Skip to main content
The Retirement Index

Affiliate disclosure: We may earn a commission from some links on this site. Our rankings are based on published criteria, not commission rates. This site is educational and does not provide individualized financial, tax, or legal advice. Read our disclosure and editorial standards.

Trust & Methodology

Editorial Standards

The Retirement Index publishes in a category where reader trust depends on transparency, rigor, and accountability. This page documents how we produce reviews, how we cite sources, how we engage reviewers, how we handle conflicts of interest, and how corrections are made. We update this page when our processes change.

Our editorial philosophy

We are independent, methodology-driven, transparent about how we make money, and accountable for the claims we publish. We treat our readers as intelligent adults making consequential financial decisions. We prefer to acknowledge what we don’t know over manufacturing false certainty.

How we produce reviews

Each review follows a consistent workflow:

  1. Topic selection. Topics are chosen based on reader-decision relevance and the absence of high-quality independent coverage elsewhere.
  2. Primary-source research. Statutory and regulatory claims are sourced first to IRS, SEC, FINRA, CFPB, GAO, Treasury, and the U.S. Tax Court. Secondary sources are used only where no primary source exists.
  3. Drafting. Reviews are drafted collectively by the editorial team — not by a single named author — against a shared scoring rubric.
  4. Internal review. Drafts are reviewed against the rubric and against the original sources before progressing.
  5. Fact-checking. Every numeric, statutory, or regulatory claim is independently re-checked against its primary source before publication.
  6. External expert review when engaged — see the reviewer section below.
  7. Publication and ongoing updates.Reviews are re-checked at minimum every six months; material changes trigger a new “Last reviewed” date and a “What changed” note.

Our reviewer

The Retirement Index is in the process of engaging a credentialed external reviewer — a CFP, CPA, ChFC, or fiduciary RIA — to review retirement-content reviews prior to publication. Until that engagement is finalized, content is produced and fact-checked collectively by the editorial team against primary government sources. We disclose this honestly rather than fabricating an individual reviewer with invented credentials. This section will be updated the moment a reviewer is engaged.

Fact-checking process

Every factual claim in a review is sourced to a primary government source where one exists, and cited inline as a numbered footnote anchored to a Sources section at the end of the article. Primary sources we use: IRS.gov (Publications 590-A, 590-B, and 26 U.S.C. § 408(m)), SEC.gov, FINRA.org, CFPB.gov, Treasury.gov, U.S. Tax Court opinions, and U.S. GAO reports. Secondary sources — including news and trade publications — are acceptable only when no primary source exists or to corroborate company-level facts.

Scoring rubric

For gold IRA company reviews, providers are scored on the seven criteria summarized on the homepage methodology section: fee transparency, IRS-compliance posture, custodian and depository quality, approved-metals catalog, customer complaint record, pricing and dealer markup, and educational content and sales pressure. Fee transparency and IRS compliance are weighted most heavily. A company that materially fails either is excluded from consideration regardless of its performance on the other criteria.

Conflict of interest policy

The Retirement Index earns commissions from affiliate relationships with some companies we recommend. Rankings are determined against the methodology before any commission discussion takes place, and the rate a company pays does not change its rank. We will not enter into an affiliate relationship — at any commission rate — with a company we have documented marketing “home storage gold IRA” arrangements, manufacturing urgency, or pushing inappropriately-marked-up numismatic or proof products inside an IRA. No company pays for placement, ranking, coverage, or favorable language. Vendor relationships at the individual review level are disclosed in that review.

Corrections policy

We make corrections promptly when we are wrong. To submit a correction request, email corrections@theretirementindex.com with the URL, the specific claim, and the source you believe corrects it. We aim to acknowledge correction requests within three business days and to publish corrections within seven business days. When a substantive correction is made, it is noted at the bottom of the article with the date and a brief description of what changed, and the article’s “Last reviewed” date is updated.

Update cadence

Every review is re-checked against current law, current company fee schedules, and current complaint records at minimum every six months. Material changes between scheduled reviews — for example, a statutory change, a new regulator action, or a substantial revision of a company’s product — trigger an interim review and an updated “Last reviewed” date.

Editorial independence

No company has paid for placement, ranking, or coverage on The Retirement Index. Affiliate relationships exist only with companies that meet the editorial criteria. We will publish critical analysis of an affiliate partner if the criteria require it.