Nice article from Reuters @davidrmoran
Guess I’d mostly agree with this contributor: “The inflation hedging abilities of gold are not measured over months or years, but centuries. People mistake the very long term performance for the shorter term, thinking gold is going to protect them. My research is very clear that an investment in gold is not a reliable hedge.”
My experience messing around with the stuff from the 70s is that it moves in leaps and spurts - and is likely to move in either direction at just about any time. Hard to find a rhyme or reason for what it does. As markets go, the gold market’s quite thin, so there may be some manipulation going on from big holders or players. Just a guess.
To expect gold to keep pace with inflation day to day or year to year is unrealistic. However, if you’d put $1000 into gold coins or bullion 25 or 50 years ago and buried it, it certainly would buy you more today than had you stashed away $1000 in dollar bills in a vault somewhere. So yes, you got some inflation protection.
Overlooked in a lot of these analyses is that many other things also appreciate over time and also offer inflation protection. Think real estate, equities, lumber, etc. And in all honesty, many other investments would have done better most of the time.
I maintain a small exposure to a mining fund. As Mike noted the miners are more volatile than the metal - though they usually run in the same direction. I could probably develop a pretty good bull case for gold today. But it wouldn’t necessarily prove correct. :)

@MikeM: You're right to point out the quality of the gold discussion going back a few years. Too bad some of the finer commentators have departed.

Here's an older (2012) article by Wade Pfau summarizing a research paper he did on the subject:
Efficient Frontiers: Inflation Assumptions, Fixed SPIAs, & Inflation-Adjusted SPIAs
While it dates from a few years ago, I figure that interest rates haven't changed much since then, especially since they've backslided in the past half year.
Like Tomlinson (the original linked article), Pfau observes that "Today ... fixed SPIAs performed so much better than inflation-adjusted SPIAs." He's looking at completely fixed SPIAs as opposed to Tomlinson's SPIAs with fixed annual increases." Either way, the nominal amounts are set in stone, independent of inflation (despite Tomlinson calling them COLA SPIAs).
What I like about Pfau's article is that he shows how these results can be incorporated into a full investment plan:

In the case study used the article, a 65-year old heterosexual couple requiring a 4% withdrawal rate to meet their lifestyle goals (and whose minimum spending needs were set equal to the lifestyle goal) was best served by combinations of stocks and fixed single-premium immediate annuities (SPIAs). At current product pricing levels, there is little need for bonds, inflation-adjusted SPIAs, or immediate variable annuities with guaranteed living benefit riders (VA/GLWBs).

This relates back to another thread that explained why having an annuity allowed one to be more aggressive with the rest of one's portfolio. According to Pfau (assuming one has enough of an annuity income stream), one can not be merely more aggressive, but invest entirely in stocks.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/50475/here-s-why-advisors-may-urge-retirees-to-load-up-on-equities
While Tomlinson and Pfau both use Monte Carlo simulations, comparing and contrasting their articles helps to highlight the limitations and deficiencies of the simplistic models implemented on web sites.
They each acknowledge how sketchy their input is:
Tomlinson: "The current Treasury/TIPS spread is just under 2% and we also know that the Fed is targeting 2% inflation. However, my purely subjective view ..."
Pfau: "Your views about future inflation are quite important to this decision."
Tomlinson uses his subjective sense to construct a skewed distribution of inflation rates (something many tools can't handle), while Pfau falls back on a normal bell curve. These people are making subjective, albeit well educated, guesses on distributions, and admitting that whatever they guess has a major impact on their conclusions.
That's not an argument against trying. It's an argument for putting a lot more effort into the guessing than letting a website pick a default and pressing a button. It's an argument for using a model that has the flexibility to deal with sophisticated guesses. Otherwise, all you've got is GIGO.
Pfau summarizes the potential impact of higher inflation nicely:

Note that higher inflation would also hurt the performance of the VA/GLWB strategy since its guarantees cannot be expected to keep pace with inflation, and it would also hurt bond mutual funds since the interest rate increases accompanying higher inflation would result in capital losses.
Higher inflation will not completely overturn the idea that the efficient frontier consists of stocks and SPIAs, but it could influence the result about whether the appropriate SPIA choice is a fixed SPIA or a real SPIA

@MJG - I have no quarrel with your point here. In fact, it’s the reason I believe in having a clearly defined plan (preferably written down) and keeping with the plan rather than letting emotions rule.
What I’ll note, however, is that author Adam Grossman (in Ted’s linked article)) appears to advocate for considerable latitude in allowing emotions to intervene. Grossman specifically lists 5 reasons why emotions might be allowed to interfere with allocation decision making (math be damned).
Here’s those 5 reasons in Grossman’s words (edited for brevity) :
1. “All math involves (possibly flawed) assumptions. If the math says your portfolio can afford maximum risk, ask yourself what assumptions underlie that calculation. ... If you look back at U.S. stock market history, downturns generally result in losses of 20% to 50% and last two to four years. But notice that I said “generally.” During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the market dropped more than 80% and didn’t fully recover for more than a decade.”
2. “Just because something hasn’t happened recently — or hasn’t happened here — doesn’t mean it can’t happen. ... Consider Japan. In 1989, it was on top of the world. Its economy and stock market were soaring. But over the subsequent two decades, the Japanese market declined more than 80%. Even today, nearly 30 years later, the Nikkei index stands almost 50% below its peak. ...”
3. “(Consider) ... if something happened — a health issue, for example — and your expenses increased? These kinds of things are impossible to predict, but I think it makes sense to allow for the unexpected when structuring your finances.”
4. “You might not know your true tolerance for risk. ... If you haven’t yet lived through a true bear market, when all the news is relentlessly bad, you might want a more moderate asset allocation than the math suggests.”
5. “It might be unnecessary. ... If you have the risk dial set to 10, ask yourself whether you’re swinging for the fences, even though you’ve already won the game.”
Ted’s link (restated for attribution of quotations): https://humbledollar.com/2019/06/math-vs-emotion/

FYI: There are few traditions in American politics as cherished as the semi-regular panic over Social Security. There are equally few that are such utter balderdash on the economic merits.
The latest example of this time-honored practice comes to us courtesy of The New York Times. "Social Security's so-called trust funds are expected to be depleted within about 15 years," the outlet warned this week. "Benefit checks for retirees would be cut by about 20 percent across the board." The cuts could potentially rise to 25 percent in later years. About half of all seniors rely on Social Security as their primary means of income, and the program reduces the poverty rate among the elderly from 39 percent to 9 percent. If the benefit cuts do happen, that would be devastating. The question is whether the cuts, at the basic structural level, are actually necessary at all.
Regards,
Ted
https://theweek.com/articles/847000/social-securitys-looming-crisis-political-not-economic

@Mark
>> When I dig up the can [20y later] to redeem the contents ... the $100 bar of gold will most likely buy me the same suit and loaf of bread it would have when I buried it.
Well, it looks like it depends on the period, as one would suspect. I graphed FSAGX over its lifespan (started end of 1985) and it went from 10k to 43.6k, while inflation that same period went from 10k to just under 23k. But if your start point is 1996 it has just about kept pace with inflation. If your start point is much after then, looks like things are worse most of the time.
Now, I do see that GLD (started end 04) has done better than FSAGX the last 8 years, so again maybe, but GLD has declined since 2012 and mostly flat since the year after that.
So maybe over 20y what you propose is true, and you did say 'most likely', but I am wondering about the basis for what you wrote.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gold-inflation/gold-as-an-inflation-hedge-well-sort-of-idUSKCN1GD516

Although I did make something on GLD and SLV in the years after 2008, the total stock market made quite a bit more. I only held them with a few percentage points of my portfolio so not life-changing, but lesson learned.
Does anybody know what percentage of assets withdrawn from equities, during a crisis, go to US Treasurys vs. gold?

I'll never buy a PM or miners fund again. Way to volatile for me. I remember my early days here on the fundalarm site (2006-7 'ish). PM and commodity funds were the rage topic and I took the bait. Group-think funds as Junkster coined the phrase. I learned my lesson on that type of stuff.
I'll play a gold ETF, IAU, but no more PMs, or any commodity fund for that matter.
Thanks for the chart @catch22. Speaks volumes against buy and hold. Add one of the PIMCO commodity funds to the mix. PCRIX for example has negative returns for 15, 10, 5, 3 and 1 years.

For Old_Skeet I have in the past, at times, held some precious metal funds. From my perspective gold is simply a store of value in that in times of uncertainity it usually increases in value as investors seek to reduce risk within their portfolios and buy both gold and silver. However, unless you invest in the miners and producers then there are no earnings to be had from just owning gold or silver by themselves. Thus, for me, this makes them a tradeable play over a long term investment position.
However, I do own a commoditity strategy fund that has offered up some good production for me through the years. There again, I've had to be a shrewd buyer and position into my commodity fund when commodities were out of favor. And, even with this, at times, I've had some dead money.

To avoid random noise, or more likely selective time frames, the government requires funds advertising performance to use standardized periods ending on calendar quarters. 17 CFR 230.482(d)(3)(ii).
So I took a look at the link Ted provided, and clicked on the "quarterly" tab. It seems that PARWX, as of the most recently completed quarter, has outperformed the S&P 500 over the past 3, 5, and 10 years.
The fact that these numbers have shifted in the past two months is reflective of little more than the fund's poor performance over the past handful of weeks. To put it another way, this change isn't so much about long term performance as it is about "what have you done for me lately?"
Over the past three months (through June 13), the fund has underperformed by 7%. In the first quarter of 2019 it outperformed by 4¾%. In the fourth quarter of 2018, it underperformed by 3⅔%. Sure it's volatile. To paraphrase Mark Twain, if you don't like the performance, wait a few months.

@Carefree: Has had difficulty beating it's benchmark the S&P 500 Index over the last ten years, I'd sell.
Regards,
Ted

In what ways has it had difficulty beating the S&P 500? It seems to have beaten it cleanly over the past 3, 5, and 10 year time frames.

Thanks @msf for your (typically) well reasoned and precisely detailed analysis. I’d preface my comments by saying things always look rosier late in a decade-long bull market cycle in equities. I’m confident that if this bull lasts another 3 or 4 years the than prevailing “expert” advice will be to pile 100% into aggressive equity funds because fixed income is tantamount to rubbish.
- Easy to overlook is investor risk tolerance. No matter what one’s rationale may be for “loading up” on equities, there’s nothing like a 40-50% drubbing over a couple miserable years to bring us to our knees and shock us back to our Puritan sensibilities. In too many cases those equities piled into during sunnier days get unloaded by investors at discounted prices late in the bear cycle.
- Also overlooked by the article’s underlying assumption is that although investors might well possess a pension, SS, or annuity assets that would allow some level of subsistence, their portfolio of equities, bonds, etc. is not without some immediate purpose. In many cases (speaking from personal experience) those assets are withdrawn regularly for major expenses like travel, new vehicles and upgrades / maintenance on their principal dwelling. It’s also an emergency fund for unexpected medical costs and provides needed “insurance” against having the carpet pulled out from underneath by a reduction in SS or pension benefits (though the assumption is these benefits will remain intact).
- Further, the invested portfolio provides needed growth to compensate for inflation - arguably better than those (somewhat fixed) pension, annuity, SS benefits can. Point being: Treat those invested assets with the same care & due diligence you would if you had none of those added “insurance” products.
The article seems related to an argument advanced by John Bogle around 2013 when he said investors should treat SS as a “bond” in their allocation decisions. It was part of a wider ranging interview, so I’m posting only one commentary from a secondary source. (But the actual full interview is linked within the commentary). I’m also posting a lengthy mfo discussion from around the same time in which a number of members from various tiers shared their (somewhat divergent) thoughts on the question.
Bogle’s position: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-save-for-retirement-vanguard-john-bogle-2017-1
MFO discussion (September 2013) : https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/7814/count-social-security-as-part-of-portfolio

I generally agree with this article (about counting annuities as part of the "safe" portion of your portfolio allocation). It does gloss over a couple of points that merit further thought.
One is how to reduce to present value, i.e. how does one calculate the present value of an income stream in order to know how much one has in "safe" investments? It suggests using the commercial rate for an immediate annuity today that would be comparable to one's pension (if one is lucky enough to have one).
This approach could also be applied to an annuity that one annuitied some time in the past. One might have paid $100K for an immediate annuity in 2014, while that same annuity might cost only $70K today. In part because one has fewer years of life left, but also in part because interest rates have risen slightly. In that sense, an income stream is very much like a bond portfolio - its day to day mark to market value fluctuates.
Notice also that the value of social security isn't discounted to present value. That's because it is inflation adjusted. The value of $20K/year in 2020 is the same as the value of $20K/year in 2030. No need to discount. In the article, it appears that the writer assumed a 22 year life expectancy; $20K x 22 years = $440K shown for Client B.
The other point to think about is why own bonds at all, if your guaranteed income stream (pension, annuities) is large enough to cover essential expenses. The article suggests that the reason is to let people sleep at night ("risk tolerance").
This consideration is real but emotional (since by hypothesis the risk is minimal). If people have trouble addressing this, they will also likely continue ignoring the present value of their income stream for asset allocation. Because all one sees on one's monthly brokerage statements are the assets in the portfolio.
Of course any form of insurance (social security, pensions, annuities) has a cost (overhead). This cost can be reclaimed via the flexibility to be more aggressive with the rest of one's portfolio. Similarly, keeping a cash reserve (see thread on how much cash to keep in retirement) allows one to be more aggressive with the remaining assets.

@Carefree: Has had difficulty beating it's benchmark the S&P 500 Index over the last ten years, I'd sell.
Regards,
Ted

Not saying these are the best global dividend payers; but, it is what I own in my global equity and global hybrid sleeves found in the growth & income area of my portfolio. In my global equity sleeve I own DWGAX which has a dividend yield of 2.04%, CWGIX which has a dividend yield of 2.16%, DEQAX which has a dividend yield of 2.36% and EADIX which has a dividend yield of 3.67%. In my global hybrid sleeve I own CAIBX whcih as a dividend yield of 3.15%, TEQIX which has a dividend yield of 3.71% and TIBAX which has a dividend yield of 4.35%. All these funds pay quarterly except TEQIX which pays annually and EADIX which pays monthly.
My three highest dividend paying funds within my portfolio are PCLAX with a dividend yield of 17.23%, PMAIX with a dividend yield of 5.77% and FKINX with a dividend yield of 5.33%. PCLAX pays quarterly while PMAIX and FKINX pays monthly.
My portfolio contains four areas of investment which includes a cash area, an income area, a growth & income area and a growth area and overall has a dividend yield of better than 3.2%. When I include capital gain distributions it tops out at better than a 5% distribution yield. My current asset allocation is 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity. This portfolio generates more than enough income to meet my needs plus I have some residual left over for new investment opportunities. Going forward, should I not be able to make enough interest in my cash area to offset inflation then I'll reduce cash by 5% and raise my income area by 5%.
My investment focus since I retired five years ago has been to invest for income generation over growth of principal. However, since I retired I have also been able to grow my principal.

I agree with @Crash; I have let Grandeur Peak go and used some of the dough in WAGOX. As it stands now, from my quick review of their international and global funds, there's only one (Emerging Markets Select) that seems to invest in anything but small and micro caps. Maybe the two new offerings will also venture into larger cap holdings. The high ERs kept me away, but my reluctance may have been penny foolish. My final sale of GP funds was GPGOX, which I bought almost at inception. As others here have pointed out, GP lost its momentum a couple of years ago. WAGOX caught GPGOX in late 2017 and hasn't looked back since.

FYI: Quick — what’s the best performing sector in the S&P 500 so far in June? No, it isn’t the highflying information technology sector — that’s second best.
The materials sector is by far having the best month of any of the 11 sectors in S&P 500 groups, up 9.5% in the June to date, according to FactSet data, as of Wednesday afternoon trade (see charted attached).
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-sp-500-sector-is-having-its-best-month-in-about-4-years-trouncing-tech-stocks-2019-06-12/print
M* Snapshot XLB:
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/ARCX/XLB/quote.html

M* seems infatuated with value funds. They have given a fair amount of coverage to the LSV family of funds, more coverage than the results warrant IMO. LSVEX (large), HIMVX (mid) and LSVQX (small) are all run my the same group of academic value quants located not too far from M*'s Chicago offices. I just don't see awarding these three funds "silver" ratings. M* has slobbered over Oakmark, also a "homey," for years while astute MF investors on this board have fled the funds.

Wasatch has earned its keep through the years, I suppose. I never threw them any money. High E.R.s.

"Just because the banks are safer doesn’t necessarily mean the financial system is"
Here's a few selected excerpts from davfor's Bloomberg link, just above. The entire article is well worth a read.

Leveraged lending has raised eyebrows partly because of how lightly it’s regulated. Fueled in large part by demand from collateralized loan obligations that offer interest rates that approach 9% on some riskier portions of the debt, the market for leveraged loans has more than doubled since 2012.
One of the ironies of the boom is that much of the risk-taking decried by central banks and regulators is largely of their own making.
Years of ultra-low rates have made it easier than ever for less-creditworthy companies to borrow large sums of money, all while pushing investors toward riskier investments. At the same time, post-crisis bank regulations have fueled the rise of shadow lenders, which helped facilitate the growth of leveraged lending. Then, financial watchdogs appointed by the Trump administration started encouraging Wall Street to dial-up more risk last year by easing guidelines to limit lending to deeply indebted companies, which freed banks to compete more directly with non-bank firms to underwrite the riskiest loans.
• “Whenever you give children toys, you know they’re going to keep playing with them until they break them,” said Phil Milburn, a fund manager at Liontrust Asset Management in Edinburgh, Scotland. “Someone has to come into the room and say put your toys down.”
• Wells Fargo research suggests buyers of CLOs include U.S. banks, insurers and hedge funds, as well as a large number of non-U.S. financial firms.
• Pimco, the world’s largest bond investor, said last month the credit market is “probably the riskiest ever.”
• When the credit cycle finally does turn, UBS estimates investors in junk bonds and leveraged loans could lose almost a half-trillion dollars, more than any downturn since at least 1987.
• Just because the banks are safer doesn’t necessarily mean the financial system is, says Karen Petrou, managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics, a regulatory-analysis firm.

Comment: Well, it certainly won't be this administration that tells anyone to put their toys down.