Bratnia

Some say invest solely in stocks because they're the more rewarding asset over the mid to longer term. They may even accompany that claim with a chart showing how much 'better' stocks were compared to gold. But consider one who solely holds stocks and rents, compared to another that owns their own home in addition to owning stocks and gold in around equal measure. They don't have to find/pay rent so that is one less worry, they are in effect both landlord and tenant so it doesn't really matter if rents soar or collapse. They also hold two thirds of their wealth 'in-hand'.
A better comparison measure than point to point is to inspect the broader trend line as that irons out start and end date volatility. For a US investor since 1994 stock/REIT/gold had a higher log linear regression (slope) than 100% stock.

More broadly for a UK investor the two yielded a near flat line (no broad difference in rewards). For that I assumed that when on the gold standard, pre 1931, savers might have deposited their money (gold/silver) for safe keeping and interest. As the UK banned gold (other than relatively small amounts) 1965 to 1979 and the US banned gold from 1933 to the mid/late 1970's I substituted silver for the 1930 to 1979 years. Gold from 1980.
Of course rebalancing home value isn't really viable, however home + imputed and stocks + dividends are somewhat similar/interchangeable, even more so if you use REIT stocks as a alternative/supplement to your home value.
On the basis of similar overall rewards, another factor is that stocks were the more volatile than stocks/home/gold, which equates to stocks/home/gold having yielded a better risk-adjusted reward (higher Sharpe Ratio).
Periodic investing, not too often, perhaps no more than once yearly, perhaps even just once in every 5 years, will tend to average down the average cost of the three assets, a form of reduce-high/add-low trading style. Few maintain totally static portfolios, most will either be adding or withdrawing capital, which can be directed to add to the most-down, withdraw from the most-up ... which in itself is partial rebalancing, perhaps even to the extent that no other rebalancing is needed.
If gold has dropped by 44% at some point .... meh! It all washes out over the mid to longer term. The greatest risk is that of capitulating after large declines in prices. Buying high, selling low is inclined to yield worse total returns than had you just deposited the capital into a cash savings deposit account.

Page marked, so in a years time when Corbyn is PM and his right hand Diane Abbot is Chancellor I'll expect you to have nailed the Fox :)

Page marked, so in a years time when Corbyn is PM and his right hand Diane Abbot is Chancellor I'll expect you to have nailed the Fox :)

Page marked, so in a years time when Corbyn is PM and his right hand Diane Abbot is Chancellor I'll expect you to have nailed the Fox :)

Page marked, so in a years time when Corbyn is PM and his right hand Diane Abbot is Chancellor I'll expect you to have nailed the Fox :)

Page marked, so in a years time when Corbyn is PM and his right hand Diane Abbot is Chancellor I'll expect you to have nailed the Fox :)

US stocks have done well but look at 10 year FTSE vs Gold Gold = 90% FTSE = 10% Obviously gold doesn't yield but the FTSE yield hasnt been that great either tbf.

A bit old now, data to 2019. Shows each years best asset out of a UK investor in US stocks and gold, with each decades average of the yearly best, and worst show in the right columns, and the average of those two. The lower chart shows the combined overall accumulation progression (gains) along with a indicator of how the number of shares and ounces of gold held varied over time assuming yearly rebalanced back to 50/50 weightings. 1980 to 1999 for instance and whilst the price of gold declined over those years the portfolio ended up holding multiples more ounces of gold

Some say invest solely in stocks because they're the more rewarding asset over the mid to longer term. They may even accompany that claim with a chart showing how much 'better' stocks were compared to gold. But consider one who solely holds stocks and rents, compared to another that owns their own home in addition to owning stocks and gold in around equal measure. They don't have to find/pay rent so that is one less worry, they are in effect both landlord and tenant so it doesn't really matter if rents soar or collapse. They also hold two thirds of their wealth 'in-hand'.
A better comparison measure than point to point is to inspect the broader trend line as that irons out start and end date volatility. For a US investor since 1994 stock/REIT/gold had a higher log linear regression (slope) than 100% stock.

More broadly for a UK investor the two yielded a near flat line (no broad difference in rewards). For that I assumed that when on the gold standard, pre 1931, savers might have deposited their money (gold/silver) for safe keeping and interest. As the UK banned gold (other than relatively small amounts) 1965 to 1979 and the US banned gold from 1933 to the mid/late 1970's I substituted silver for the 1930 to 1979 years. Gold from 1980.
Of course rebalancing home value isn't really viable, however home + imputed and stocks + dividends are somewhat similar/interchangeable, even more so if you use REIT stocks as a alternative/supplement to your home value.
On the basis of similar overall rewards, another factor is that stocks were the more volatile than stocks/home/gold, which equates to stocks/home/gold having yielded a better risk-adjusted reward (higher Sharpe Ratio).
Periodic investing, not too often, perhaps no more than once yearly, perhaps even just once in every 5 years, will tend to average down the average cost of the three assets, a form of reduce-high/add-low trading style. Few maintain totally static portfolios, most will either be adding or withdrawing capital, which can be directed to add to the most-down, withdraw from the most-up ... which in itself is partial rebalancing, perhaps even to the extent that no other rebalancing is needed.
If gold has dropped by 44% at some point .... meh! It all washes out over the mid to longer term. The greatest risk is that of capitulating after large declines in prices. Buying high, selling low is inclined to yield worse total returns than had you just deposited the capital into a cash savings deposit account.

JP Morgan said "gold is money, everything else is credit". On the basis of your gold being your core money historically its been better to invest/deploy some of that money in things rather than storing all of your money (gold) under a mattress.
The price of stocks in terms of gold has been very volatile https://www.macrotrends.net/1378/dow-to-gold-ratio-100-year-historical-chart such that holding some stocks and rebalancing/trading has tended to broadly be productive.
Spending your money to buy Pounds, paper/fiat currency has historically mostly been a lousy choice, the Pound has been repeatedly debased, seen its purchase power lowered, that for those that think of things in terms of Pounds is attributed with a name of 'inflation'.
Spending some of your money to buy a home has historically been beneficial, liability matches your rent.
Hence a general preference for keeping some money to hand (gold), buying a home/house, and either running your own business, or perhaps buying another house and renting that out, or holding some stocks.
Yes in terms of purchase power that money (gold) is inclined to see some wild swings, that however is only a issue if you solely hold gold alone. Otherwise that volatility provides opportunities to add-low/reduce-high trade other things, where a simple 'mechanical' trading method can be as simple as opting for target weightings, perhaps 50/50 stock/gold, and periodically rebalancing the two back to 50/50 weightings.

JP Morgan said "gold is money, everything else is credit". On the basis of your gold being your core money historically its been better to invest/deploy some of that money in things rather than storing all of your money (gold) under a mattress.
The price of stocks in terms of gold has been very volatile https://www.macrotrends.net/1378/dow-to-gold-ratio-100-year-historical-chart such that holding some stocks and rebalancing/trading has tended to broadly be productive.
Spending your money to buy Pounds, paper/fiat currency has historically mostly been a lousy choice, the Pound has been repeatedly debased, seen its purchase power lowered, that for those that think of things in terms of Pounds is attributed with a name of 'inflation'.
Spending some of your money to buy a home has historically been beneficial, liability matches your rent.
Hence a general preference for keeping some money to hand (gold), buying a home/house, and either running your own business, or perhaps buying another house and renting that out, or holding some stocks.
Yes in terms of purchase power that money (gold) is inclined to see some wild swings, that however is only a issue if you solely hold gold alone. Otherwise that volatility provides opportunities to add-low/reduce-high trade other things, where a simple 'mechanical' trading method can be as simple as opting for target weightings, perhaps 50/50 stock/gold, and periodically rebalancing the two back to 50/50 weightings.

Some say invest solely in stocks because they're the more rewarding asset over the mid to longer term. They may even accompany that claim with a chart showing how much 'better' stocks were compared to gold. But consider one who solely holds stocks and rents, compared to another that owns their own home in addition to owning stocks and gold in around equal measure. They don't have to find/pay rent so that is one less worry, they are in effect both landlord and tenant so it doesn't really matter if rents soar or collapse. They also hold two thirds of their wealth 'in-hand'.
A better comparison measure than point to point is to inspect the broader trend line as that irons out start and end date volatility. For a US investor since 1994 stock/REIT/gold had a higher log linear regression (slope) than 100% stock.

More broadly for a UK investor the two yielded a near flat line (no broad difference in rewards). For that I assumed that when on the gold standard, pre 1931, savers might have deposited their money (gold/silver) for safe keeping and interest. As the UK banned gold (other than relatively small amounts) 1965 to 1979 and the US banned gold from 1933 to the mid/late 1970's I substituted silver for the 1930 to 1979 years. Gold from 1980.
Of course rebalancing home value isn't really viable, however home + imputed and stocks + dividends are somewhat similar/interchangeable, even more so if you use REIT stocks as a alternative/supplement to your home value.
On the basis of similar overall rewards, another factor is that stocks were the more volatile than stocks/home/gold, which equates to stocks/home/gold having yielded a better risk-adjusted reward (higher Sharpe Ratio).
Periodic investing, not too often, perhaps no more than once yearly, perhaps even just once in every 5 years, will tend to average down the average cost of the three assets, a form of reduce-high/add-low trading style. Few maintain totally static portfolios, most will either be adding or withdrawing capital, which can be directed to add to the most-down, withdraw from the most-up ... which in itself is partial rebalancing, perhaps even to the extent that no other rebalancing is needed.
If gold has dropped by 44% at some point .... meh! It all washes out over the mid to longer term. The greatest risk is that of capitulating after large declines in prices. Buying high, selling low is inclined to yield worse total returns than had you just deposited the capital into a cash savings deposit account.

Some say invest solely in stocks because they're the more rewarding asset over the mid to longer term. They may even accompany that claim with a chart showing how much 'better' stocks were compared to gold. But consider one who solely holds stocks and rents, compared to another that owns their own home in addition to owning stocks and gold in around equal measure. They don't have to find/pay rent so that is one less worry, they are in effect both landlord and tenant so it doesn't really matter if rents soar or collapse. They also hold two thirds of their wealth 'in-hand'.
A better comparison measure than point to point is to inspect the broader trend line as that irons out start and end date volatility. For a US investor since 1994 stock/REIT/gold had a higher log linear regression (slope) than 100% stock.

More broadly for a UK investor the two yielded a near flat line (no broad difference in rewards). For that I assumed that when on the gold standard, pre 1931, savers might have deposited their money (gold/silver) for safe keeping and interest. As the UK banned gold (other than relatively small amounts) 1965 to 1979 and the US banned gold from 1933 to the mid/late 1970's I substituted silver for the 1930 to 1979 years. Gold from 1980.
Of course rebalancing home value isn't really viable, however home + imputed and stocks + dividends are somewhat similar/interchangeable, even more so if you use REIT stocks as a alternative/supplement to your home value.
On the basis of similar overall rewards, another factor is that stocks were the more volatile than stocks/home/gold, which equates to stocks/home/gold having yielded a better risk-adjusted reward (higher Sharpe Ratio).
Periodic investing, not too often, perhaps no more than once yearly, perhaps even just once in every 5 years, will tend to average down the average cost of the three assets, a form of reduce-high/add-low trading style. Few maintain totally static portfolios, most will either be adding or withdrawing capital, which can be directed to add to the most-down, withdraw from the most-up ... which in itself is partial rebalancing, perhaps even to the extent that no other rebalancing is needed.
If gold has dropped by 44% at some point .... meh! It all washes out over the mid to longer term. The greatest risk is that of capitulating after large declines in prices. Buying high, selling low is inclined to yield worse total returns than had you just deposited the capital into a cash savings deposit account.

If gold is money, Pounds are currency, then its currency that is highly volatile.  That lightheartedness aside and the price of gold is very volatile, the same or higher than the volatility in stock prices. Can go on long down runs such as 1980 to 1999. Buy/hold gold only with that in mind (and a plan of how you'll cope with such volatility both mentally and in action/response). I like to combine £, $, gold currencies and periodically rebalance between those, such as back to equal % weightings, which has a broader tendency to average each of those. 'Deposit' the $ perhaps into stocks, maybe £ deposited in a cash deposit/interest account.

That recent 1500 tonnes of gold purchase is still being physically delivered. There's another CME Options settlement date due next Tuesday and the big guns are creating paper-gold i.e. paper to gold ratio has recently jumped to a 124.4 multiple https://usdebtclock.org/gold-precious-metals.html compared to the 122 multiple it was at pre the 1500 tonnes purchase. i.e. a push to lower the price for securing physical gold ahead of actual delivery by creating much paper gold (Options/Futures contracts (supply larger than demand so price of gold declines)).
I suspect it may be the same in the lead up to the 25th June settlement date.

Haven't looked at daily data, however for yearly data from the start of 2012 to the end of 2015, US data, gold declined -32.5%. A portfolio of thirds each T-Bills, Gold, Stocks yearly rebalanced back to thirds each weightings, ended 2015 with 62% more ounces of gold being stored in a safe. The stock/cash/gold combination collectively outpaced inflation.
2008 and gold started/ended the year at around much the same level (dip was intra-year) started at $836, ended at $865, stocks dropped -37%, so rebalancing would have entailed selling some ounces of gold to add more stock shares.
All just part of 'averaging'. Average in and out over time, along with rebalancing, and the general tendency is to achieve more average overall rewards, where 'average' is 'good', neither the worst possible, nor the best possible, but generally good-enough.

Haven't looked at daily data, however for yearly data from the start of 2012 to the end of 2015, US data, gold declined -32.5%. A portfolio of thirds each T-Bills, Gold, Stocks yearly rebalanced back to thirds each weightings, ended 2015 with 62% more ounces of gold being stored in a safe. The stock/cash/gold combination collectively outpaced inflation.
2008 and gold started/ended the year at around much the same level (dip was intra-year) started at $836, ended at $865, stocks dropped -37%, so rebalancing would have entailed selling some ounces of gold to add more stock shares.
All just part of 'averaging'. Average in and out over time, along with rebalancing, and the general tendency is to achieve more average overall rewards, where 'average' is 'good', neither the worst possible, nor the best possible, but generally good-enough.

Haven't looked at daily data, however for yearly data from the start of 2012 to the end of 2015, US data, gold declined -32.5%. A portfolio of thirds each T-Bills, Gold, Stocks yearly rebalanced back to thirds each weightings, ended 2015 with 62% more ounces of gold being stored in a safe. The stock/cash/gold combination collectively outpaced inflation.
2008 and gold started/ended the year at around much the same level (dip was intra-year) started at $836, ended at $865, stocks dropped -37%, so rebalancing would have entailed selling some ounces of gold to add more stock shares.
All just part of 'averaging'. Average in and out over time, along with rebalancing, and the general tendency is to achieve more average overall rewards, where 'average' is 'good', neither the worst possible, nor the best possible, but generally good-enough.

Haven't looked at daily data, however for yearly data from the start of 2012 to the end of 2015, US data, gold declined -32.5%. A portfolio of thirds each T-Bills, Gold, Stocks yearly rebalanced back to thirds each weightings, ended 2015 with 62% more ounces of gold being stored in a safe. The stock/cash/gold combination collectively outpaced inflation.
2008 and gold started/ended the year at around much the same level (dip was intra-year) started at $836, ended at $865, stocks dropped -37%, so rebalancing would have entailed selling some ounces of gold to add more stock shares.
All just part of 'averaging'. Average in and out over time, along with rebalancing, and the general tendency is to achieve more average overall rewards, where 'average' is 'good', neither the worst possible, nor the best possible, but generally good-enough.

twittervid.com_Sorenthek_a60895.mp4    

28
As in next Tuesday (28th May morning), after the long weekend flight into gold, aligned with the Options settlement date

That recent 1500 tonnes of gold purchase is still being physically delivered. There's another CME Options settlement date due next Tuesday and the big guns are creating paper-gold i.e. paper to gold ratio has recently jumped to a 124.4 multiple https://usdebtclock.org/gold-precious-metals.html compared to the 122 multiple it was at pre the 1500 tonnes purchase. i.e. a push to lower the price for securing physical gold ahead of actual delivery by creating much paper gold (Options/Futures contracts (supply larger than demand so price of gold declines)).
I suspect it may be the same in the lead up to the 25th June settlement date.

28
As in next Tuesday (28th May morning), after the long weekend flight into gold, aligned with the Options settlement date

That recent 1500 tonnes of gold purchase is still being physically delivered. There's another CME Options settlement date due next Tuesday and the big guns are creating paper-gold i.e. paper to gold ratio has recently jumped to a 124.4 multiple https://usdebtclock.org/gold-precious-metals.html compared to the 122 multiple it was at pre the 1500 tonnes purchase. i.e. a push to lower the price for securing physical gold ahead of actual delivery by creating much paper gold (Options/Futures contracts (supply larger than demand so price of gold declines)).
I suspect it may be the same in the lead up to the 25th June settlement date.

If gold is money, Pounds are currency, then its currency that is highly volatile.  That lightheartedness aside and the price of gold is very volatile, the same or higher than the volatility in stock prices. Can go on long down runs such as 1980 to 1999. Buy/hold gold only with that in mind (and a plan of how you'll cope with such volatility both mentally and in action/response). I like to combine £, $, gold currencies and periodically rebalance between those, such as back to equal % weightings, which has a broader tendency to average each of those. 'Deposit' the $ perhaps into stocks, maybe £ deposited in a cash deposit/interest account.