Wow, he's repeating his call that 10 year Treasuries might hit 6% by 2021... Looks like Trump will leave his successor a sh*t sandwich. His standard business practice, it seems.

Bankrate shows 6m and 10m CDs at 2.5% and 2.7% from investors bank in NJ.
Seems to be real rare to have non-laughable rates for short-term CDs.

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. :)

FYI: This morning I purchased a new CD, Tri-State Bank Pittsburgh, 2.350% 10/21/19 to replace Compass Birmingham Ala. 2.30% maturing today 6/17/19.
Regards,
Ted

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

FYI: Recent articles in Advisor Perspectives by David Blanchett and by Zvi Bodie and Dirk Cotton have dealt with single-premium immediate annuities (SPIAs) used to generate lifetime income in retirement. The focus of those articles was the pricing and the risks of going without inflation protection. In addition to SPIAs, insurers also offer variable annuities (VAs) and fixed-indexed annuities (FIAs) with optional riders known as guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits (GLWBs). I’ll expand on the recent articles by comparing the income-generating properties of SPIAs versus VAs and FIAs, and place particular emphasis on how inflation risk impacts inflation-adjusted income.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/06/17/which-annuities-offer-the-best-inflation-protection

"...At some point, however, you'd think the better move would be to acknowledge the trust funds are a political gimmick, and just spend whatever benefits our elected representatives deem appropriate.
Social Security may face a very interesting political crisis in the coming decade or two. But in hard economic terms, there is no crisis at all."
*********************************************************
Once again, for the 212th time: LIFT THE CAP. I have to pay-in on all the money I make. Why doesn't the guy making $12M or $16B have to pay-in on all the money he makes? Any attempt to rationalize that cannot justify the cap.

@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/

Hi Guys,
Emotional investment decisions will ruin a portfolio. The numbers are uncertain but reflect history. While history will not exactly repeat itself, it will be as accurate a projection that exists. Go with the numbers. Here is a reference to an article that shares my opinion:
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/11/playing-the-probabilities/
The closing statement tells it all: “Annual returns are all over the place and rarely do investors experience average performance in any given year as you can see from this graph“
So given the randomness in that data, patience when investing is needed. Stay the course and be rewarded.
Best Wishes

FYI: YOU’VE NO DOUBT heard this before: Asset allocation is the single most important investment decision. If you have the right mix of stocks, bonds, cash and maybe real estate, you sharply increase your chances of success.
But how do you pick the right mix? There are rules of thumb based on age, there’s a statistical approach called Modern Portfolio Theory, there are risk tolerance questionnaires and there are cash flow-based approaches. Each delivers a different answer—because each emphasizes different factors.
What if the answers differ dramatically? It’s not uncommon for a strictly mathematical analysis to result in an asset allocation of 100% stocks. Meanwhile, if that same person were to fill out a more qualitative risk questionnaire, the result might be far more conservative.
What should you do if the math says one thing but your stomach says another? Should math trump emotion—or the other way around? As you wrestle with this question, here are five consideration
Regards,
Ted
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

Perhaps we're reading too much into the statement that the sales charges were dropped. That could mean "removed", or merely "reduced", as in: the retailer dropped the price of its merchandise to give a huge boost to its sales. Or it could mean "removed but replaced":

In 1979 Fidelity removed its 8½ percent sales charges on almost all its funds and began selling its funds directly to the public with no sales charges (no load) or a low load of two to three percent

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/economics-business-and-labor/businesses-and-occupations/fmr-corp
I don't doubt that Fidelity Fund became noload in 1979, but Magellan was given a 3% load, and Puritan got a 2% purchase/1% redemption load.
Here's a 1989 book (complete) where you can see how in the 1980s Fidelity grouped its funds into international equity, capital growth, growth and income, sector funds (then called "Select Funds"), taxable bond funds, muni funds, money market funds. Funds that carried a load then usually followed the Puritan 2%/1% model, except for a few equity funds with a 3% purchase load: Overseas FOSFX, Growth Company FDGRX, Magellan FMAGX, and OTC Portfolio FOCPX. International Growth and Income Fund (now Int'l Discovery) FIGRX was the oddball, at 1%/1%.
(Around 1990 Fidelity changed the 2%/1% loads into 3% purchase loads.)
The Investors Guide to Fidelity Funds, Winning Strategies for Mutual Fund Investing
http://www.tangotools.com/ui/fkbook.pdf

>> 1979: Fidelity Investments drops the sales charges on many of its largest mutual funds, including Fidelity Fund, Magellan, and Puritan -- giving a huge boost to the direct purchase of no-load funds by retail investors.
Zweig cites "Fidelity Investments, Mutual Fund Guide, June, 1994. (Suggested by: Robert N. Veres, editor, Inside Information.)" I too am surprised by (meaning disbelieving of) this. If it's true, and my memory tells me it's not, some of them got reinstated at some point. I believe.

Somewhere in the mid-90s, Fidelity started removing sales charges on its funds. For example, FGRIX dropped its sales charge on Oct. 20, 1995. Prior to that, it had experimented with waiving loads on some funds inside of IRAs. But it wasn't until 2003 that it permanently dropped "the sales charges on many of its largest mutual funds, including ... Magellan ..."

Fidelity Investments said Monday [June 23, 2003] it will drop the 3 percent front-end sales charge, or load, on several of its key stock funds, including the flagship Magellan fund.
Four other Fidelity funds -- including Contrafund FCNTX, ... Contrafund II FCONX, ... Low-Priced Stock FLPSX, ... and New Millennium FMILX, -- also will become available without a load ...

Source:https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fidelity-drops-sales-charges-on-some-funds
 

Fidelity Investments said it eliminated the sales charge on five funds, including its flagship Fidelity Magellan (FMAGX).
In addition to Magellan, the largest actively managed U.S. stock fund, Fidelity dropped the 3% front-end sales commission, or load, on Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX), Fidelity’s second-largest fund; Fidelity Contrafund II (FCONX); Fidelity Low Priced Stock (FLPSX); and Fidelity New Millennium (FMILX).

Source: https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2003/06/24/fidelity-drops-sales-charge-on-magellan-fund/
Of course many of Fidelity's largest funds in 2003 didn't even exist in 1979.

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.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
June 15:
1995: Less than a year-and-a-half after breaking the 800 barrier, the NASDAQ Composite Index closes above 900 for the first time, finishing the day at 902.68.
1979: Fidelity Investments drops the sales charges on many of its largest mutual funds, including Fidelity Fund, Magellan, and Puritan -- giving a huge boost to the direct purchase of no-load funds by retail investors.
Source: Jason Zweig's Blog

Hi @MikeM
Being curious, a Chart-O-Matic of 2 gold funds, 2 gold miner funds and a compare against FBALX. The backward look is limited to Nov., 2009 based upon inception of GDXJ.
Chart
Nothing against precious metals, and we have played in the past with Fido funds; and their day may arrive again with meaningful gains.
I note this from our perspective of having our faces in this area back in the crazy days of the late 1970's-early 1980's; when we were one of those tables set up in a mall buying and selling coins, etc. Fun and interesting times.
ADD: during the 2008-2009 market melt, precious metals didn't do much to protect assets for any meaningful time frame.

Wow, I read through this post again. I remember it. A blast from the past. Thanks cristinaperry for bringing it back.
As for gold in 2019, I'm sure opinions would be similiar. I see gold as a play, not a buy and hold investment. I started a "play" in December. Hasn't made much yet but still think over the next year or two it could work out.

FYI: Jeffrey Gundlach has a nickname for the Democratic presidential front-runner: “Jurassic Joe.”
The billionaire investor took aim at Joe Biden on Thursday, saying the candidate won’t win his party’s nomination.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/06/14/gundlach-biden-will-not-win-the-democratic-nomination