Agreed, W1. I think the general debate revolves around the which...

Agreed, W1. I think the general debate revolves around the which is the better: the actual store of value (gold), or the representation of a different store of value (currency/shares/etf gold). In other words, actual vs. representation.

There will always be pros and cons in any investment option or situation because perfection does not exist in the world.

Another example of the advantage of holding physical gold is that its value is constant and enduring. That is, its price goes up if the physical location (Ft Knox, LBMA vaults, China's vaults) of its storage is nuked in a hostile attack resulting in total vaporisation of all those gold. As value endures, so less gold in the world means incr. in POG.

On the other hand, the value of those representations is not so enduring and tends to diminish if their headquarters (Washington DC, Beijing, head offices of BHP, RIO, GS) is destroyed in a hostile attack.

Those who study or dabble in various investment derivatives would find it easier to understand the conceptual difference between actual value and represented value, I suppose.

Ok, here's another one of my asides. My cousin sister (who verges onto cluelessness about all things investment) residing in Canada decided all of a sudden that she wanted to invest her hard-earned into gold and uranium. So yours sincerely was tasked to research some good TSX-listed possibilities.

Along the way, I learned that tellurium (frequently associated with copper and gold) is 8 times rarer than gold, but is only about $100 per kg. Probably because whilst Te has important industrial uses, it neither cultural nor decorative significance. A reminder for me that the rarity factor alone is not enough to translate into value. So it's that mysterious price-value relationship all over again. Cheers, R.