
The ‘Gold' Fund That Could Cost You Thousands In Missed Returns
Image of Gold Ingots on Golden Background
getty
At my CEF Insider service, we focus on the long term, picking up closed-end funds that give us the capital we need to grow our wealth, plus the high income (I'm talking 8%+ yields here) we need to gain—and keep!—our financial freedom.
That said, there's no denying that one particular investment (that's known for neither income nor long-term wealth building!) is getting a lot of attention these days: gold.
So let's talk about the yellow metal and why we've avoided it at CEF Insider, despite its recent rise. We'll also look at a closed-end fund (CEF) that looks like a good play on gold but is, in fact, far from it. (Either way, it's a fund I recommend selling now, if you hold it, or avoiding if you don't).
You don't have to look too far to see why gold is more of a play for short-term traders.
Gold Lags Medium Term
Ycharts
We only have to go back five years to see gold underperforming the S&P 500, even after the recent selloff in stocks. But let's look at the really long term here.
If we go back 33 years (the longest I can go back easily with the software I'm using), you again see that a significant gold holding would be a significant drag on a portfolio.
Gold Lags Long Term
Ycharts
If you are trying to build generational wealth, clearly gold is not the way to go.
If you're looking to play short-term extreme price moves? Then gold can work, but it's often no better than a coin flip. Here's why.
Gold Coin Flip Results
CEF Insider
Here we see a few years in the 1970s, when gold (in blue above) crushed the S&P 500 (in red). But since then, the years in which gold has beaten stocks have been rarer. In fact, since 1971, gold has topped stocks 23 times, and stocks have beaten gold 31 times.
And if you're interested in the long term, this is the real takeaway: Over this period, gold gave investors a 10.8% average return per year, while stocks returned an average of 12.5%.
That's not too much of a difference. But take out the 1970s and gold gave investors a 4.3% annualized return while stocks returned 13.2% annualized return. That's a massive difference and a clear sign that gold is very much not for the long term.
Which brings me to that so-called 'gold' CEF I recommend selling now: the GAMCO Global Gold, Natural Resources & Income Trust (GGN).
GGN is a good fund, and well managed, but its focus on gold will inevitably drag it down when gold's rally inevitably stumbles—which is why I see it as a sell now. This one is also not a 'pure' gold play: It holds 54% of its portfolio in metals and mining stocks, including notable gold names like Newmont Corp. (NEM) and Kinross Gold (KGC). But it also has miners of other minerals, like Rio Tinto (RIO)—mainly an iron ore miner—and BHP Group (BHP), which focuses mostly on iron ore and copper.
Another 33% of GGN's holdings are in energy and energy-services stocks, including top-10 holdings Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Chevron (CVX). That energy focus has been weighing on GGN, since oil has been tumbling with stocks as of late.
Nonetheless, investors have been bidding up the fund, shrinking the fund's discount to net asset value (NAV, or the value of its underlying holdings) down close to par.
The fund's discount has been shrinking for years after temporarily spiking in mid-2022, during that year's selloff. That's left its current discount near its 10-year average of 3%. In other words, this fund is no longer undervalued, so it risks seeing less demand from investors going forward.
This doesn't mean GGN is always a sell, by the way. Buying it on October 1, 2022, near the depths of that year's stock-market pullback, would have been a good move: GGN (in purple below) trounced gold prices—shown by a benchmark index fund, the SPDR Gold Shares (GLD), in orange, and an S&P 500 index fund (in blue) from then until the end of that year:
GGN Outperforms
Ycharts
Since then, though, the story has been very different.
GGN Lags
Ycharts
As you can see above, GGN is well behind the S&P 500 since then, and more or less on par with gold.
The fund's 'tie' with gold since brings up another question, though: Why not just buy gold itself? Well, gold has no dividend, so if you want to use your profits, you'll need to know how to time gold's ups and downs in order to sell at the right times to get the cash you need.
With GGN, you're at least getting an 8.4% payout. The fund's high dividend effectively turned the volatility in the fund's gold and resources holdings into usable income for investors who held it.
What's more, with gold itself—or an ETF that tracks it, like GLD, you will have to be very right about gold in the short term because gold tends to underperform stocks. And since gold has had an unusually strong run as of late, the law of mean reversion suggests that the chances of a bullish bet on gold turning sour are more likely now than they were a few weeks ago.
All of this basically leaves us back where we started: If you're in the market for a reliable income stream to provide long-term wealth without the stress of gambling on short-term moves in an unpredictable commodity, you're best to look elsewhere.
Michael Foster is the Lead Research Analyst for Contrarian Outlook. For more great income ideas, click here for our latest report 'Indestructible Income: 5 Bargain Funds with Steady 8.6% Dividends.'
Disclosure: none

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stocks rally as Trump-Musk feud cools down
Stocks rally as Trump-Musk feud cools down originally appeared on TheStreet. Crypto stocks bounced back on June 7 as both President Donald Trump and Tesla (Nasdaq: TSLA) boss Elon Musk retreated from their big, ugly feud from the previous day. Strategy (Nasdaq: MSTR), which had dipped around 6% yesterday, was trading at $375.01 at press time, up 1.69% a day. Helmed by Michael Saylor, the company is the largest public Bitcoin treasury company. The largest U.S. crypto exchange Coinbase (Nasdaq: COIN) had slipped as much as 10% the day before. The stock, which made it to the much-coveted spot on the S&P 500 in May, was trading at $254.31, up 4% a day. The crypto and stock trading exchange Robinhood (Nasdaq: HOOD) dipped around 8% on the day of the feud. It was trading at $76.24, up 5% a day. The story of Bitcoin miners was no different as the two men engaged in a heated public exchange over social media and press briefings on June 6. MARA Holdings (MARA) fell as much as 7% yesterday but was trading at $15.93, up 7.02% a day. Hut 8 Group (HUT) had similarly slipped by 7% the day before but rallied an impressive 14.83% to trade at $18.74. HIVE Digital (Nasdaq: HIVE) had slid around 9% yesterday and made the same recovery of 9% today to trade at $2.0042. Bitdeer (Nasdaq: BTDR) had also slipped 9% and successfully recovered by 11% to trade at $14.07 today. Notably, the stablecoin issuer Circle Internet Group (NYSE: CRCL) made an impressive debut on the day of the feud. CRCL was trading at $116.07 at press time, up 40% a day. Musk, who quit the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by the end of May, has been criticizing Trump's "big, beautiful bill" since then. The disagreement escalated into an ugly public exchange the previous day that shook the markets. Stocks rally as Trump-Musk feud cools down first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025, where it first appeared. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
AudioEye (AEYE) Beats Stock Market Upswing: What Investors Need to Know
The latest trading session saw AudioEye (AEYE) ending at $12.67, denoting a +2.84% adjustment from its last day's close. The stock exceeded the S&P 500, which registered a gain of 1.03% for the day. Elsewhere, the Dow saw an upswing of 1.05%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq appreciated by 1.2%. The the stock of company has risen by 3.36% in the past month, lagging the Computer and Technology sector's gain of 9.02% and the S&P 500's gain of 5.27%. The investment community will be paying close attention to the earnings performance of AudioEye in its upcoming release. The company's earnings per share (EPS) are projected to be $0.16, reflecting a 33.33% increase from the same quarter last year. Alongside, our most recent consensus estimate is anticipating revenue of $9.94 million, indicating a 17.31% upward movement from the same quarter last year. In terms of the entire fiscal year, the Zacks Consensus Estimates predict earnings of $0.71 per share and a revenue of $41.51 million, indicating changes of +29.09% and +17.91%, respectively, from the former year. Investors might also notice recent changes to analyst estimates for AudioEye. These revisions help to show the ever-changing nature of near-term business trends. As such, positive estimate revisions reflect analyst optimism about the company's business and profitability. Empirical research indicates that these revisions in estimates have a direct correlation with impending stock price performance. To take advantage of this, we've established the Zacks Rank, an exclusive model that considers these estimated changes and delivers an operational rating system. The Zacks Rank system ranges from #1 (Strong Buy) to #5 (Strong Sell). It has a remarkable, outside-audited track record of success, with #1 stocks delivering an average annual return of +25% since 1988. The Zacks Consensus EPS estimate remained stagnant within the past month. AudioEye is currently sporting a Zacks Rank of #2 (Buy). Valuation is also important, so investors should note that AudioEye has a Forward P/E ratio of 17.48 right now. This expresses a discount compared to the average Forward P/E of 29.63 of its industry. We can also see that AEYE currently has a PEG ratio of 0.7. This popular metric is similar to the widely-known P/E ratio, with the difference being that the PEG ratio also takes into account the company's expected earnings growth rate. The Internet - Software industry currently had an average PEG ratio of 2.35 as of yesterday's close. The Internet - Software industry is part of the Computer and Technology sector. Currently, this industry holds a Zacks Industry Rank of 55, positioning it in the top 23% of all 250+ industries. The strength of our individual industry groups is measured by the Zacks Industry Rank, which is calculated based on the average Zacks Rank of the individual stocks within these groups. Our research shows that the top 50% rated industries outperform the bottom half by a factor of 2 to 1. Be sure to follow all of these stock-moving metrics, and many more, on Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Audioeye, Inc. (AEYE) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Column: Full-size electric pickups are failed product planning experiment and industry disaster
There is a statistic in my colleague Laurence Iliff's story on the failure of full-size electric pickups that, pardon the pun, shocked me. The combustion and hybrid Toyota Tundra had more new-vehicle registrations during the first quarter than the entire industry's collection of full-size electric pickups — by a lot. That statistic is in no way a brag on the Tundra, which remains a distant No. 5 in what is now a five-horse segment since the death of the even slower-selling Nissan Titan. According to S&P Global Mobility, the Tundra recorded a meager 36,895 new registrations in the U.S. in the first quarter, while the Ford F-150 Lightning, Tesla Cybertruck, Chevrolet Silverado EV, GMC Hummer, Rivian R1T and GMC Sierra EV collectively posted about 22,000 registrations. By comparison, combustion-powered pickups from Ford, Chevrolet, GMC and Ram reached 478,823 registrations in the first quarter, S&P said. Were it not for investments and expectations that rival the size of the immense front fascias on virtually all of the aforementioned full-size behemoths, this failed experiment would already be over. The score: Newtonian Physics ∞, Hype & Hope 0. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. I can't begin to fathom how many tens of billions of dollars were spent by automakers and their suppliers developing and building those full-size electric pickups over the last decade. You can, however, get some sense of how bad the miss was when you look at the sales/production volumes auto executives anticipated, including Elon Musk's quarter- to half-million annual sales estimate for the Cybertruck, or Ford's initial F-150 Lightning estimate of up to 150,000 sales annually. So why did full-size electric pickups fail so badly? I would argue that it wasn't just physics — though the need for a bigger, more expensive battery to push these bigger vehicles farther as long as they are not towing anything shouldn't be minimized. But I think a share of the responsibility for this collective flop also lies with the companies' product planning departments. While all vehicles are compromised in some form or fashion by the time they reach consumers, full-size electric pickups lack a fundamental quality that has made their combustion-powered counterparts the U.S. sales champs for decades: Uncompromised utility. The legacy pickups are renowned for accomplishing whatever task their owners set them to. That unstoppable capability is what gave rise to the 'lifestyle' pickup in the first place, as consumers desired at least a taste of that confidence, even if they rarely, if ever, actually needed that power. Product planners and their auto executive bosses failed to account in their sales projections for just how much compromise an electric-pickup owner would face in everyday life. Sure, the trucks have some excellent features, including loads and loads of torque, but so do their combustion counterparts. And while it may cost extra fuel to tow a trailer with those combustion-powered vehicles, a heavy trailer sucks up a battery pack's juice quickly — and recharging is not nearly as quick and convenient as a gas station fill-up. It's the same reason that battery-electric semis are probably doomed to failure: It's just the wrong technology for that use case. Sorry. In a world ruled by logic and not emotion, society would consign new technologies to the areas where they have the greatest advantage. Battery-electric powertrains make the greatest sense in vehicles with limited mass and with limited demands, while hydrogen (and diesel) is more efficient in larger, demand-dependent vehicles where towing capability is paramount. We don't live in that world, unfortunately, which is why full-size electric pickups are failing. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data