top of page

Is gold a good investment?

  • Writer: Robin Powell
    Robin Powell
  • 40 minutes ago
  • 17 min read


Stacked 999.9 fine gold bars shining under bright light — a visual symbol of the global rush into gold and the question, is gold a good investment in 2025?




Is gold a good investment at record highs? Millions rushing to buy think so. Academic evidence spanning 200 years tells a different story.



From Tokyo to London, from retail investors to professional fund managers, the gold stampede is accelerating. The precious metal hit $4,000 a troy ounce in October 2025 — up more than 50% for the year—on track for its best annual performance since 1979. A record $26 billion poured into gold-backed exchange traded funds during the third quarter. Central banks kept buying. The financial media anointed gold the must-own asset.


The scenes on the ground tell the real story. Just an hour after Tokyo gold dealer Nihon Material opened its doors on a Thursday morning, new buyers were being turned away. Kenji Onuki, a 40-year-old architect, felt victorious despite having to wait a month for his first ever gold purchase — a small bar — to arrive. "I thought it was important to have something that physically exists, something you can actually hold in your hands," he told the Financial Times.


In Britain, the Royal Mint was on course for record monthly sales. The government-owned company had just received its largest ever combined purchase of gold and silver coins — worth over £50 million, five times its 2022 record. "A historic moment in the precious metals market," said the Royal Mint's chief commercial officer.


In Japan, the frenzy intensified. Tanaka Precious Metals, one of the country's leading gold providers, suspended sales of small gold and platinum bars. "The behaviour of investors has changed 180 degrees," said Bruce Ikemizu, chief director of the Japan Bullion Market Association.


The question everyone's asking: is gold a good investment right now? The answer depends entirely on whether you trust recent price action or two centuries of academic evidence.

But here's what should make you pause.


When Bank of America surveyed fund managers in September, a quarter said "long gold" was the most crowded trade in the market, up from 12% in August. It ranked second only to bets on the Magnificent Seven tech stocks.


If you're experiencing déjà vu, you should be.



The warning you're ignoring


That uncomfortable feeling? Trust it.


This configuration of signals has appeared before. Twice. Both times, it destroyed wealth for decades.


Consider what's happening simultaneously:


"Most crowded trade" status. A quarter of professional fund managers identifying the same position as overcrowded isn't a vote of confidence. It's a warning that the room is full and the exits are narrow.


Retail investor frenzy. When ordinary investors rush to buy something they've never owned before, paying record prices and accepting month-long delays, they're not early. They're spectacularly late. Retail investors don't lead rallies. They chase them.


Narrative-driven buying. Every justification for buying gold right now sounds compelling. Geopolitical instability. Inflation concerns. Central bank worries. Debt crisis fears. Dollar weakness. Each reason feels unique and urgent. But investment manias don't need unique reasons. They just need convincing ones.


The Japanese architect buying his first gold bar wasn't responding to cold portfolio analysis. He wanted "something you can actually hold in your hands." The emotion is understandable. The timing is terrible.


Professional investors have a term for what's happening: gold-plated FOMO. Fear of missing out, wrapped in a respectable package of macroeconomic anxiety.


This configuration appeared twice in modern history. In 1979-1980, gold surged on nearly identical narratives. In 2010-2012, it happened again.


What happened next offers one of the most expensive lessons in investment history — trillions of dollars of purchasing power, destroyed over decades.



The pattern


In January 1970, gold traded below $40 an ounce.


By December 1979, it had rocketed to $970 — a 24-fold increase in less than a decade.

In January 1980, gold reached its inflation-adjusted peak. Academic researchers measure this using the gold price-to-CPI ratio. It hit 8.73, the highest real value in modern history (Barro & Misra, 2016).


The investment case seemed unassailable. Inflation was surging toward double digits. The Iranian revolution had toppled the Shah. Soviet tanks had rolled into Afghanistan. The dollar was collapsing. Paul Volcker had just shocked the Federal Reserve into a dramatic shift in monetary policy. Gold, everyone knew, was the ultimate inflation hedge and safe haven.

Investors extrapolated from Monday's price to predict Friday's. They bought not because gold was cheap, but because it was rising. The cliché that "gold is a good inflation hedge" became the basis for price forecasts, creating a self-reinforcing loop.


Then it stopped.


From that January 1980 peak to March 2001, gold lost about 85% of its real purchasing power over 22 years. The real price fell roughly 70% from 1980 to 2000. Even by July 2023 — more than 43 years after the peak — gold was still down more than 20% in inflation-adjusted terms (Barro & Misra, 2016).



ree


Someone who invested £10,000 in gold at the 1980 peak would have watched it shrivel to approximately £1,500 in real terms by 2001. They would have needed to wait more than four decades — longer than most people's entire investing lifetime — just to approach where they started.


But the pattern didn't end in 1980.


In March 2012, near the post-financial crisis peak, gold's real price ratio hit 7.3 — the second-highest reading on record. Another surge, another compelling narrative (quantitative easing, zero interest rates, European sovereign debt crisis), another eventual disappointment.

Now, in late 2025, we're testing those levels again. Same warning signals. Same crowded positioning. Same retail frenzy.


History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes with uncomfortable precision.


Academic research on speculative manias reveals a consistent pattern. When assets become the "most crowded trade," prices don't plateau. They crash. The rush to sell becomes so precipitous it resembles a panic. Prices can collapse to 30% to 40% of peak values. The NASDAQ after the late 1990s bubble fell 80%.


The stages are depressingly predictable. First, prices rise for valid reasons. Then momentum buyers arrive, purchasing because prices are rising rather than because assets are cheap. Euphoria follows — the widespread sense that it's "time to get on the train before it leaves the station." The peak offers no plateau, just immediate decline. Finally, panic, as those who bought high rush to salvage what they can (Kindleberger & Aliber, 2011).


We're in stage three. Euphoria. The queue outside Tokyo gold dealers. The Royal Mint's record orders. Sales suspended due to overwhelming demand.

What comes next is never pretty.



What gold actually delivers


Academic evidence covering nearly five decades reveals gold's actual performance with brutal clarity.


Between 1975 and 2022, three major asset classes delivered starkly different results:



ree


Gold delivered the lowest returns whilst carrying the highest downside risk.


The Sortino ratio measures risk-adjusted performance — how much return you earn per unit of downside risk. Gold is horrifically inefficient at generating returns relative to its risk. It's not even close.


Extending the analysis further back doesn't help. Between 1836 and 2011, gold's average real rate of price change in the United States was about 1.1% per year, with volatility exceeding 13%. The correlation of gold with GDP and consumption growth? Negligible.


During economic disasters, gold's returns were only slightly higher on average, and often negative. The real price appreciation of gold was negative in over half the disaster periods examined (Barro & Misra, 2016).


The conclusion from this long-run evidence is unambiguous. Because gold doesn't hedge macroeconomic declines, its expected real return should be close to the risk-free rate. It earns no premium for the risks it carries.


Compare this to equities over a 15-year horizon. Between roughly 2007 and 2022, the S&P 500 delivered annualised returns of approximately 17.5% versus gold's 6.5%.


The Dimson-Marsh-Staunton database, tracking global investment returns since 1900, tells the same story. Over 125 years, global equities delivered real annualised returns of 5.2%, bonds 1.7%, and treasury bills 0.5%. Gold, tracked since 1972 when it became freely tradable, has been volatile and delivered poor real returns by comparison (Dimson, Marsh, & Staunton, 2025).


Over nearly five decades of modern data, gold has generated the lowest returns, carried the highest risk, and demonstrated the worst efficiency. Every metric points in the same direction.

But gold's reputation doesn't rest on delivering returns. It rests on being a "safe haven" in turbulent times, a store of value when everything else is falling.


Does it deliver?



The 'safe haven' that isn't


Between 2006 and 2022, the iShares Gold Trust ETF (IAU) recorded an annual standard deviation of 17.2%. The Vanguard 500 Index Investor Fund (VFINX) over the same period? 15.6%.


Gold was more volatile than the S&P 500.


Over this 17-year period, gold experienced a maximum drawdown of almost 43%. Academic researchers examining this evidence concluded bluntly: "Safe havens don't experience losses of that magnitude."


The 2007-2009 financial crisis offers an even more devastating verdict. Gold prices declined over 30% during the worst of the crisis — precisely when investors needed protection most. The academic assessment is withering: "When the hedge was needed most, it failed" (Ciner, Gurdgiev, & Lucey, 2013).


If gold were a reliable safe haven, you would expect it rarely, if ever, to fall alongside equities. Between 1975 and 2012, gold and US stock returns jointly declined in 17% of months. Nearly one month in five, both your stocks and your supposed "protection" fell together.



ree


Recent academic research examining gold's safe haven properties reveals something even more problematic. When gold does function as a safe haven after an extreme market shock, the effect is extraordinarily short-lived. Portfolio analysis found the initial positive effect is reduced to zero after approximately 15 trading days. Beyond this point, the price usually declines as markets stabilise (Beckmann, Berger, & Czudaj, 2015).


The finding that devastates retail investor strategies: "Investors who hold gold more than 15 trading days after an extreme negative shock lose money with their gold investment."

Think about the timing implications. By the time ordinary investors hear about gold's protective properties, read the articles, discuss it with advisers, open accounts, and place orders, weeks have passed. They've already missed the brief window when gold might have helped. They're buying after the protection has evaporated.


Worse, gold's safe haven status isn't universal. It's highly conditional on what's causing market stress. Analysis of S&P 500 declines between 1979 and 2020 found gold acts as a strong safe haven when markets fall due to macroeconomic news, terrorist attacks, or international trade policy. But it's a weak safe haven for falls caused by corporate earnings, government spending, or foreign stock markets. When markets decline because of commodity price movements, gold isn't a safe haven at all — it tends to fall alongside equities (Fang, Chen, Lee, & Chung, 2022).


Judging by loss probability over a one-year horizon, gold presents a 49.9% chance of loss — essentially a coin flip. Equities over the same period? 24.9%.


Gold is not a bond hedge either. Studies consistently find gold is nowhere a safe haven for bonds in any market.


The academic evidence dismantles gold's safe haven reputation systematically. It's more volatile than equities. It experiences devastating drawdowns. It failed during the worst crisis in generations. When it does offer protection, the effect lasts about three weeks. And its protective properties depend entirely on what's causing the market stress.


A safe haven should offer reliable shelter in storms. Gold offers conditional, temporary, and often illusory protection.



The inflation hedge that isn't


The most widely held belief about gold is that it protects against inflation. Over extremely long periods, this has some empirical support.


Analysis of UK and US data spanning from 1791 to 2010 confirms gold can at least fully hedge headline, expected, and core Consumer Price Index measures in the long run. The average long-run beta (elasticity of gold price with respect to goods prices) was found to be 1.36 for the US and 1.16 for the UK. Over two centuries, gold prices rose faster than inflation (Bampinas & Panagiotidis, 2015).


This supports Roy Jastram's concept of the "golden constant" — that the real price of gold maintains its purchasing power over many decades.


But here's what matters for actual investors: 10 or 20 years is not the long run.

Over the investment horizons real people face, gold fails as an inflation hedge with depressing regularity. Between 1975 and 2022, over 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20-year investment horizons, the variation in nominal and real returns of gold has not been driven by realised inflation. The effectiveness of gold as an inflation hedge depends crucially on the time horizon, and it fails over the horizons that matter to investors.


The trailing 10-year real gold return was negative from 1988 to 2005. Negative. For 17 consecutive years, a rolling 10-year investment in gold destroyed purchasing power.

Post-World War II data from Goldman Sachs reveals that in 60% of episodes when inflation surprised to the upside, gold underperformed inflation.


The historical US experience since the 18th century shows that in five out of six major inflationary periods, gold lost its purchasing power. The pattern largely reversed only after 1971, when the Bretton Woods system collapsed and the dollar's link to gold was severed — precisely the period investors use to justify gold today whilst ignoring centuries of prior evidence.


Even during hyperinflation, gold offers no reliable protection. A Brazilian investor holding gold between 1980 and 2000 would have watched the real price decline by about 70%, despite Brazil experiencing some of the highest inflation rates in history.


The real price of gold is driven by its own volatile dynamics, not by inflation. The variation in the real price of gold accounts for most of the variation in the nominal price. Gold doesn't track inflation. It overshoots and undershoots wildly based on speculation, sentiment, and momentum.


Knowledge of future inflation does not translate into an accurate forecast of future gold price returns. And knowledge of future gold returns provides no insight into the course of future inflation. The two are functionally disconnected over investment horizons.


Gold maintains value over centuries. You don't live for centuries. Over the 10 to 20 years that matter for retirement planning, house deposits, children's education, or any actual financial goal, gold has repeatedly failed as an inflation hedge.


The academic evidence is unambiguous: gold's inflation protection is a myth at the time horizons that matter.



Why smart people fall for this

If the evidence against gold is this overwhelming, why do intelligent people keep buying it?

The answer lies in a peculiar feature of gold investment demand. Academic analysis spanning 2001 to 2011 found the price elasticity of investment demand for gold is positive. A 10% increase in the price of gold was associated with an approximate 9.8% increase in investment demand (Baur & Glover, 2014).


Read that again carefully. As gold gets more expensive, people buy more of it.

This is the opposite of rational economic behaviour. It's an upward-sloping demand curve, characteristic of speculative assets during manias. People aren't buying because gold is cheap. They're buying because it's expensive and rising.


Warren Buffett described this phenomenon precisely in his 2011 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders: "The rising price of gold itself generates additional buying enthusiasm, attracting purchasers who see the rise as validating an investment thesis."


This is the bandwagon effect in action. Price becomes its own justification. The surge from $3,000 to $4,000 doesn't prompt caution about valuation. It prompts fear of missing further gains.


Academic research on speculative manias identifies two distinct groups of participants. Professional "insiders" exaggerate the upswings and sell at or near the top. "Outsider amateurs" are attracted late and consequently buy high and sell low. Historically, during speculative episodes, these outsiders included "ladies and clergymen" in the 1830s railway boom. More recently, the category encompasses "successful doctors and dentists and professional athletes" — intelligent people in their own fields who arrive late to financial manias (Kindleberger & Aliber, 2011).


The psychological cascade that creates the behaviour gap is predictable:

You've watched gold surge 50% or more. Media coverage is intense, triggering the availability heuristic—if it's in the news constantly, it must be important. Everyone seems to be buying, triggering herding behaviour. You've "missed out" on gains, triggering FOMO. The narrative sounds compelling, offering confirmation bias for your concerns about inflation, geopolitics, or monetary policy. Recent performance suggests future gains, the recency bias making the last year feel more relevant than the last century.


Each bias reinforces the others, creating what academics call a "positive feedback loop." The more the price rises, the more people buy. The more people buy, the more the price rises. Until it doesn't.


The "greater fool" theory explains what's actually happening. Investors purchase gold not based on its rate of return or economic fundamentals, but in anticipation that the asset can be sold to someone else at an even higher price. The last buyer relies on finding someone else to pay more. Someone, inevitably, is the last buyer.


The loss probability tells the story of timing failure. Over a one-year horizon, gold shows a 49.9% chance of loss — almost a coin flip — compared to 24.9% for equities.


Because gold's safe haven effect, when it exists at all, lasts only approximately 15 trading days after a shock, and because retail investors typically learn about gold, discuss it, open accounts, and place orders over weeks or months, they systematically arrive too late to benefit and hold too long to exit profitably.


They buy high. They hold through the decline. They sell low. The behaviour gap in action.

Smart people fall for this not because they're stupid, but because they're human. And humans, confronted with price momentum, compelling narratives, intense media coverage, and the fear of missing out, reliably make the same mistakes.


The evidence shows what happens. Behavioural finance explains why it happens. Neither requires you to make the same mistake.



What evidence-based investors actually do


Academic research examining optimal portfolio allocations reveals something instructive. Studies that added increasing gold allocations to traditional stock and bond portfolios, with annual rebalancing, found very little evidence of any real net benefits.


Adding 5% to 10% gold slightly reduced downside volatility and loss probability. But it also reduced real returns from 6.1% to 5.9%. The conclusion: "Hedging downside risk via gold investing comes at the cost of lower return" (Lucey, Sharma, & Vigne, 2017).


Allocations above 10% led to even lower real returns and increased downside risk. Gold makes portfolios less efficient, not more.


So what provides genuine diversification? Nobel laureate William Sharpe called it "the golden rule of investing." Harry Markowitz called it "the only free lunch in finance."


Diversification across stocks and bonds. Not stocks, bonds, and gold. Just stocks and bonds.

The academic case is straightforward. Stocks and bonds are negatively correlated, creating natural portfolio stability. Both produce cash flows that provide intrinsic value and expected returns independent of speculation. The Dimson-Marsh-Staunton database shows that over 125 years, worldwide equities delivered real annualised returns of 5.2%, whilst bonds delivered 1.7% (Dimson, Marsh, & Staunton, 2025).


Gold produces nothing. No dividends. No interest. No cash flows. Its return depends entirely on finding someone willing to pay a higher price.


Evidence-based investors maintain disciplined, diversified portfolios. They rebalance systematically — selling what's risen and buying what's fallen. If gold has appreciated within a small strategic allocation, they sell some rather than chase it higher. They focus on time in the market rather than timing the market, control costs and behaviour, and ignore narratives regardless of how compelling they sound.


What about central bank buying? Yes, central banks have bought record amounts. But they're diversifying away from dollars as a political decision, not an economic one. They bought heavily in the 1960s and 1970s too—before the 1980 crash. Central banks can be spectacularly wrong. Witness the Bank of England selling gold at approximately £200 per ounce between 1999 and 2002, just before a massive bull run. When gold's allocation within reserves rises above target levels due to price appreciation, as it's doing now, they'll need to sell to rebalance.


The academic evidence supports a simple conclusion: a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds, implemented efficiently and rebalanced systematically, provides superior risk-adjusted returns over investment horizons that matter to real people.



What this means right now


Gold stands at $4,000. Fund managers call it the "most crowded trade." Retail investors are queuing to buy their first bars. The narrative sounds compelling: geopolitical chaos, inflation fears, monetary disorder, debt crises, Trump's pressure on the Federal Reserve.

You've seen the evidence. You understand the pattern. Now you face a choice.


Path One: Chase the mania. The 50%+ surge feels irresistible. The narrative is compelling. Everyone's buying. You can't shake the feeling you're missing out. So you buy gold near record highs, joining the retail frenzy at precisely the moment professionals are calling it overcrowded.


Path Two: Remember the pattern. The 1980 peak led to an 85% real loss over 21 years and a recovery period exceeding four decades. The academic evidence spanning 200 years shows poor returns, high volatility, failed protection, and unreliable inflation hedging. The behavioural research explains why intelligent people repeatedly make this mistake at peaks. You acknowledge the emotional pull but choose evidence over narrative.


The hardest thing to do right now is also the most profitable: nothing.


Not trying to time the peak to squeeze out a few more percentage points. Not attempting to "trade around" gold's volatility. Just maintaining your disciplined strategy whilst others chase shiny objects.


Charlie Munger observed: "The big money is not in the buying and selling, but in the waiting." Waiting through manias requires more courage than participating in them. Every day that gold rises, the temptation intensifies. Every friend who boasts about their gold gains makes discipline harder.


But discipline compounds. The investor who maintains a diversified stock-bond portfolio through gold manias, property bubbles, technology booms, and whatever comes next captures the long-term returns of productive assets without the devastating losses that come from chasing performance.


This doesn't mean doing nothing ever. It means doing nothing now—when prices are at records, positioning is crowded, retail investors are rushing in, and the academic evidence overwhelmingly suggests caution.


The Tokyo architect who bought his first gold bar because he wanted "something you can actually hold in your hands" will learn an expensive lesson about the difference between tangibility and value. You don't have to learn it with him.



Is gold a good investment?


The evidence spanning 200 years is unambiguous.


Gold delivers poor returns. Between 1975 and 2022, gold generated real annual returns of 1.5%, compared to 8.0% for equities. Over 1836 to 2011, gold's real return averaged just 1.1% annually. It lags productive assets by vast margins over every meaningful time horizon.


Gold fails as a safe haven. Despite its reputation, gold is more volatile than equities, with standard deviation of 17.2% compared to the S&P 500's 15.6%. It experienced a 43% maximum drawdown between 2006 and 2022. It fell over 30% during the 2007-2009 financial crisis when protection was needed most. When it does act as a safe haven, the effect lasts approximately 15 days before reversing.


Gold doesn't hedge inflation over investor horizons. Whilst gold maintains purchasing power over centuries, it fails dramatically over the 10 to 20-year periods relevant to actual financial planning. Trailing 10-year real returns were negative from 1988 to 2005. Post-World War II data shows gold underperformed inflation in 60% of inflation surprises.


Gold attracts momentum-driven demand that creates bubble patterns. The positive price elasticity of investment demand—where higher prices trigger more buying rather than less — creates the conditions for manias. The current rally shows all the characteristics of previous bubbles: retail frenzy, "most crowded trade" status, compelling narratives, and late-arriving amateur investors.


The 1980 pattern is repeating now. Real price ratios are approaching the 8.73 peak from January 1980. What followed was an 85% loss in real purchasing power over 21 years and a recovery period exceeding four decades.


What to do:


Don't chase the mania. Resist the temptation to buy gold near record highs simply because it's risen 50% and everyone's talking about it.


Maintain your diversified stock-bond portfolio. Decades of academic evidence support this approach. It requires no speculation about gold prices, no timing of market peaks, no guessing about macro trends.


Rebalance if gold allocation has risen above target. If you hold a small strategic gold allocation that has appreciated significantly, rebalance back to target by selling some. Don't increase exposure near peaks.


Ignore the noise. Media coverage, compelling narratives, and friends' boasts about gold gains are designed to trigger emotional responses. Evidence should drive decisions, not emotions.


Trust the evidence, not the narrative. Every mania has a compelling story. In 1980 it was inflation, geopolitics, and dollar collapse. In 2011 it was quantitative easing and sovereign debt. In 2025 it's monetary disorder and Trump. Different specifics, identical pattern.

Getting rich slowly beats getting poor quickly. Every single time.


The evidence is clear. The pattern is established. The choice is yours.



Resources


Bampinas, G., & Panagiotidis, T. (2015). On the relationship between oil and gold before and after financial crisis: Linear, nonlinear and time-varying causality testing. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 19(5), 657-668.

Barro, R. J., & Misra, S. (2016). Gold returns. The Economic Journal, 126(594), 1293-1317.

Baur, D. G., & Glover, K. J. (2014). Heterogeneous expectations in the gold market: Specification and estimation. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 40, 116-133.

Beckmann, J., Berger, T., & Czudaj, R. (2015). Does gold act as a hedge or a safe haven for stocks? A smooth transition approach. Economic Modelling, 48, 16-24.

Buffett, W. (2012). Chairman's letter to shareholders. Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report.

Ciner, C., Gurdgiev, C., & Lucey, B. M. (2013). Hedges and safe havens: An examination of stocks, bonds, gold, oil and exchange rates. International Review of Financial Analysis, 29, 202-211.

Dimson, E., Marsh, P., & Staunton, M. (2025). Global Investment Returns Yearbook 2025. UBS Investment Bank.

Erb, C. B., & Harvey, C. R. (2013). The golden dilemma. Financial Analysts Journal, 69(4), 10-42.

Fang, L., Chen, B., Lee, Y. H., & Chung, H. M. (2022). Is gold a safe haven? International evidence revisited. Resources Policy, 79, 102979.

Kindleberger, C. P., & Aliber, R. Z. (2011). Manias, panics and crashes: A history of financial crises (6th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Lucey, B. M., Sharma, S. S., & Vigne, S. A. (2017). Gold and inflation(s): A time-varying relationship. Economic Modelling, 67, 88-101.

Van Vliet, P., & Lohre, H. (2023). The golden rule of investing. Journal of Portfolio Management, 49(5), 153-169.



Robin Powell is the founder and editor of The Evidence-Based Investor. This article reflects extensive academic research and does not constitute financial advice. Investors should consult qualified advisers before making investment decisions.




RECENTLY ON TEBI  







FIND AN ADVISER


Investors are far more likely to achieve their goals if they use a financial adviser. But really good advisers with an evidence-based investment philosophy are sadly in the minority. 


If you would like us to put you in touch with one in your area, just click here and send us your email address, and we'll see if we can help.


Regis Media Logo

The Evidence-Based Investor is produced by Regis Media, a specialist provider of content marketing for evidence-based advisers.
Contact Regis Media

  • LinkedIn
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • TikTok

All content is for informational purposes only. We make no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, suitability or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors or omissions or any damages arising from its display or use.

Full disclaimer.

© 2025 The Evidence-Based Investor. All rights reserved.

bottom of page