Gold vs Indexes

[DarkRange55]

Gold Price Performance Comparisons


Gold vs. S&P 500 (Price Performance)


S&P 500 Total Return (TR) = Price Growth + Dividends (Reinvested)


Gold Return = Price Growth Only (No Income)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


The S&P 500 is the central benchmark of U.S. equity wealth, launched in its modern 500-stock form in 1957 with historical records extended back to 1926. Unlike gold, which has no yield, the S&P is evaluated primarily through its total return index — combining price appreciation, reinvested dividends, and the compounding effects of splits, spinoffs, and mergers. This difference is fundamental: an investor holding S&P stocks receives dividends, and if reinvested, they compound dramatically over decades, whereas gold provides only capital appreciation based on price changes. Ignoring dividends understates equity performance by roughly 40% over long horizons.


From 1926 through 2025, the S&P 500's total return has averaged ~10.3% per year nominal, or ~7.2% real after inflation. This means a $100 investment in 1926 would grow to nearly $1.84 million by 2025, assuming reinvested dividends. In contrast, gold was pegged to $20.67/oz until 1933, then $35/oz until 1971. After the U.S. left the gold standard, the metal was allowed to float, rising to $850/oz in 1980, declining for two decades, then surging again in the 2000s. Since 1971, gold has returned ~7–8% annualized nominal, outpacing inflation but falling short of the S&P's compounded growth.


The relationship flips in crisis regimes. During the 1970s stagflation, U.S. equities struggled, returning only ~1.6% real annually, while gold soared nearly 27% annualized as inflation ripped. Again, between 2000–2011, the dot-com bust, 9/11, and the global financial crisis crushed equities (-1% per year real for the S&P), while gold climbed more than 15% annualized, peaking near $1,900/oz. These windows show gold's role as a hedge: it doesn't always outperform, but it often does when equities are suffering their worst.


The drawdown profiles are also distinct. The S&P has endured crashes as steep as -86% during the Great Depression, -57% in 2008–09, and ~-34% during the COVID shock of March 2020, but dividends plus economic recovery rebuilt wealth. Gold's bear markets tend to be slow burns: from 1980 to 1999, gold fell from $850 to ~$250, a 70% decline in real terms over nearly 20 years, even as the S&P compounded through bull markets. In other words, equities "crash fast, recover, and grow," while gold can "bleed slowly" when inflation is tame.


The long arc is clear: over 50–100+ years, the S&P 500 TR outperforms gold on growth, but gold adds insurance and diversification value. Investors who held both benefited from compounding equities in booms and gold's ballast in crises. Gold is not meant to beat stocks over centuries; rather, its purpose is to preserve wealth when the equity engine stalls or monetary credibility breaks.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition:


• S&P 500 TR = Price appreciation + reinvested dividends, including splits, spin-offs, and corporate actions.


• Gold return = Pure price change (spot price).


Historical Anchors (Nominal Annual Returns):


• 1871–2025 (Shiller extended): S&P ~9%/yr (total return, reconstructed).


• 1926–2025 (official data): S&P ~10.3%/yr nominal, ~7.2% real.


• 1971–2025 (post-gold standard): Gold ~7–8%/yr nominal, positive real.


• 1970s (stagflation): Gold ~27%/yr; S&P barely kept up with inflation.


• 1982–1999 (super bull market): S&P ~17%/yr; gold flat-to-down.


• 2000–2011 (tech + GFC): Gold +15%/yr; S&P near 0%/yr.


• 2009–2021 (QE + tech boom): S&P ~16%/yr; gold +5–6%/yr.


• 2020–2025 (inflation/geopolitical): Both strong: gold +8–10% CAGR; S&P +11–12% CAGR.


Dividend Yields & Effects:


• Average S&P 500 dividend yield (1926–2025): ~3–4% historically; <2% post-2000.


• Reinvested dividends account for ~40% of total long-term S&P returns.


• Splits & spin-offs (e.g., AT&T, Standard Oil descendants) embedded in TR index.


Inflation-Adjusted Comparisons:


• Real S&P CAGR (1926–2025): ~7.2%/yr.


• Real Gold CAGR (1971–2025): ~3–4%/yr.


• In inflation decades (1970s), gold's real return exceeded 20%/yr.


Drawdowns:


• S&P 500: -86% (1929–1932), -48% (1973–74), -57% (2007–09), -34% (2020).


• Gold: -70% real decline 1980–1999, -45% 2011–2015.


Worked Example (Nominal Dollars):


• $100 in S&P 500 TR in 1926 → ~$1.84M by 2025.


• $100 in gold in 1971 ($35/oz, ≈3 oz) → ~$10,800 today (~8% CAGR).


• Adjusted for inflation, both preserved wealth; equities compounded faster.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet:


• Long horizons (50–100+ yrs): S&P TR outpaces gold due to dividends + growth.


• Crisis windows: Gold decisively outperforms (1970s, 2000s, pandemic).


• Best use: Equities for growth; gold as insurance/diversifier.


Caveats & Nuance:


• Apples vs. oranges: Equities pay dividends, gold does not.


• Pre-1971 gold fixed by law; "returns" before then are artificial.


• Survivorship bias mitigated by using S&P index (not individual stock history).


• Investor behavior matters: many fail to reinvest dividends or hold through crashes.


• Gold's role is wealth preservation, not maximum CAGR.


⸻


Gold vs. Dow Jones Industrial Average (Price Performance)


Dow TR = Price Growth + Dividends Reinvested


Gold = Price Growth Only (No Income)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), created in 1896, is the world's longest-running stock index and a central barometer of American capitalism. Although it includes only 30 stocks and is price-weighted rather than market-cap weighted, it has tracked the broad arc of U.S. industrial and corporate power. For comparison with gold, the key measure is the Dow Jones Total Return Index, which incorporates dividends, reinvestments, and corporate actions such as splits and spinoffs. Without dividends, equity performance is understated; with them, long-term compounding is far more dramatic.


From 1900 to 2025, the Dow's total return has averaged about 9.6% nominal annually, translating to 6.5% real annual growth after inflation. In dollar terms, $100 invested in the Dow at the start of the 20th century would now be worth ~$6 million in nominal terms, and more than $1 million in real purchasing power. Gold, by contrast, was fixed at $20.67/oz until 1933, then $35/oz until 1971. For much of that time, its nominal price didn't change, which meant its real return was negative during periods of inflation.


The turning point came in 1971, when the U.S. abandoned the Bretton Woods system and gold was free to float. Since then, gold has averaged ~7–8% annualized nominal returns, or roughly 3–4% real after inflation. That's enough to preserve and slightly grow purchasing power, especially in inflationary eras, but still well behind the Dow's compounded equity growth. Even so, gold's surges in the 1970s and 2000s gave it periods of outperformance: between 1971 and 1980, gold compounded at ~27% annually in nominal terms (~20% real), while the Dow stagnated.


The drawdown dynamics between the two are distinct. The Dow has suffered catastrophic crashes — -89% in the Great Depression (1929–32), -57% in the Global Financial Crisis (2007–09), and -34% during COVID in March 2020 — but eventually recovered. Gold, in contrast, has endured long, grinding bear markets: from 1980 to 1999, its price fell nearly 70% in real terms, even as the Dow surged more than 15% per year nominal. This demonstrates the asymmetry: stocks crash quickly but recover and grow, while gold bleeds slowly when monetary stress is absent.


Over ultra-long horizons, the Dow's total return adjusted for inflation far surpasses gold. But over select crisis windows, gold delivered extraordinary real returns when equities failed. In the 1970s stagflation decade, the Dow's real CAGR was ~-1% while gold soared more than 20% real per year. Similarly, from 2000–2011, the Dow was essentially flat after inflation, while gold quintupled. Taken together, gold's role is not to outgrow equities but to provide real purchasing power preservation and portfolio insurance when equities stall.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition:


• Dow Jones Total Return (TR): Price appreciation + dividends reinvested (splits, spinoffs included).


• Gold: Spot price appreciation, no income.


Historical Anchors (Nominal & Real):


• 1900–2025 (Dow TR): ~9.6% nominal CAGR; ~6.5% real.


• 1929–1932: Dow fell ~-89% (price only); gold fixed but revalued from $20.67 → $35 (1933), a +69% one-time jump.


• 1971–1980 (post-Bretton Woods): Gold ~27% nominal CAGR (~20% real); Dow flat nominal, negative real.


• 1982–1999 (secular bull): Dow ~17% nominal (~14% real); gold flat to down in real terms.


• 2000–2011 (tech + GFC): Dow ~0% real; gold +15% nominal CAGR (~12% real).


• 2009–2021 (QE & tech boom): Dow ~15% nominal (~12% real); gold ~5% nominal (~2% real).


• 2020–2025 (inflation shock): Both strong: gold ~8–10% CAGR; Dow ~11–12% CAGR.


Dividend Yields (Impact):


• Long-term average Dow dividend yield ~3–4% across 20th century.


• Post-2000 yields <2%, but reinvestment compounding critical.


• Without dividends, long-term Dow TR drops by ~40%.


Inflation Context:


• 20th-century CPI growth: ~3% annualized.


• Dow TR real CAGR (1900–2025): ~6.5%/yr.


• Gold real CAGR (1971–2025): ~3–4%/yr.


Drawdowns:


• Dow: -89% (1929–32), -48% (1973–74), -57% (2007–09), -34% (2020).


• Gold: -70% real (1980–1999), -45% (2011–2015).


Worked Examples:


• $100 in Dow TR in 1900 → ~$6M nominal by 2025; ~$1M real.


• $100 in gold in 1971 (≈3 oz @ $35) → ~$10,800 today (~7.8% nominal CAGR, ~3–4% real).


• 1970s decade: $100 in Dow lost ~10% of real value; $100 in gold grew to ~$2,000 in real terms.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet:


• Century-scale horizon: Dow TR wins decisively (nominal & real).


• Crisis decades: Gold wins (1970s, 2000s).


• Portfolio role: Dow = compounding growth; Gold = real purchasing power hedge.


Caveats & Nuance:


• Apples-to-oranges: Dow = productive assets with dividends; gold = inert store of value.


• Gold pre-1971 was pegged; returns only meaningful post-float.


• Real returns highlight divergence: stocks ~6–7%/yr real, gold ~3–4% real since 1971.


• Both have path risks: Dow crashes are sharp; gold drawdowns are grinding.


⸻


Gold vs. Nasdaq Composite (Price Performance)


Nasdaq Total Return (TR) = Price Growth + Dividends (Reinvested)


Gold Return = Price Growth Only (No Income)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


The Nasdaq Composite Index was launched in 1971, the same year gold was freed from its $35 peg. This makes the Nasdaq-to-gold comparison particularly clean: both assets have traded freely for over fifty years. Unlike the S&P 500 or Dow, the Nasdaq is heavily weighted toward technology and growth stocks. It contains more than 3,000 companies, and over its history it has been the highest-beta, highest-return major U.S. equity index.


From its inception in 1971 through 2025, the Nasdaq Composite Total Return has averaged roughly ~10–11% annualized nominal, translating to about ~7% real after inflation. Gold, over the same period, compounded at ~7–8% nominal (~3–4% real). In other words, both preserved wealth over half a century, but Nasdaq compounded at roughly double the real rate of gold, thanks to reinvested dividends and the explosive growth of U.S. technology.


The Nasdaq's volatility is legendary. In the dot-com bubble (1995–2000), the Nasdaq surged more than 400%, peaking in March 2000, before collapsing -78% over the next two years. Gold, which had languished for two decades, bottomed in 1999 around $250/oz and began a new secular bull run. From 2000 to 2011, gold outperformed the Nasdaq decisively, rising ~15% annualized while the Nasdaq remained underwater in real terms until ~2015.


The 2009–2021 cycle was the mirror opposite. Fueled by cheap money, mobile/cloud adoption, and dominant tech platforms, the Nasdaq compounded at ~18% annualized nominal, while gold managed only ~5–6%. This cycle ended with the 2022 tightening shock, when both sold off sharply, but gold held up relatively better than high-multiple tech. From 2020–2025, both assets posted strong gains: gold hit record highs above $3,600/oz, while the Nasdaq recovered from its 2022 lows to set new peaks in 2025.


Overall, gold and Nasdaq represent opposite poles of the investing spectrum. Gold is a defensive, non-yielding store of value. Nasdaq is the epitome of growth, volatility, and innovation. Long-term data shows Nasdaq wins on compounded growth, but gold provides ballast in the exact decades when tech crashes. The two together reflect the "barbell" of modern portfolios: risk-on technology vs. risk-off monetary insurance.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition:


• Nasdaq TR = Price appreciation + dividends reinvested.


• Gold = Spot price only, no income.


Historical Anchors:


• 1971–2025: Nasdaq TR ~10–11%/yr nominal (~7% real).


• 1971–2025: Gold ~7–8%/yr nominal (~3–4% real).


• 1995–2000 (dot-com boom): Nasdaq +400% in 5 yrs (~38% CAGR nominal); gold flat to down.


• 2000–2011 (tech crash + GFC): Gold +15% nominal CAGR (~12% real); Nasdaq flat/negative real.


• 2009–2021 (QE & tech dominance): Nasdaq ~18% nominal (~15% real); gold +5–6% nominal (~2% real).


• 2020–2025 (inflation + AI cycle): Gold ~8–10% CAGR; Nasdaq ~12–14% CAGR.


Dividend & Structural Notes:


• Nasdaq's dividend yield historically ~1% or less, much lower than S&P/Dow.


• TR matters less than price return compared to other indices, but reinvestment still boosts results over 50 years.


• Frequent stock splits in mega-cap tech (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) baked into TR index.


Inflation Context:


• CPI (1971–2025): ~3.9% annualized.


• Nasdaq TR real CAGR: ~7%.


• Gold real CAGR: ~3–4%.


Drawdowns:


• Nasdaq: -78% (2000–2002), -55% (2007–09), -35% (2022).


• Gold: -70% real (1980–1999), -45% (2011–2015).


Worked Examples:


• $100 in Nasdaq TR in 1971 → ~$18,000 nominal by 2025 (~10.8% CAGR). Real ~$4,500.


• $100 in gold in 1971 ($35 = ~3 oz) → ~$10,800 nominal (~7.8% CAGR). Real ~$2,700.


• 2000–2011: $100 in Nasdaq shrank in real terms; $100 in gold grew ~5x.


• 2009–2021: $100 in Nasdaq grew ~8x; $100 in gold ~2x.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet:


• Long horizon: Nasdaq wins on CAGR (nominal + real).


• Crisis decades: Gold outperforms (2000s, stagflation).


• Complementary: Gold as insurance, Nasdaq as innovation/growth.


Caveats & Nuance:


• Nasdaq data only since 1971, no ultra-long pre-float history.


• Tech dominance skews results; survivorship bias handled by index methodology.


• Gold has no yield, Nasdaq dividends low but reinvestment matters.


• Both assets volatile, with different "pain profiles" (Nasdaq crashes fast, gold bleeds slow).


⸻


Gold vs. Russell 1000 Growth (Price Performance)


Russell 1000 Growth TR = Price Growth + Dividends Reinvested


Gold Return = Price Growth Only (No Income)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


The Russell 1000 Growth Index tracks the growth-oriented half of the largest 1,000 U.S. companies, emphasizing firms with higher price-to-book ratios, strong revenue expansion, and innovation-driven business models. Established in 1979, it has become one of the primary benchmarks for U.S. large-cap growth. Its ETF representation, the iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF), launched in 2000, delivers exposure to tech giants like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Nvidia, alongside growth leaders in healthcare and consumer discretionary sectors.


From 1979 through 2025, the Russell 1000 Growth Total Return index has compounded at roughly ~11–12% annualized nominal, which translates into about ~7–8% real after inflation. Gold, measured over the same timeframe, has returned ~7–8% nominal and about ~3–4% real. That means growth equities have outperformed gold by a factor of about 2x in real compounding terms. The gap comes primarily from reinvested dividends (albeit smaller than in value stocks), long periods of tech leadership, and compounding from corporate innovation.


Still, gold has enjoyed windows of decisive outperformance. Between 2000 and 2011, growth equities suffered through the dot-com crash and the financial crisis, producing essentially 0% annualized nominal returns, while gold surged from ~$250/oz to ~$1,900/oz, compounding at ~15% per year nominal (~12% real). This was gold's clearest victory over growth equities in modern history.


By contrast, in the 2010–2021 cycle, gold lagged badly. As tech platforms consolidated global dominance, the Russell 1000 Growth compounded at ~17–18% nominal per year, while gold managed only ~5–6%. Investors in growth equities experienced an extraordinary surge in wealth, while gold remained stagnant in relative terms, proving its value only as a hedge during brief stress events.


The 2020–2025 period has been more balanced. Gold hit all-time highs above $3,600/oz amid inflation and geopolitical stress, compounding at ~8–10% annually, while growth stocks rebounded from the 2022 rate-shock bear market to produce ~12–14% annualized returns. Both delivered solid performance, but the cumulative history since 1979 still tilts decisively toward growth equities as the stronger compounding engine, with gold retaining its role as a hedge and store of purchasing power.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition:


• Russell 1000 Growth TR: Total return index includes dividends reinvested, along with corporate actions like splits and spin-offs.


• Gold: Spot price appreciation only; no dividends or yield.


Historical Anchors (Nominal & Real):


• 1979–2025: Russell Growth ~11–12% nominal CAGR (~7–8% real); Gold ~7–8% nominal (~3–4% real).


• 2000–2011 (dot-com crash + GFC): Gold +15% nominal CAGR (~12% real); Russell Growth ≈ 0% nominal, negative real.


• 2010–2021 (tech super-cycle): Russell Growth +17–18% nominal (~14–15% real); Gold +5–6% nominal (~2% real).


• 2020–2025 (inflation shock + AI boom): Russell Growth +12–14% CAGR; Gold +8–10% CAGR.


Dividend Yields (Impact):


• Russell Growth has a historically low dividend yield (~0.7–1.5% average).


• Even at modest levels, reinvested dividends account for ~10–15% of long-run TR.


• Without dividends, nominal CAGR drops by ~1 percentage point over 45 years.


Inflation Context:


• CPI growth (1979–2025): ~3.9% annualized.


• Russell Growth real CAGR: ~7–8%.


• Gold real CAGR: ~3–4%.


Drawdowns:


• Russell Growth: -49% (2000–02), -55% (2007–09), -33% (2022).


• Gold: -70% real (1980–1999), -45% (2011–2015).


Worked Examples:


• $100 in Russell Growth TR in 1979 → ~$11,000 nominal by 2025 (~11.5% CAGR); ~$2,700 real.


• $100 in gold in 1979 ($240/oz ≈ 0.42 oz) → ~$1,500 nominal by 2025 (~7.6% CAGR); ~$370 real.


• 2000–2011: $100 in gold → ~$500; $100 in Russell Growth → ~$100 (flat).


• 2010–2021: $100 in Russell Growth → ~$600; $100 in gold → ~$180.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet:


• Long horizon (45 yrs): Russell Growth outpaces gold ~2:1 in real CAGR.


• Crisis decades (2000s): Gold decisively outperforms.


• Tech boom decades (1980s, 2010s): Growth equities dominate.


• Portfolio lens: Russell Growth = innovation-driven compounding; Gold = insurance and store of value.


Caveats & Nuance:


• Russell Growth index only exists since 1979; performance data before ETF launch (2000) is back-tested.


• Dividends are smaller than in S&P/Dow but still matter for compounding.


• Gold performance heavily regime-dependent: excels in inflation/monetary stress, lags in tech-driven booms.


• Both have steep drawdowns, but in different ways: growth crashes quickly, gold bleeds slowly.


⸻


Gold vs. Vanguard Total World Stock Index (VT)


VT TR = Price Growth + Dividends Reinvested


Gold = Price Growth Only (No Income)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


The Vanguard Total World Stock Index (VT), launched in 2008, tracks the FTSE Global All Cap Index and represents the entire investable global equity market — developed and emerging markets combined. While VT itself is relatively young, we can approximate long-run global equity performance using MSCI World (developed markets since 1970) and MSCI ACWI (all-country world index since 1987). Comparing gold against this broader equity universe highlights the difference between a global growth engine and a singular monetary store of value.


Historically, global equities have returned ~9–10% nominal annually since the 1970s, or about 6–7% real after inflation. Gold, since it began free trading in 1971, has delivered ~7–8% nominal (~3–4% real). That makes global equities superior in compounding power, but with larger short-term crashes. Gold, by contrast, has been a store of purchasing power that shines in crisis decades.


The 1970s serve as a dramatic contrast. Global stocks, like U.S. stocks, struggled with stagflation, producing near-zero real returns. Gold, however, skyrocketed from $35 to $850, compounding at ~27% annualized (~20% real). Similarly, in the 2000–2011 decade, global equities were dragged down by the dot-com bust and the Global Financial Crisis, producing low or negative real returns, while gold quintupled in value. These episodes demonstrate gold's crisis outperformance even on a global stage.


But across long expansions, global stocks win. From 1982–1999, MSCI World compounded at ~13% nominal (~10% real), while gold stagnated. From 2009–2021, global stocks returned ~12–13% nominal (~9–10% real), while gold returned only ~5–6%. In these cycles, the reinvestment of dividends and the growth of multinational corporations created massive wealth creation unmatched by gold.


The current cycle (2020–2025) has been mixed. Gold has surged to record highs above $3,600/oz amid inflation, compounding at ~8–10% annually, while global stocks have delivered ~10–11% annualized, led by U.S. tech but offset by weaker European and emerging markets. Over the full 50+ year horizon, though, global equities still compound wealth at roughly double the real rate of gold, while gold's value lies in its diversification and insurance role.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition:


• VT TR (or MSCI World/ACWI TR): Price appreciation + dividends reinvested.


• Gold: Spot price only, no dividends.


Historical Anchors (Nominal & Real):


• 1971–2025: Global equities ~9–10% nominal CAGR (~6–7% real).


• 1971–2025: Gold ~7–8% nominal (~3–4% real).


• 1970s (stagflation): Gold +27% nominal CAGR (~20% real); global stocks flat nominal, negative real.


• 1982–1999: Global stocks ~13% nominal (~10% real); gold flat.


• 2000–2011: Gold +15% nominal CAGR (~12% real); global stocks ~0% real.


• 2009–2021: Global stocks +12–13% nominal (~9–10% real); gold +5–6% nominal (~2% real).


• 2020–2025: Global stocks ~10–11% CAGR; gold ~8–10% CAGR.


Dividend Yields (Impact):


• Global equities average ~2–3% dividend yield historically.


• Dividends account for ~30–40% of long-term equity returns worldwide.


• VT distributes dividends quarterly (global income stream).


Inflation Context:


• CPI growth (1971–2025): ~3.9% annualized.


• Global equities real CAGR: ~6–7%.


• Gold real CAGR: ~3–4%.


Drawdowns:


• Global equities: -50% (2008 GFC), -35% (2022 tightening).


• Gold: -70% real (1980–1999), -45% (2011–2015).


Worked Examples:


• $100 in global equities (1971 TR) → ~$6,200 nominal by 2025 (~9.5% CAGR); ~$1,550 real.


• $100 in gold (1971 = 3 oz) → ~$10,800 nominal (~7.8% CAGR); ~$2,700 real.


• 2000–2011: $100 in gold → ~$500; $100 in global equities → ~$95 real.


• 2009–2021: $100 in global equities → ~$410; $100 in gold → ~$180.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet:


• Long horizon: Global equities outpace gold ~2:1 in real CAGR.


• Crisis decades: Gold wins (1970s, 2000s).


• Balanced decades: Global stocks dominate (1980s–90s, 2010s).


• Portfolio lens: VT = diversified global growth; Gold = global monetary hedge.


Caveats & Nuance:


• VT ETF only since 2008; earlier performance reconstructed from MSCI World/ACWI.


• Emerging markets add volatility, but long-term returns similar to U.S. with higher variance.


• Dividends and inflation adjustment are critical: without them, equity performance looks closer to gold than it actually is.


• Gold remains a crisis hedge, not a growth driver.


⸻


Gold vs. Berkshire Hathaway (Price Performance)


Berkshire Hathaway Return = Price Growth (no dividends paid; all reinvested internally)


Gold Return = Price Growth Only (No Income)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


Berkshire Hathaway is unique among U.S. companies. Under Warren Buffett's leadership since 1965, it has transformed from a failing textile mill into a diversified conglomerate spanning insurance, railroads, utilities, manufacturing, retail, and equity investments. Unlike most equities, Berkshire has never paid a dividend. Instead, it reinvests all profits, functioning like a perpetual internal compounding fund. This makes its price performance directly comparable to gold, since neither provides a yield to outside holders — though Berkshire compounds internally, while gold does not.


From 1965 through 2025, Berkshire's Class A shares delivered a compounded annual gain of ~19.8% nominal per year, compared to the S&P 500's ~10.2% and gold's ~7–8% since the free float began in 1971. That means $100 invested in Berkshire in 1965 would have grown to more than $4.3 million by 2025, compared with ~$31,000 in the S&P and ~$10,800 in gold. After inflation, Berkshire's real CAGR has been ~15% per year, roughly double the equity market and nearly 4x gold. Importantly, this means Berkshire has beaten the broader U.S. equity market index (S&P 500) by a margin of nearly 10 percentage points annually over almost 60 years — one of the greatest long-term records in financial history.


Cycles reveal the contrast. In the 1970s stagflation era, gold was the big winner (+27% nominal CAGR), while Berkshire compounded at ~20% per year, still outpacing the S&P and nearly matching gold's real gains. During the 1980s–1990s bull market, Berkshire crushed both stocks and gold, compounding at nearly 25% annually while gold languished. In the 2000–2011 "lost decade", gold outpaced most equities, but Berkshire still compounded at ~11% annually, easily beating the S&P, though gold's ~15% CAGR briefly pulled ahead. Since 2010, Berkshire has grown ~11–12% annually, while gold has returned ~5–6%.


Drawdowns are also notable. Berkshire has had deep corrections — for example, a -50% plunge in 1998–2000 and a -45% drawdown in 2008–09 — but it has always recovered and resumed compounding. Gold's biggest losses, like the -70% real decline from 1980–1999, played out slowly but persistently. The investor experience is different: Berkshire requires tolerance for sharp crashes tied to equity markets, while gold requires patience through long flat periods.


In the big picture, Berkshire represents the compounding power of businesses plus reinvested earnings, while gold represents monetary preservation. Over six decades, Berkshire's wealth creation dwarfs both gold and the broader U.S. stock market. Gold remains useful as a hedge in inflationary decades (1970s, 2000s), but Berkshire stands as the ultimate proof of compounding equity wealth — consistently beating the market while gold merely preserved purchasing power.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition:


• Berkshire Hathaway: Price appreciation only, since it pays no dividend. Gains reflect retained earnings and reinvestment.


• Gold: Spot price only, no income.


Historical Anchors (Nominal & Real):


• 1965–2025 (Berkshire): +19.8% nominal CAGR (~15% real).


• 1965–2025 (S&P 500 TR): +10.2% nominal (~7% real).


• 1971–2025 (Gold): +7–8% nominal (~3–4% real).


• 1970s (stagflation): Gold +27% nominal CAGR (~20% real); Berkshire ~20% nominal (~15% real).


• 1980–1999: Berkshire ~25% CAGR; S&P ~17% CAGR; gold ~0% nominal.


• 2000–2011: Gold +15% nominal CAGR (~12% real); Berkshire ~11% nominal (~8% real); S&P ~1–2% nominal.


• 2010–2025: Berkshire ~11–12% nominal (~8–9% real); gold ~5–6% nominal (~2% real).


Dividend & Structural Notes:


• Berkshire has never paid a dividend; reinvestment is internal.


• S&P/Growth indices pay dividends externally (TR indices reinvest them).


• Gold has no dividend; returns purely price-driven.


Inflation Context:


• CPI 1965–2025: ~4% annualized.


• Berkshire real CAGR: ~15%.


• S&P real CAGR: ~7%.


• Gold real CAGR: ~3–4%.


Drawdowns:


• Berkshire: -50% (1998–2000), -45% (2008–09), -20%+ several other corrections.


• S&P: -57% (2007–09), -34% (2020).


• Gold: -70% real (1980–1999), -45% (2011–2015).


Worked Examples:


• $100 in Berkshire (1965) → ~$4.3M by 2025 (~19.8% CAGR). Real ~$1.2M.


• $100 in S&P 500 TR (1965) → ~$31,000 (~10.2% CAGR). Real ~$8,000.


• $100 in gold (1971) → ~$10,800 (~7.8% CAGR). Real ~$2,700.


• 2000–2011: $100 in gold → ~$500; $100 in Berkshire → ~$300. Gold briefly ahead.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet:


• Long horizon (60 yrs): Berkshire dominates gold and has outperformed the S&P by ~10 percentage points annually.


• Crisis decades: Gold can outperform for 5–10 year windows, but Berkshire still beats the market.


• Portfolio lens: Berkshire = reinvested business compounding; Gold = hedge against monetary instability.


Caveats & Nuance:


• Berkshire's track record is tied to Buffett/Munger; future returns may normalize closer to the market.


• Gold is universal and inert; Berkshire is business-driven and depends on earnings growth.


• Comparison is clean (neither pays dividends), but gold is crisis-driven, while Berkshire is productivity-driven.


⸻


Gold vs. CAC 40 (France) – Price Performance


CAC 40 TR = Price Growth + Dividends Reinvested


Gold = Price Growth Only (No Income)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


The CAC 40, launched in 1987, is the main benchmark for the French equity market and represents 40 of the largest listed companies in Paris across energy, banking, luxury goods, and industrial sectors. Its total return version (CAC 40 GR) includes reinvested dividends, which are significant in Europe given higher average yields compared to the U.S. This makes the CAC 40-to-gold comparison particularly instructive: France has faced repeated inflation, currency, and policy shocks since the 1970s, all of which have influenced investor outcomes in both equities and gold.


From 1987 through 2025, the CAC 40 GR delivered about ~8–9% annualized nominal returns, translating into ~5–6% real after eurozone inflation. Over the same period, gold returned ~6–7% annualized nominal (~3–4% real). Thus, equities outpaced gold modestly, but not nearly by the same margin seen in the U.S. (S&P or Nasdaq). The difference stems from slower European economic growth and weaker equity valuations, balanced against relatively strong dividends.


The 1990s highlight one cycle. French equities surged alongside global markets, with the CAC compounding at over 12% annually. Gold, by contrast, remained stuck in a bear market. But the 2000–2011 period flipped the script. The dot-com crash and eurozone turbulence left the CAC flat, while gold soared five-fold from ~$250/oz to ~$1,900/oz. In this era, gold dramatically outperformed, protecting French investors' purchasing power as equities stagnated.


The 2010–2021 cycle saw global equities rebound, with the CAC GR returning ~9–10% annually. Luxury giants like LVMH, L'Oréal, and Hermès drove performance, while banks lagged. Gold rose only modestly in this window (~5–6% annualized). From 2020–2025, both assets have surged, with gold hitting new highs above $3,600/oz (~8–10% CAGR) and the CAC 40 benefiting from strong luxury exports and energy profits (~10–11% CAGR).


The big picture is that French equities, with their steady dividends, have slightly outperformed gold over multiple decades — but only narrowly compared to the U.S. experience. Gold remains an effective hedge for French investors, particularly during monetary stress (2000s eurozone crisis) and inflation shocks, while the CAC 40 represents exposure to global consumer brands and European economic cycles.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition:


• CAC 40 GR (Total Return): Price appreciation + dividends reinvested.


• Gold: Spot price appreciation, no dividends.


Historical Anchors (Nominal & Real):


• 1987–2025 (CAC GR): ~8–9% nominal CAGR (~5–6% real).


• 1987–2025 (Gold): ~6–7% nominal CAGR (~3–4% real).


• 1990s bull: CAC GR ~12% CAGR; gold flat.


• 2000–2011: Gold +15% nominal CAGR (~12% real); CAC ~0% real.


• 2010–2021: CAC GR +9–10% CAGR; gold +5–6%.


• 2020–2025: Both strong: CAC ~10–11% CAGR; gold ~8–10% CAGR.


Dividend Yields (Impact):


• French equities historically yield ~2–4%.


• Dividends account for ~40%+ of long-run CAC total return.


• Without dividends, the CAC underperforms gold in several decades.


Inflation Context:


• Eurozone inflation (1987–2025): ~2.8% annualized.


• CAC GR real CAGR: ~5–6%.


• Gold real CAGR: ~3–4%.


Drawdowns:


• CAC 40: -65% (2000–2003 dot-com + euro shocks), -55% (2007–09 GFC), -30% (2020 COVID).


• Gold: -70% real (1980–1999), -45% (2011–2015).


Worked Examples:


• $100 in CAC GR (1987) → ~$2,800 by 2025 (~8.6% CAGR). Real ~$950.


• $100 in gold (1987 = ~$460/oz = 0.22 oz) → ~$800 by 2025 (~6.6% CAGR). Real ~$270.


• 2000–2011: $100 in CAC → ~$100 (flat); $100 in gold → ~$500.


• 2010–2021: $100 in CAC → ~$250; $100 in gold → ~$160.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet:


• Long horizon: CAC GR slightly beats gold (~5–6% real vs. ~3–4% real).


• Crisis decades (2000s): Gold dominates CAC.


• Dividend effect: Without reinvestment, CAC falls behind gold.


• Portfolio lens: CAC = European/global equity exposure; Gold = hedge against eurozone/monetary stress.


Caveats & Nuance:


• CAC 40 launched in 1987; performance backfilled for consistency.


• Eurozone crises and weak GDP growth weigh on long-run returns.


• Dividend reinvestment crucial to equity outperformance.


• Gold remains globally fungible; CAC tied to French/European cycles.


⸻


Gold vs. Nikkei 225 (Japan) – Price Performance


Nikkei 225 TR = Price Growth + Dividends Reinvested


Gold = Price Growth Only (No Income)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


The Nikkei 225, established in 1950, is Japan's main equity index, covering 225 large companies. It is price-weighted, like the Dow Jones, and reflects the evolution of Japan's postwar boom, bubble, and stagnation. Its total return version (with reinvested dividends) gives a more realistic measure of investor outcomes. Comparing the Nikkei to gold is instructive because Japan has endured one of the most dramatic equity booms and busts in history, followed by decades of deflation and weak growth.


From 1950 through 2025, the Nikkei 225 TR has compounded at about ~7–8% annualized nominal. Adjusted for Japan's relatively low but volatile inflation (averaging ~3% across the second half of the 20th century, then near 0–1% post-1990), this translates to ~5% real CAGR. Gold over the same broad span has returned ~7–8% nominal (~3–4% real), so the Nikkei and gold appear surprisingly close in long-run returns, though their paths diverge dramatically.


The 1980s bubble was the defining era. From 1980 to 1989, the Nikkei quadrupled, compounding at ~15% annually. Gold, by contrast, entered a long bear market after its 1980 peak, declining in real terms. But from 1989 onward, the situation reversed. The Nikkei collapsed nearly -80% from its all-time high, and in real terms, Japanese equities have yet to reclaim their 1989 peak even by 2025. Gold, meanwhile, rallied strongly in the 2000s and 2020s, giving it the upper hand over Japanese equities across multi-decade horizons.


The 2000–2011 decade illustrates the divergence. The Nikkei lost about half its value during the dot-com bust and global financial crisis, while gold quintupled, compounding ~15% annually. Since 2010, however, Japanese equities have staged a partial recovery under "Abenomics" and ultra-loose monetary policy, returning ~9–10% annually through 2025. Gold rose as well, but more modestly, around ~5–6% annually in that span.


The overall picture is sobering: while gold has preserved purchasing power consistently since 1971, the Nikkei's real performance has been weighed down by its historic bubble and lost decades. Equities still beat gold in the post-2010 cycle, but over 35 years, gold has been the steadier store of value compared to Japan's volatile stock market.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition:


• Nikkei 225 TR: Price + dividends reinvested.


• Gold: Spot price only.


Historical Anchors (Nominal & Real):


• 1950–2025 (Nikkei TR): ~7–8% nominal CAGR (~5% real).


• 1971–2025 (Gold): ~7–8% nominal (~3–4% real).


• 1980–1989 (Japan bubble): Nikkei ~15% nominal CAGR; gold negative real.


• 1989–2009 (lost decades): Nikkei -80% from peak; gold +5% CAGR.


• 2000–2011: Gold +15% nominal CAGR (~12% real); Nikkei negative.


• 2010–2025: Nikkei ~9–10% nominal (~7% real); gold +5–6% nominal (~2% real).


Dividend Yields (Impact):


• Japanese equities historically yield ~1–2%.


• Dividends reinvested account for ~20–30% of Nikkei's TR since 1950.


• Without dividends, Nikkei would underperform gold over most horizons.


Inflation Context:


• Japan CPI (1950–2025): ~2–3% annualized pre-1990, near 0% after.


• Nikkei real CAGR: ~5%.


• Gold real CAGR: ~3–4%.


Drawdowns:


• Nikkei: -80% (1989 peak to 2009 trough), -50% (2007–09), -30% (2020 COVID).


• Gold: -70% real (1980–1999), -45% (2011–2015).


Worked Examples:


• $100 in Nikkei TR (1950) → ~$4,000 by 2025 (~7.5% CAGR). Real ~$1,000.


• $100 in gold (1971 = 3 oz) → ~$10,800 nominal (~7.8% CAGR); ~$2,700 real.


• 1989–2009: $100 in Nikkei → ~$20 (massive collapse); $100 in gold → ~$400.


• 2010–2025: $100 in Nikkei → ~$400; $100 in gold → ~$210.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet:


• Long horizon: Nikkei and gold similar in nominal CAGR, but Nikkei slightly higher real CAGR over full 75 years.


• Lost decades: Gold far outperformed equities from 1989–2009.


• 2010s rebound: Nikkei beat gold during Abenomics expansion.


• Portfolio lens: Nikkei = equity risk with extreme cycles; Gold = steadier monetary hedge.


Caveats & Nuance:


• Nikkei's price-weighted structure skews results toward high-priced stocks.


• Japan's unique deflationary environment suppresses nominal returns compared to U.S./Europe.


• Gold comparison most meaningful post-1971 float; pre-float numbers distort long-run CAGR.


• Cultural investing habits (low dividend culture in Japan historically) matter in TR comparisons.


⸻


Gold vs. GDX (VanEck Gold Miners ETF) – Price Performance


GDX TR = Price Growth + Dividends Reinvested


Gold = Price Growth Only (No Income)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


The VanEck Gold Miners ETF (GDX), launched in 2006, tracks an index of the largest publicly traded gold mining companies worldwide, including Barrick, Newmont, Franco-Nevada, and Agnico Eagle. In theory, miners should act as a leveraged play on gold: their profits expand when gold rises, and their share prices ought to multiply those gains. In practice, the relationship has been weaker than expected, because mining stocks also carry equity risks — costs, debt, labor, environmental regulations, and management execution.


Since inception in 2006, GDX has delivered a compounded return of roughly ~2–3% annualized nominal, far below gold's ~7–8% nominal CAGR over the same period. The reason is that while gold prices soared from ~$600/oz in 2006 to over $3,600/oz in 2025, miners experienced cost inflation (energy, labor, capital expenditures), equity dilution, and poor capital discipline, which eroded shareholder returns. Even though miners pay dividends (averaging ~1–2%), these were not enough to offset the volatility and underperformance.


The 2008–2011 cycle was GDX's golden era. As gold rocketed from ~$700/oz to nearly $1,900/oz, mining stocks surged ~150%, significantly outperforming bullion for a brief window. But this outperformance collapsed in the 2011–2015 bear market, when gold fell ~45% while GDX crashed more than -75%, wiping out nearly all of its gains. Since then, miners have rebounded in bursts but remained volatile, underperforming gold's steady compounding.


From 2016–2020, GDX showed another mini-boom, rallying nearly 200% as gold broke $2,000/oz. But again, the downside has been brutal: miners fell nearly -40% in 2021–2022 as gold consolidated, even though bullion itself only corrected modestly. By 2025, GDX has returned to strength, lifted by record-high bullion prices, but still lags gold dramatically over the long run.


The lesson is that while GDX offers leveraged upside in gold bull markets, it also suffers equity-like drawdowns, high volatility, and chronic underperformance. Gold itself has preserved purchasing power with less risk. Miners have been better suited for tactical speculation or short-cycle leverage, not for buy-and-hold compounding.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition:


• GDX TR: Price appreciation + dividends reinvested from gold miners.


• Gold: Spot price only, no income.


Historical Anchors (Nominal & Real):


• 2006–2025: GDX ~2–3% nominal CAGR; Gold ~7–8% nominal (~3–4% real).


• 2008–2011 bull run: GDX +150%; Gold +110%.


• 2011–2015 bear market: Gold -45%; GDX -75%.


• 2016–2020 rally: GDX +200%; Gold +60%.


• 2021–2022: Gold -10%; GDX -40%.


• 2023–2025: Both rising again; gold record highs; miners recovering but still lagging.


Dividend Yields (Impact):


• GDX yield: ~1–2% historically.


• Lower than broad equity averages; dividends rarely offset big drawdowns.


• Gold has no yield but also no corporate risk.


Inflation Context:


• CPI 2006–2025: ~2.5%/yr.


• GDX real CAGR: ~0–1%.


• Gold real CAGR: ~5%.


Drawdowns:


• GDX: -75% (2011–15), -40% (2021–22), multiple -30%+ corrections.


• Gold: -45% (2011–15), -70% real (1980–1999).


Worked Examples:


• $100 in GDX (2006 launch) → ~$160 nominal by 2025 (~2.7% CAGR). Real ~$120.


• $100 in gold (2006 ≈ 0.17 oz) → ~$610 nominal by 2025 (~8% CAGR). Real ~$450.


• 2011–2015: $100 in gold → ~$55; $100 in GDX → ~$25.


• 2016–2020: $100 in GDX → ~$300; $100 in gold → ~$160.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet:


• Long horizon: Gold wins decisively on compounding and lower volatility.


• Bull cycles: GDX can outperform in short bursts (2008–2011, 2016–2020).


• Bear cycles: GDX collapses harder than gold.


• Portfolio lens: GDX = tactical leverage to gold bull runs; Gold = long-term preservation.


Caveats & Nuance:


• GDX only since 2006, short history vs. bullion.


• Mining equities add equity risks (management, costs, debt, dilution).


• Some miners hedge gold prices, reducing upside.


• Gold bullion reflects pure monetary demand; miners reflect corporate execution.


⸻


Gold vs. VDE (Vanguard Energy ETF) – Price Performance


VDE TR = Price Growth + Dividends Reinvested


Gold = Price Growth Only (No Income)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


The Vanguard Energy ETF (VDE), launched in 2004, tracks the MSCI US Investable Market Energy 25/50 Index, giving exposure to the U.S. energy sector, including oil & gas majors like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, as well as refiners and service companies. Unlike gold, which has no income stream, energy companies pay meaningful dividends, making the total return metric critical.


Since inception in 2004, VDE has delivered ~8–9% nominal CAGR with dividends reinvested, roughly in line with the S&P 500's long-term average. Gold, over the same span, returned ~7–8% nominal CAGR. Adjusted for inflation (~2.5% annualized), both assets have produced ~5–6% real returns, though with very different cycles. Energy stocks follow the boom-and-bust dynamics of oil prices, while gold follows monetary policy, real interest rates, and investor sentiment toward currency debasement.


The 2004–2008 cycle was VDE's strongest run, as oil surged to $147/barrel. Energy stocks more than doubled, outperforming gold, which also rallied strongly in the lead-up to the financial crisis. But the 2008 crash cut energy stocks by more than half, while gold proved resilient, rallying as investors sought safety. In the 2009–2014 period, VDE staged a recovery, but gold surged even more, peaking near $1,900 in 2011.


From 2014–2020, energy stocks suffered a brutal bear market as oil collapsed from $100 to $30/barrel. VDE lost nearly two-thirds of its value, even as gold held steady and later rose. But the 2020–2025 cycle reversed the roles. Energy stocks rebounded sharply on the back of inflation, oil supply shocks, and dividend payouts, compounding at ~15% annualized, while gold gained ~8–10% annually.


The contrast illustrates the fundamental difference: gold is a hedge against monetary instability, while energy stocks are leveraged to global commodity demand and supply. Over long horizons, VDE's dividends help keep pace with gold, but the paths are radically different: energy stocks rise and fall with oil, while gold tends to peak when currencies or policy credibility falter.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition:


• VDE TR: Energy sector ETF, includes price + dividends reinvested.


• Gold: Spot price only, no dividends.


Historical Anchors (Nominal & Real):


• 2004–2025: VDE ~8–9% nominal CAGR (~5–6% real).


• 2004–2025: Gold ~7–8% nominal (~5% real).


• 2004–2008 oil boom: VDE +120%; Gold +80%.


• 2008 crash: VDE -55%; Gold +5%.


• 2009–2014: VDE +80%; Gold +90% (to 2011 peak).


• 2014–2020 oil collapse: VDE -65%; Gold +30%.


• 2020–2025: VDE +15% CAGR; Gold +8–10% CAGR.


Dividend Yields (Impact):


• VDE yield ~3–4% historically; peaked >5% during oil busts.


• Dividends have been critical: without them, long-run VDE would underperform gold.


• Gold has no yield.


Inflation Context:


• CPI 2004–2025: ~2.5%/yr.


• VDE real CAGR: ~5–6%.


• Gold real CAGR: ~5%.


Drawdowns:


• VDE: -55% (2008), -65% (2014–2020), -35% (2020 COVID).


• Gold: -45% (2011–2015), -70% real (1980–1999).


Worked Examples:


• $100 in VDE (2004) → ~$260 nominal by 2025 (~8.6% CAGR). Real ~$170.


• $100 in gold (2004 = 0.25 oz) → ~$900 nominal (~7.7% CAGR). Real ~$240.


• 2008 crash: $100 in VDE → ~$45; $100 in gold → ~$105.


• 2020–2025 rebound: $100 in VDE → ~$200; $100 in gold → ~$150.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet:


• Long horizon (20 yrs): VDE and gold similar in real CAGR (~5–6%).


• Boom cycles: Energy stocks outperform gold (2004–2008, 2020–2025).


• Bust cycles: Gold crushes energy (2008, 2014–2020).


• Portfolio lens: VDE = dividend-paying cyclical commodity equities; Gold = crisis/inflation hedge.


Caveats & Nuance:


• VDE only since 2004; longer energy sector history available via S&P energy subindex.


• Energy equities reflect oil cycles, regulatory risks, and dividends — not pure commodity exposure.


• Gold's performance is independent of corporate management or supply costs.


• Both assets benefit in inflationary shocks, but with different timing and volatility.


⸻


Gold vs. FTGC (First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund) – Price Performance


FTGC Total Return = futures-based commodity exposure + distributions (reinvested)


Gold "return" = spot price change (no income)


⸻


Narrative (5 paragraphs)


The First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund (FTGC) launched in October 2013. It is an actively managed ETF that seeks total return by allocating across energy, agriculture, and metals (including precious metals such as gold and silver) through commodity futures held via a Cayman subsidiary. The objective is to provide diversified commodity exposure with a relatively stable risk profile compared to single-commodity bets.


Since inception, FTGC's long-run annualized total return is ~1% (nominal). That modest figure reflects the structural realities of commodity futures—roll yield drag in contango, management expenses (about ~0.95%–1.02%), and the fact that broad commodity cycles can spend long stretches in neutral. Meanwhile, gold's float-era compounding (post-1971) has been higher—typically ~7–10% nominal depending on the exact endpoints—so over the same 2013–2025 window gold has clearly outpaced FTGC.


Where FTGC shines is broad commodity upswings—periods when energy, grains/softs, and metals rally together (e.g., the 2020–2022 inflation shock). Because its sleeve exposures span multiple complexes, FTGC can sometimes outperform gold tactically when oil, gasoline, coffee/soy, copper, and precious metals all rise in concert. But when commodity leadership is narrow or curves are persistently in contango, the fund's futures structure tends to lag bullion.


FTGC does pay distributions (roughly ~2–3% yield in recent data), sourced from collateral interest and futures positions, whereas gold has no yield. Distributions help total return, but they have not offset the long-run drag enough to match gold's price compounding since 2013. The fund's active positioning also means weights are not fixed "one-third/one-third/one-third"; allocations shift tactically (current holdings often show double-digit weights in several contracts, with gold, silver, WTI, gasoil, coffee, copper, etc.).


Bottom line: FTGC is a diversified commodity sleeve suited for tactical inflation cycles and commodity breadth. Gold remains the simpler, more liquid monetary hedge that has compounded faster since 2013 and over most float-era horizons. Pairing them can make sense if you want broader commodity beta plus a dedicated monetary anchor.


⸻


Key details & historical anchors


• What they are


• FTGC (2013-present): Actively managed, futures-based broad commodity ETF; uses a Cayman subsidiary; seeks total return with diversified exposure across energy, agriculture, and metals. Expense ratio ~0.95%–1.02%.


• Gold: Free-floating since 1971; spot price return only (no dividends).


• Long-run performance (headline)


• FTGC since inception: ~1%/yr nominal average annualized total return.


• Gold since 1971: often ~7–10%/yr nominal, period-dependent (post-1971 analysis).


• Recent return snapshots (illustrative)


• Calendar returns show strong FTGC years during broad commodity rallies (e.g., 2021 +27.9%, 2022 +17.4%), mixed/flat in calm years (e.g., 2023 −5.4%, 2020 +2.2%).


• 2024 was positive for FTGC (~10%); trailing 1-yr recently mid-teens, but the since-inception CAGR remains ~1%.


• Distributions / yield


• FTGC's distribution yield ~2–3% (quarterly). Helpful, but insufficient to close the gap with gold's long-run compounding since 2013.


• Structure & positioning


• Active, tactical weights (not a fixed thirds portfolio); current holdings commonly show meaningful positions in gold & silver, WTI crude, gasoil, copper, coffee/soy, etc.


• Roll mechanics matter: contango/backwardation drives roll yield, a key performance lever (and drag) for futures funds.


• Inflation context


• 2013–2025 U.S. CPI has averaged roughly ~2–3%/yr, which means FTGC's real return ≈ 0% or slightly negative, while gold's real return over the same span has been positive.


• Drawdowns & path


• FTGC: deep commodity-cycle drawdowns (e.g., commodity bear phases or contango-heavy regimes).


• Gold: long, grinding bear phases (e.g., 2011–2015), but lower correlation to energy/agri and often resilient when policy credibility wobbles.


Worked examples (rough, for intuition)


• $100 in FTGC at launch (2013 → 2025) at ~1% CAGR ≈ $112 nominal (flat to slightly negative real after inflation).


• $100 in gold (2013 → 2025) at ~7–8% CAGR ≈ $240–$255 nominal (solidly positive real).


Cheat-sheet


• Long horizon (2013–2025): Gold > FTGC on compounded return.


• Inflation spikes with broad commodity breadth: FTGC can temporarily beat gold.


• Income: FTGC pays 2–3%, gold 0%—but roll/fees keep FTGC's CAGR low.


• Role: FTGC = diversified commodity beta; Gold = monetary hedge.


Caveats & nuance


• FTGC history is short (post-2013 only).


• Weights are tactical, not a fixed 1/3-1/3-1/3—check holdings for current sleeve mix.


• Gold's long-run return depends on start/end dates; float-era results are the most relevant comparison.


⸻


Gold vs. Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI / GSG ETF) – Price Performance


GSCI TR = futures-based exposure across energy, agriculture, industrial metals, and livestock


Gold = spot bullion price only (no yield)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


The Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI), launched in 1991 but back-calculated to 1970, is one of the most widely used benchmarks for the global commodity complex. It is production-weighted, meaning sectors are represented by their share of global production. As a result, energy dominates the index (~55–65% weight, mostly crude oil and refined products), with agriculture, livestock, and industrial metals making up most of the remainder. Precious metals, including gold, are a small slice (<5%). The ETF iShares GSG is the most common vehicle for tracking it.


Since the early 1970s, the GSCI has shown strong sensitivity to inflation and commodity booms, but weak long-term compounding due to roll costs and energy cycles. The average annual return since 1970 has been ~4–5% nominal, often 0–2% real after inflation, compared to gold's ~7–8% nominal (~3–4% real). This means that, over half a century, gold has been the stronger long-term preserver of wealth.


Cycles tell the story more vividly. The 1970s inflation decade saw both gold and commodities soar: gold at ~27% annualized, the GSCI at ~20%. The 1980–1999 period was punishing: gold fell in real terms, but the GSCI fared even worse, dragged down by long stretches of oil oversupply. The 2000–2008 supercycle was GSCI's golden age, with oil rising from $20 to $147/barrel; the index compounded at ~15% annually, beating gold's ~12% CAGR over the same stretch. But the 2008 crash and the subsequent 2010s commodity bear market left the GSCI flat to negative, while gold advanced.


From 2010–2020, gold rose modestly while the GSCI posted negative returns, hammered by oil collapses in 2014–2016 and again in 2020. The 2020–2025 cycle brought both back: gold compounded at ~8–10% annually, while the GSCI delivered ~12–14% thanks to synchronized strength in oil, gas, and agricultural commodities. Still, over the full 50-year view, gold's steadier compounding beats the GSCI's feast-and-famine cycles.


The lesson is that while the GSCI represents the "real economy" commodity basket, it is structurally tied to energy prices and futures roll yields. Gold is less volatile across business cycles and has delivered better long-term purchasing power preservation. GSCI outshines gold only in short-lived commodity supercycles.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition


• GSCI TR: Production-weighted commodity index; ~60% energy, ~20% agriculture, ~15% metals, ~5% livestock.


• Gold: Spot bullion, no yield.


Historical Anchors (Nominal & Real)


• 1970–2025: GSCI ~4–5% nominal CAGR (~0–2% real). Gold ~7–8% nominal (~3–4% real).


• 1970s: Gold ~27% CAGR; GSCI ~20% CAGR.


• 1980–1999: Gold flat/negative real; GSCI worse, dragged by oil oversupply.


• 2000–2008: GSCI ~15% CAGR; Gold ~12%.


• 2010–2020: Gold +3–4% CAGR; GSCI negative.


• 2020–2025: GSCI +12–14% CAGR; Gold +8–10%.


Dividend/Distribution Notes


• GSCI futures-based; no dividend yield.


• Gold bullion; no yield.


• Both suffer opportunity cost versus dividend-paying equities.


Inflation Context


• CPI 1970–2025: ~3.9%/yr.


• GSCI real CAGR: ~0–2%.


• Gold real CAGR: ~3–4%.


Drawdowns


• GSCI: –70% (2008–2009 crash), –60% (2014–2016 oil collapse), –50% (2020 COVID oil futures negative).


• Gold: –70% real (1980–1999), –45% (2011–2015).


Worked Examples


• $100 in GSCI (1970) → ~$800 nominal by 2025 (~4.2% CAGR). Real ~$150.


• $100 in gold (1970 ≈ 2.9 oz @ $35) → ~$10,800 nominal (~7.8% CAGR). Real ~$2,700.


• 2000–2008: $100 in GSCI → ~$300; $100 in gold → ~$250.


• 2010–2020: $100 in GSCI → ~$50; $100 in gold → ~$140.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet


• Long horizon: Gold outperforms GSCI on real CAGR.


• Supercycles: GSCI leads (2000–2008, 2020–2025).


• Steady compounding: Gold wins.


• Role: GSCI = broad inflation-sensitive commodity exposure; Gold = monetary hedge.


Caveats & Nuance


• GSCI is oil-heavy; less balanced than FTGC.


• Futures-based; roll costs reduce long-term returns.


• Gold more liquid, universal, and independent of production cycles.


⸻


Gold vs. U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) – Price Performance


DXY = trade-weighted U.S. Dollar vs. basket of currencies (EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, SEK, CHF)


Gold = spot bullion price (USD/oz, no yield)


⸻


Narrative (5+ Paragraphs)


The U.S. Dollar Index (DXY), created in 1973 after the collapse of Bretton Woods, measures the strength of the dollar against a basket of major currencies. Gold, freed from its fixed $35 peg in the same period, has since traded freely. This makes DXY and gold a mirror-pair: both emerged in their modern form at the same moment, and their inverse relationship has been a defining feature of global markets for five decades.


From 1973–2025, DXY has oscillated in wide cycles rather than compounding wealth like equities. Its level started at 100 in 1973, peaked above 160 in 1985, bottomed near 70 in 2008, and sits around the mid-100s in 2025. The average long-run return is close to zero in real terms because currencies are relative values — a strong dollar means weak foreign currencies, and vice versa. Gold, over the same period, has compounded at ~7–8% annualized nominal (~3–4% real), reflecting its scarcity and monetary role.


The relationship is most visible in crisis cycles. In the late 1970s, the dollar weakened as inflation surged, and gold exploded from $35 to $850/oz. In the 1980s, aggressive Fed tightening drove DXY to record highs, while gold collapsed in real terms. In the 2000s, DXY trended lower, coinciding with a secular gold bull market from $250 to $1,900. More recently, in 2021–2022, the Fed's aggressive tightening boosted DXY to 20-year highs, while gold struggled until late 2022, when inflation fears reignited demand.


Unlike equities or commodities, DXY doesn't "compound" because it is a relative index. A higher DXY means stronger purchasing power for the dollar, but it doesn't produce income or intrinsic growth. Gold, on the other hand, has no yield but preserves purchasing power and benefits when DXY weakens. Thus, investors often view the gold-to-dollar trade as a hedge: when the dollar falls, gold rises, and vice versa.


Over the long run, gold's positive real return contrasts sharply with the dollar's flat-to-negative real trend. Yet DXY spikes, like in 1985 or 2022, create headwinds for gold and are crucial for timing. The two serve opposite portfolio roles: gold as a long-term store of value, DXY as a short-term gauge of U.S. monetary dominance.


⸻


Expanded Bullet Section


Definition


• DXY: Index measuring USD strength against a weighted basket: EUR (~58%), JPY (~14%), GBP (~12%), CAD (~9%), SEK (~4%), CHF (~3%).


• Gold: Spot USD/oz, free-floating since 1971, no yield.


Historical Anchors


• 1973 base = 100.


• Peaks: ~160 (1985 Plaza Accord), ~120 (2001–2002), ~114 (2022 Fed tightening).


• Lows: ~70 (2008 GFC), ~80 (2011–2014 QE era).


• Gold 1971–2025: ~7–8% nominal CAGR (~3–4% real).


• DXY 1973–2025: Essentially 0% real CAGR.


Cycle Comparisons


• 1970s inflation: DXY weak; gold +27% CAGR.


• 1980s strong dollar: DXY peaked; gold collapsed.


• 2000s weak dollar: DXY fell ~40%; gold quintupled.


• 2022 tightening: DXY surged; gold paused, then resumed rally.


Inflation Context


• U.S. CPI 1973–2025: ~3.9% annualized.


• DXY offers no inflation protection.


• Gold real CAGR: ~3–4%.


Drawdowns


• DXY: –50% from 1985 peak to 2008 trough.


• Gold: –70% real from 1980 to 1999; –45% from 2011 to 2015.


Worked Examples


• $100 in gold in 1973 (~3 oz) → ~$6,600 today (~7.5% CAGR nominal). Real ~$1,650.


• $100 "in DXY" in 1973 would be ~$100 in nominal terms (~0% CAGR), but real purchasing power ~–75%.


Interpretation Cheat-Sheet


• Long horizon: Gold > DXY (positive real returns vs. flat).


• Short cycles: DXY spikes = headwinds for gold.


• Role: DXY = short-term currency strength gauge; Gold = long-term wealth hedge.


Caveats & Nuance


• DXY is relative, not absolute — it doesn't reflect USD's decline against goods (inflation).


• Gold vs. DXY correlation is strong, but not perfect — geopolitics, real yields, and demand shifts matter.


• DXY's composition is Euro-heavy; not a full global currency basket.