How much gold?
It is a plainer question than it sounds, and a number of careful studies have converged on an answer that most portfolios have quietly ignored.
Most portfolios hold almost no gold. The figure is rarely the result of a decision; it is simply the default, inherited from a model that treats stocks and bonds as the whole of the investable world. But a non-answer is still an answer. Holding none of an asset is an allocation choice in its own right, as deliberate in its effects as holding a great deal, and far more common for never having been thought about. It is worth asking, then, what the right share actually is, and whether your own zero was ever examined or merely assumed.
The question is not new, and it is not the property of gold enthusiasts. It has been studied carefully, with real rigour, by institutions that have no particular affection for the metal. What is striking is how closely their answers agree.
Where the research converges
In 2020 the Bank for International Settlements, the central bank for central banks, published a working paper that asked the question directly: "How much gold?" Examining the bond-heavy portfolios that resemble how governments invest, it found that an allocation near 10% offered the best diversification, more so for portfolios of longer-duration bonds. A peer-reviewed study by Van Vliet and Lohre placed the optimum close to 13% for a portfolio with a ten-year horizon. WisdomTree, running 20,000 simulations after the 60/40 portfolio's poor year in 2022, found that 16% to 19% maximized risk-adjusted performance.
The annual In Gold We Trust report, the most thorough survey of this literature and well worth reading in full, gathered these studies and ran its own analysis of US equities, bonds, and gold from 1970 to 2024. Its optimum fell between 14% and 18%. Even mainstream institutions have begun to move; Morgan Stanley's wealth division now favours a 60/20/20 portfolio that places a fifth in gold and real assets.
Different researchers, different methods, different decades, and the answers cluster between roughly 10% and 20%. In a field where almost nothing commands agreement, that convergence deserves attention. And the lowest figure in the range still stands far above the negligible amount a conventional portfolio holds today.
A band, not a direction
It would be a mistake to read this as a case for holding as much gold as possible. The same studies that establish the floor also establish a ceiling. Beyond the optimal band, additional gold begins to lower risk-adjusted returns rather than raise them; the In Gold We Trust analysis shows the benefit reversing once the allocation climbs past its high-teens optimum. This is the mark of a genuine result rather than an advocate's number. Gold is not being recommended without limit. It is being measured, and measurement produces a range with two edges.
Variety is not diversification
There is an objection worth meeting head on. Many thoughtful investors believe they are already diversified, and in one sense they are. They hold equities across regions, bonds of varying maturities, real estate, perhaps private credit, hedge funds, mortgages and other alternatives. The spread is real. But consider where it all ultimately rests: in the same financial system, under the same legal regime, accessible through the same handful of institutions, subject to the same authority that can alter the rules for all of it at once. That is variety within a single structure, not diversification across structures.
This is the quieter reason the studies keep finding value in gold, and it is the part a risk model captures only partly. Gold held in your own name, outside that one jurisdiction, is among the few holdings that does not depend on the system the rest of your wealth relies upon. It is no one's liability and answers to no single government. A modest allocation therefore changes the character of the whole portfolio out of proportion to its size, because it is the one part that does not fall when the common structure does. The numbers above are, in the end, measuring that.
The considered figure
So what share of gold? The candid answer is that the studies describe a range, 10% to 20%, and your own position within it depends on your circumstances, your horizon, and how much of your wealth already sits in one place. The research is a guide, not an instruction. What it does settle is narrower but important: that owning no gold at all is the one position the evidence argues against. So if your own figure is zero, it is worth asking what that zero actually rests on, because it is not the research. Perhaps no one ever raised it. Perhaps it is the discomfort of moving, or the quiet assumption that things will hold. None of those are reasons; they are the absence of one. The only question that remains is whether now is the time to look at it properly.
The studies above are linked where I could link them, and the In Gold We Trust report repays the full read. If a link has gone dark, which happens, send me a note and I will forward a copy; I keep them all. And if you would like to look clearly at how concentrated your own holdings are, and what a measured share held elsewhere might do, I would be glad to talk it through, at no cost and at whatever pace suits you.
In Gold We Trust report
Latest edition (2026), full and compact versions 2024 report (full): the edition covering the asset-allocation studies (PDF) 2024 report (compact version) (PDF)
If a link has gone dark, send me a note and I will forward a copy.
This article is informational and does not constitute financial, legal or tax advice. The studies cited optimize historical data and are not forecasts. Speak with us about your specific circumstances before making any decision.