Skip to content

Editorial Policy: How We Research and Review

The Wealth Review publishes research-based information about precious metals and retirement accounts. Chris Tatro, an affiliate marketer and researcher, is responsible for editorial decisions. He is not a licensed financial advisor. This policy describes the standard for new and substantively revised articles; it is not a claim that every legacy page already meets that standard.

Evidence before promotional claims

We use the IRS for federal IRA rules, official regulatory material for consumer warnings, and providers’ own published pages or written schedules for their fees and service terms. A dealer’s statements about its fees can establish what it publishes, but do not independently prove the quality of its service or the suitability of its products.

Material figures should carry a source and a date checked. When public sources conflict or leave a gap, we say so rather than inventing an answer. Dealer fees, account minimums and promotions can change; readers should obtain the applicable written quote before acting.

How comparisons should work

  • State the selection scope and do not imply we reviewed the entire market.
  • Separate dealer, custodian and depository roles and fees.
  • Explain metal premiums and buyback spreads, not just annual charges.
  • Identify rollover, storage and distribution restrictions that affect readers.
  • Discuss investment losses, lack of income, liquidity and sales pressure.
  • Explain what we could not verify, including the absence of customer testing.

We do not assign numerical scores or star ratings without a disclosed, evidence-based method. “Best” must mean a reasoned fit for a stated need, not a universal winner or the largest commission. A provider’s website is not a substitute for checking independent complaints, regulatory history and contractual terms before a transaction.

No invented expertise or experience

We do not claim to have opened accounts, purchased products, tested support or interviewed experts unless that work actually occurred and is documented. Research articles are not hands-on reviews. We do not invent professional credentials, expert quotations or personal investment results. If AI assists a draft, factual claims still require source checking and editorial review; AI output is not evidence.

Affiliate relationships and independence

Companies may pay us for leads or purchases. That conflict can influence coverage and promotional placement. Our standard is that commission size must not determine factual findings or justify hiding risks. Affiliate disclosures should appear near the beginning of a commercial article, before referral links. We do not claim our coverage is free of commercial influence.

Updates, corrections and legacy content

Important tax figures should be rechecked for the stated year. A substantive update should explain what changed; changing the date alone is not a review. We may merge overlapping articles and redirect old URLs to a relevant, improved resource. We may retire off-topic or unsupported material rather than preserve it merely for search traffic.

Readers can report a correction through the Contact page. Include the URL, the disputed wording and supporting evidence. Material errors should be corrected clearly when confirmed. No review here substitutes for advice from an appropriately qualified independent financial, tax or legal professional.