The price of gold represents, well, the price of gold, but doesn't include dividends.
It's a valid comparison.
When you start comparing gold to stocks, you have to include TOTAL return of both, or it's just another shabby goldshill halftruth.
We were comparing price level returns.... apples to apples. Including dividends for a TOTAL return makes it apples to oranges. Comparing Gold stock TOTAL returns to S&P 500 TOTAL returns makes it oranges to oranges.
The best part is even with dividends re-invested for the S&P 500, Gold has still outperformed the S&P 500 TOTAL return the past 5 years. That is the full, not gold shill, but investor truth.
A clever comparison for you to make, since it leaves out dividends. LOL
The best part is even with dividends re-invested for the S&P 500, Gold has still outperformed the S&P 500 TOTAL return the past 5 years. That is the full, not gold shill, but investor truth.
Run that comparison from 1980 or 1982.
Five years is not just a random number in this case, it's also a best-case scenario. Run it from 10 or 20 years.,P>Like I said, goldshillery, pure and simple.
Define gold stock. And show the historical correlation between the price of gold and the price of gold stocks.
While you're at it, show the correlation between gold dividends and gold stock dividends--oops, can't do it, you don't collect benefits from your big-ass chunk of gold.
Wow!! Over the last 5 years! Well, that says it all. What about 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? And what dividend did gold pay again?