency releases and court filings, with the document type stated in each case. The BBB rating is reported as observed at the source. Nothing here is averaged or estimated, and where a figure could not be established that is stated.

No verdict is issued. The three facts examined here point in different directions, and resolving them into a single recommendation would discard the information that makes them useful.

Researched and written by Daniel M. — independent precious-metals retirement researcher.

Disclaimer: This page is for general educational research only. It is not financial, tax, legal or retirement-plan advice, and Lear Capital does not offer tax or legal advice. Purchasing precious metals involves risk: prices can rise or fall, and transaction costs can materially affect resale economics. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Tax treatment depends on the account, transaction, asset and individual facts. Retirement savers should review controlling account documents and IRS rules and consult a qualified tax or legal professional before a rollover, purchase, distribution or conversion.