The Case Against Gold

Published in Investing Strategy on 19 May 2009

Malcolm Wheatley argues that gold makes a poor long-term investment.

During the darkest days of the financial meltdown, it wasn't unusual to come across articles touting the attractions of gold. With banks collapsing, and currencies plunging in value, the message was clear: gold is safe, simple and secure.

It's also a lousy investment. Gold pays no interest, can be lost or stolen, and can fall in value. Today, at the time of writing, an ounce of gold is trading at around $920 -- down from the $973 it touched in late February.

To add insult to injury, if you've got more than a very modest amount of the stuff, you'll probably want to pay for safe storage in a vault somewhere. Here at The Fool, we think that a decent investment should pay you to hold it, not the other way round.

Yet the solicitations to invest in the metal still arrive. Protect Yourself From the Coming Financial Storm! Buy Gold!

Gold has its uses...

There's no doubt that in times of true economic collapse, gold can come in very handy -- provided that you can keep it out of the hands of those who'd like to relieve you of it. In parts of the developing world, where wars and collapsing currencies feature more prominently in investors' minds, a stash of gold may well make sense.

But whatever the doomsters say, such circumstances are rare in Europe, and even rarer here in the UK. You'd have to go back to the Second World War to find a time when holding gold made sense from that point of view.

That said, it is possible to profit from the stuff. Three years ago, for instance, at the beginning of January 2006, gold was trading at $500 an ounce. Over the following three years, it's almost doubled in price.

Unlike -- one has to say -- the stock market. The FTSE 100 declined from 5,618 in January 2006 to 4,400 (and promptly went even lower in February and March, of course.) Go back a further three years, to early 2003, and gold's trading range was around $300.

Better still, you don't have to buy physical gold, in the form of bars or coins. If you're convinced that the price of gold is going to rise even higher (and I've seen predictions of $1,500), then an Exchange Traded Fund or Exchange Trade Note is handy way of capitalising on the rise in price. Lyxor's ETN Long Gold (LTNG) is one such, and iShares' COMEX Gold Trust (IAU.IV) is another.

But its bull run will end

However, be aware that gold's present popularity may not last. I certainly won't be putting any of my money into gold, in either its physical or ETF form. As my Foolish colleague Bruce Jackson pointed out last week, four decades' worth of data demonstrate that gold is a riskier and lower‑returning investment than pretty much any other.

Another way of gaining exposure to gold is to buy the shares of companies that mine the metal -- at least they may pay you a dividend.

Peter Hambro Mining (LSE: POG) is one such, and Randgold Resources (LSE: RRS) is even a member of the FTSE 100. Much more speculatively, mining minnow Stratex (LSE: STI), which prospects for gold in Turkey, has found favour with some of the Fools on our Mining Sector board.

More from Malcolm Wheatley:

Agree or disagree with Malcolm's views on gold? Let us know using the comment feature below.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

MisterBojangles 19 May 2009 , 6:18pm

If you don't advise buying gold (or a gold index), isn't buying shares in a gold miner even worse as not only is one buying into the gold price risk but also into the risk of an unprofitable mine.

I prefer the credit markets at present. A modest investment in a high-yield bond ETF is yielding me around 16% per annum and I anticipate a 25% price appreciation over the next 12 to 18 months. I'll take that over the equity markets.

But the Motley Fool doesn't 'do' the bond market. Why not?

Bo

Staintunerider 20 May 2009 , 1:30am

I have thought for a while that gold is extremely overvalued. It seems to be a nervous investor's haven ? If the economy and stock market plus housing pick up it's likely the price will drop like a stone !

raymondward7 20 May 2009 , 1:42pm

Is the author of this article the Malcolm Wheatley I knew at the University of Hull in 1974-77?

Ray Ward

jon3001 20 May 2009 , 6:29pm

Of course gold doesn't pay interest: it's not someone else's liability. That's the point.

This article is typical of the mono-asset class thinking. Precious metals and other alternative assets are highly useful in a balanced portfolio of uncorrelated assets.

The article even states that gold was rising while stocks where falling and yet doesn't join the dots. Investors using precious metals as part of their portfolio would now be selling their gold profits to buy undervalued stocks as part of their regular rebalancing strategy.

All bull markets end but that's no reason to single out gold. Investors using asset allocation naturally take advantage of the bull/bear cycle across multiple asset classes to bank profits and buy undervalued assets.

bimber 21 May 2009 , 12:05pm

Gold is a bad long term invest but it's not alone in that. Waking up today to see the ftse100 down 2.5%, Britain's outlook downgraded to Negative by S&P and the index of gold miners (AUCO) up over 8%, I'm glad I'm in gold during the short-term.

SharelleR 21 May 2009 , 3:38pm

I agree with jon3001 also arent there cycles that are longer than 50years appart? involving gold and worldwide inflation?

I have been reading a few things by people keen on gold but none have suggested it was something to invest in long term or when the stock market and world ecconomy is doing well.

The article says
"It's also a lousy investment."

and later

"That said, it is possible to profit from the stuff. Three years ago, for instance, at the beginning of January 2006, gold was trading at $500 an ounce. Over the following three years, it's almost doubled in price.

Unlike -- one has to say -- the stock market..."

Surely EVERYTHING is a lousy investment if you invest at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.

If you buy gold at the wrong time for the wrong reasons eg. grandma said to buy only gold and hold it forever, then its lousy investing not a lousy invesment

gordonbanks42 21 May 2009 , 8:05pm

I also agree with Jon3001.

A general weakness of Fool coverage is that it treats asset classes as things you "like" or "don't like", not as things you swap (or rebalance) between from time to time.

Give me two uncorrelated asset classes with high levels of relative volatility and I'll show you a strategy for exceptional long-term performance. No need for prognostication or "timing", just routine rebalancing.

keirfamily 22 May 2009 , 7:58am

Over the last 10 years my shares are down over 50%, my gold has doubled in value. What was your argument again, Mr Wheatley?

Funny how 'long-term' from a financial adviser means "till after I've retired and you can't get your money back from me".

I can see only two possible reasons for anyone to become a financial adviser - to help other people make the most of their savings, or to take money from fools. I wonder which pays better?

TMFBoing 23 Jun 2009 , 4:39pm

Hi Ray,

Is the author of this article the Malcolm Wheatley I knew at the University of Hull in 1974-77?

I'm told it is, yes.

Foolish regards,
Alan
TMFBoing

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.