Is there a general guideline for what percentage of a portfolio should be in gold?
I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually.  The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF.  Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-) It depends on what your goals are, your age, how much debt you have, etc. Assuming -- and we all know what happens when you assume -- that your financial life is otherwise in order, the 5% to 10% range you're talking about isn't overinvesting.  You won't have a lot of company; most people don't own any. One comment on this part: I have some gold (GLD), but not much ... Gold and GLD are not the same thing at all.  Owning shares of the SPDR Gold Trust is not the same thing as owning gold coins or bars.  You're achieving different ends by owning GLD shares as opposed to the physical yellow metal.  GLD will follow the spot price of gold pretty closely, but it isn't the same thing as physical ownership. My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.) By mentioning GLD, I presume therefore you are referring to the SPRD Gold Exchange Traded Fund that is intended to mirror the price of gold without you having to personally hold bullion, or even gold certificates. While how much is a distinctly personal choice, there are seemingly (at least) three camps of people in the investment world. First would be traditional bond/fixed income and equity people.  Gold would play no direct role in their portfolio, other than perhaps holding gold company shares in some other vehicle, but they would not hold much gold directly. Secondly, at the mid-range would be someone like yourself, that believes that is in and of itself a worthy investment and makes it a non-trivial, but not-overriding part of their portfolio.  Your 5-10% range seems to fit in well here. Lastly, and to my taste, over-the-top, are the gold-gold-gold investors, that seem to believe it is the panacea for all market woes.  I always suspect that investment gurus that are pushing this, however, have large positions that they are trying to run up so they can unload. Given all this, I am not aware of any general rule about gold, but anything less than 10% would seem like at least a not over-concentration in the one area.  Once any one holding gets much beyond that, you should really examine why you believe that it should represent such a large part of your holdings. Good Luck 10% is way high unless you really dedicate time to managing your investments. Commodities should be a part of the speculative/aggressive portion of your portfolio, and you should be prepared to lose most or all of that portion of your portfolio. Metals aren't unique enough to justify a specific allocation -- they tend to perform well in a bad economic climate, and should be evaluated periodically. The fallacy in the arguments of gold/silver advocates is that metals have some sort of intrinsic value that protects you. I'm 32, and remember when silver was $3/oz, so I don't know how valid that assertion is. (Also recall the 25% price drop when the CBOE changed silver's margin requirements.) Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run.  In the long run I'd say the answer is zero.  The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory.  In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds.  It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital.  While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold. "The ""conventional wisdom"" is that you should have about 5% of your portfolio in gold. But that's an AVERAGE. Meaning that you might want to have 10% at some times (like now) and 0% in the 1980s. Right now, the price of gold has been rising, because of fears of ""easing"" Fed monetary policy (for the past decade), culminating in recent ""quantitative easing."" In the 1980s, you should have had 0% in gold given the fall of gold in 1981 because of Paul Volcker's monetary tightening policies, and other reasons. Why did gold prices drop in 1981? And a word of caution: If you don't understand the impact of ""quantitative easing"" or ""Paul Volcker"" on gold prices, you probably shouldn't be buying it."
It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $7000*1.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given.  A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!) he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance.  It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work.  Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion.  Period. It says nothing about your age.  Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone.  In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case.  At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable.  With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio.  Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing. "Answering this question is weird, because it is not really precise in what you mean. Do you want all stocks in the US? Do you want a selection of stocks according to parameters?  Do you just want a cool looking graph? However, your possible misuse of the word derivative piqued my interest. Your reference to  gold and silver seems to indicate that you do not know what a derivative actually is. Or what it would do in a portfolio.  The straightforward way to ""see"" an efficient frontier is to do the following. For a set of stocks (in this case six ""randomly"" selected ones):      library(quantmod)  library(fPortfolio)  library(PerformanceAnalytics)     getSymbols(c(""STZ"", ""RAI"", ""AMZN"", ""MSFT"", ""TWX"", ""RHT""), from = ""2012-06-01"", to = ""2017-06-01"")     returns &lt;- NULL  tickerlist &lt;- c(""STZ"", ""RAI"", ""AMZN"", ""MSFT"", ""TWX"", ""RHT"")  for (ticker in tickerlist){   returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker)))))  }  colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist  returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns)    frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns)  png(""frontier.png"", width = 800, height = 600)  plot(frontier, which = ""all"")  dev.off()    minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = ""LongOnly"")    Portfolio Weights:    STZ    RAI   AMZN   MSFT    TWX    RHT   0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051     Covariance Risk Budgets:    STZ    RAI   AMZN   MSFT    TWX    RHT   0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051     Target Returns and Risks:   mean    Cov   CVaR    VaR   0.0232 0.0354 0.0455 0.0360    https://imgur.com/QIxDdEI  The minimum variance portfolio of these six assets has a mean return is 0.0232 and variance is 0.0360. AMZN does not get any weight in the portfolio.  It kind of means that the other assets span it and it does not provide any additional diversification benefit.   Let us add two ETFs that track gold and silver to the mix, and see how little difference it makes:    getSymbols(c(""GLD"", ""SLV""), from = ""2012-06-01"", to = ""2017-06-01"")    returns &lt;- NULL  tickerlist &lt;- c(""STZ"", ""RAI"", ""AMZN"", ""MSFT"", ""TWX"", ""RHT"", ""GLD"", ""SLV"")  for (ticker in tickerlist){   returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker)))))  }  colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist  returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns)   frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns)    png(""weights.png"", width = 800, height = 600)  weightsPlot(frontier)  dev.off()    # Optimal weights  out &lt;- minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = ""LongOnly"")  wghts &lt;- getWeights(out)  portret1 &lt;- returns%*%wghts  portret1 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret1)[,3]  colnames(portret1) &lt;- ""Optimal portfolio""    # Equal weights  wghts &lt;- rep(1/8, 8)  portret2 &lt;- returns%*%wghts  portret2 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret2)[,3]  colnames(portret2) &lt;- ""Equal weights portfolio""   png(""performance_both.png"", width = 800, height = 600)  par(mfrow=c(2,2))  chart.CumReturns(portret1, ylim = c(0, 2))  chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 2))  chart.Drawdown(portret1, main = ""Drawdown"", ylim = c(-0.06, 0))  chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = ""Drawdown"", ylim = c(-0.06, 0))  dev.off()   https://imgur.com/sBHGz7s   Adding gold changes the minimum variance mean return to 0.0116 and the variance stays about the same 0.0332. You can see how the weights change at different return and variance profiles in the picture.  The takeaway is that adding gold decreases the return but does not do a lot for the risk of the portfolio.  You also notice that silver does not get included in the minimum variance efficient portfolio (and neither does AMZN).  https://imgur.com/rXPbXau  We can also compare the optimal weights to an equally weighted portfolio and see that the latter would have performed better but had much  larger drawdowns. Which is because it has a higher volatility, which might be undesirable.  ---  Everything below here is false, but illustrative.  So what about the derivative part? Let us assume you bought an out of the money call option with a strike of 50 on MSFT at the beginning of the  time series and held it to the end.  We need to decide on the the annualized cost-of-carry rate, the annualized rate of interest, the time to maturity is measured in years, the annualized  volatility of the underlying security is proxied by the historical volatility.   library(fOptions)   monthprc &lt;- Ad(MSFT)[endpoints(MSFT, ""months"")]  T &lt;- length(monthprc) # 60 months, 5 years  vol &lt;- sd(returns$MSFT)*sqrt(12) # annualized volatility    optprc &lt;- matrix(NA, 60, 1)  for (t in 1:60) {   s &lt;- as.numeric(monthprc[t])   optval &lt;- GBSOption(TypeFlag = ""c"", S = s, X = 50, Time = (T - t) / 12, r = 0.001, b = 0.001, sigma = vol)   optprc[t] &lt;- optval@price  }    monthprc &lt;- cbind(monthprc, optprc)  colnames(monthprc) &lt;- c(""MSFT"", ""MSFTCall50"")    MSFTCall50rets &lt;- monthlyReturn(monthprc[,2])  colnames(MSFTCall50rets) &lt;- ""MSFTCall50rets""    returns &lt;- merge(returns, MSFTCall50rets)    wghts &lt;- rep(1/9, 9)    portret3 &lt;- returns%*%wghts  portret3 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret3)[,3]  colnames(portret3) &lt;- ""Equal weights derivative portfolio""    png(""performance_deriv.png"", width = 800, height = 600)  par(mfrow=c(2,2))  chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 4.5))  chart.CumReturns(portret3, ylim = c(0, 4.5))  chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = ""Drawdown"", ylim = c(-0.09, 0))  chart.Drawdown(portret3, main = ""Drawdown"", ylim = c(-0.09, 0))  dev.off()  https://imgur.com/SZ1xrYx   Even though we have a massively profitable instrument in the derivative. The portfolio analysis does not include it  because of the high volatility. However, if we just use equal weighting and essentially take a massive position in  the out of the money call (which would not be possible in real life), we get huge drawdowns and volatility, but  the returns are almost two fold. But nobody will sell you a five year call.  Others can correct any mistakes or misunderstandings in the above. It hopefully gives a starting point.  Read more at:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance)  The imgur album:  https://imgur.com/a/LoBEY" "While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk.  Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the ""data and proof"". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it." I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist.  Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role.  Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier.  If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds.  Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest.  Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn.  If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option.  In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio. gold is incredibly volatile, I tried spreadbetting on it.  During the month of its highest gain, month beginning to month end, I was betting it would go up - and I still managed to lose money. It went down so much, that my stop loss margin would kick in.   Don't do things with gold in the short term its a very small and liquid market. My advice with gold, actually buy some physical gold as insurance. if you bought gold in late '79, it would have taken 30 years to break even. Of all this time it was two brief periods the returns were great, but long term, not so much. Look at the ETF GLD if you wish to buy gold, and avoid most of the buy/sell spread issues.  Edit - I suggest looking at Compound Annual Growth Rate and decide whether long term gold actually makes sense for you as an investor. It's sold with the same enthusiasm as snake oil was in the 1800's, and the suggestion that it's a storehouse of value seems nonsensical to me. Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio.  The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance.  I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for.  If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs).  Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k.  You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds.  If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money.