There’s a quiet but unmistakable shift happening — one that cuts through headlines, investment jargon, and even technology itself.

Not long ago, a financial executive — unsure how to justify his university’s ongoing zero allocation to physical gold — turned to artificial intelligence for help. His request? Have the world’s most advanced technology generate reasons to avoid gold.

What came back? Nothing credible. Not one meaningful argument.

After billions of dollars in AI research and development, the machine still couldn’t make the case for keeping gold out of a portfolio. That should tell us something. And it does.

Because when you strip away opinions and forecasts and just look at the facts, the truth is clear: owning physical gold isn’t just reasonable — it’s essential.

The Real Reason Institutions Resist

Over the past 15 years, I’ve spoken with financial professionals, university presidents, board members, and everyday investors. Again and again, I’ve seen the same pattern: resistance to gold rarely stems from a lack of data. It comes from the discomfort of admitting something has been missing.

For many institutions and advisors, it’s easier to defend doing nothing than to change course. That’s why portfolios with billions under management can go decades without a single ounce of gold — even as paper currencies lose purchasing power year after year.

A few years ago, we consulted with advisors managing over 3,000 pensions and endowments nationwide. Do you know how many had a meaningful gold allocation? Three. Not because the data didn’t support it, but because the career risk of stepping outside the traditional financial model was too high. One Stanford University advisor even told me outright: “Bringing up gold is a career risk.”

A Recent Example That Says It All

For several years, I had been in conversation with a university president about adding gold to their portfolio. He consistently acknowledged gold’s unmatched track record, its enviable risk profile, and the seriousness of our national debt. Then, after 18 months of discussions, he walked me into the office of his CFO — an insurance-industry veteran — and said, “I’d like you to have breakfast or lunch with Drew and talk about the benefits of allocating to gold in our portfolio, and review the partnership opportunity St. Joseph has proposed.”

With that, the president left, and the CFO began talking — not about gold or the portfolio, but about himself: his career trajectory, how his staff handles most client matters, how well he’d done financially, and even his commute to the university. When I asked about his perspective on gold from his insurance background, he assured me he was knowledgeable, but before I could go deeper, his next appointment walked in. He quickly stood to end the meeting and, without engaging on the topic or honoring the president’s request, said he was simply “too busy” to continue the conversation. 

The CFO’s Own Words Prove the Point

Later, I sent the president and CFO a follow-up email outlining gold’s performance, risk profile, and uncorrelated nature — attributes nearly impossible to replicate elsewhere. The CFO’s response was telling:

“Institutional investment is not only about return potential…”

This was as close to an inadvertent endorsement as one could write. He effectively admitted that gold’s returns and risk profile justified an allocation — but sidestepped action. The real challenge for him wasn’t the data; it was rationalizing the past 0% allocation and the lost opportunity at his direction.

It appears he sought outside help — clearly from AI, based on the devoid of life answer — to find reasons to avoid gold. His justifications:

• Liquidity and operational flexibility
• Custodial and audit constraints tied to physical assets
• Board policy and donor expectations
• Alignment with our mission, governance practices, and fiduciary responsibilities
  
  

Breaking Down the “Reasons”

Liquidity and operational flexibility
Gold trades more daily than the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It’s one of the most liquid assets in the world, trading 23 hours a day. Private equity, by contrast, can tie up capital for 5-10 years.

Custodial and audit constraints
Custodians oversee tens of billions in physical gold with established, transparent audit processes. Investors can schedule independent audits at will.

Board policy and donor expectations
If board policy prevents allocating to top-performing, risk-adjusted assets, that’s a governance flaw. Donors, logically, would prefer their gifts be preserved and grown effectively.

Mission and fiduciary duties
Gold’s historical role as a store of value and portfolio diversifier supports — not violates — fiduciary responsibility. Avoiding it without valid cause risks undermining the institution’s financial health.

The Bottom Line

Even the most advanced AI — a tool capable of parsing decades of market data, economic theory, and risk modeling in seconds — couldn’t produce a compelling reason to avoid gold. That in itself should give pause to anyone who prides themselves on data-driven decision-making. 

The objections offered in its place were surface-level, easily dismantled with a glance at the facts, and — whether the CFO realized it or not — ended up underscoring the opposite of his intent. By failing to produce a single credible rationale, he effectively confirmed what some of the most disciplined investors in the world already know: the case for gold is not just intact, it is undeniably strong.

When you strip away institutional inertia, career risk, and preconceived biases, the reality becomes clear: the only “risk” in gold is the risk of continuing to ignore it.

Don’t be like the CFO — clinging to excuses when the data says act. Call our team today and talk to a real person - 610-326-2000.

Past performance is not indicative of future results.