Index fund that tracks gold and other commodities
I don't know answers that would be specific to Canada but one of the main ETF funds that tracks gold prices is GLD (SPDR Gold Trust) another is IAU (iShares Gold Trust). Also, there are several ETF's that combine different precious metals together and can be traded. You can find a fairly decent list here on the Stock Encylopedia site. Barclays offers an iPath ETN (not quite an ETF), DJP, which tracks the total return of the Dow Jones-AIG Commodity Index.
"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" The S&P 500 represents a broadly diversified basket of stocks.  Silver is a single metal.  If all else is equal, more diversification means less volatility.  A better comparison would be the S&P 500 vs. a commodities index, or silver vs. some individual stock. "Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option.  There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold.  think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially.  Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures.  Forget them, for now.  They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock.   Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it.    You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by.   But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up.   (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want.   You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option.   That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say.  When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I?  Yes, you can.    Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get ""normal"" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same ""bag 'o cash"" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question:   Buy a put.  I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: ""Paper trade"" first.  Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com.  They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education.   If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this:  You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest.  This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose.  So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium.  At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything.  If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money.  So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure ""not long enough"" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95.   (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid).   But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the ""risk-free-rate"".  For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough.  That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price.  Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5.  Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90).   But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both." "There are gold index funds. I'm not sure what you mean by ""real gold"". If you mean you want to buy physical gold, you don't need to. The gold index funds will track the price of gold and will keep you from filling your basement up with gold bars. Gold index funds will buy gold and then issue shares for the gold they hold. You can then buy and sell these just like you would buy and sell any share. GLD and IAU are the ticker symbols of some of these funds. I think it is also worth pointing out that historically gold has a been a poor investment." "To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are. Not only is this a horrible idea, but I think you have some alarming misunderstandings about what it means to save for retirement. First off, precious metals are not an ""investment""; they are store of value. The old saying that a gold coin would buy a suit 300 years ago and will still buy a suit today is pretty accurate. Buying precious metals and expecting them to ""appreciate"" in the future because they are ""undervalued"" is just flat-out speculation and really doesn't belong in a well-planned retirement account, unless it's a very small part for the purposes of diversification. So the upshot to all of this is the most likely outcome is you get zero return after inflation (maybe you'll get lucky or maybe you'll be very unlucky). Next you would say that sure, you're giving up some expected return for a reduction in risk. But, you've done away with diversification which is the most effective way to minimize risk... And I'm not sure what scenario you're imagining that the stock market or any other reasonable investment doesn't make any returns. If you invest in a market wide index fund, then the expected return is going to be roughly in proportion with productivity gains. To say that there will be no appreciation of the stock market over the next 40 years is to say that technological progress will stop and/or we will have large-scale economic disruptions that will wipe out 40 years of progress. If that happens, I would say it's highly questionable whether silver will actually be worth anything at all. I'd rather have food, property, and firearms. So, to answer your question, practically any other retirement savings plan would be better than the one that you currently outlined, but the best plan is just to put your money in a very low-cost index fund at Vanguard and let it sit until you retire. The expense ratios are so stupidly small, that it's not going to meaningfully affect your return." I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments. I don't think so.   The market would need to be either very big or be key pillar of the commodities market which won't happen.   Now if they force domestic consumers (Sinopec) to start using this for hedging than maybe. There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful. I would recommend that go through some forums where commodities topics be discussed so that if you have some issues related any point in commodities investment you will easily get your question sort out. Bloomberg Commodity Index is one you check out. [link](https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BCOM:IND)      Oil does have a heavier weighting though (around 20% through Brent and WTI iirc) so while things like aluminium, gold, corn etc are up for the year BCOM is down YTD. Still a decent broad-based index for you to consider. "There are some index funds out there like this - generally they are called ""equal weight"" funds.  For example, the Rydex S&P Equal-Weight ETF.  Rydex also has several other equal weight sector funds" Vanguard offers an index fund. Their FTSE Social Index Fund. For more information on it, go here. "I was able to find a fairly decent index that trades very close to 1/10th the actual price of gold by the ounce. The difference may be accounted to the indexes operating cost, as it is very low, about 0.1%. The index is the ETFS Gold Trust index (SGOL). By using the SGOL index, along with a Standard Brokerage investment account, I was able to set up an investment that appropriately tracked my gold ""shares"" as 10x their weight in ounces, the share cost as 1/10th the value of a gold ounce at the time of purchase, and the original cost at time of purchase as the cost basis. There tends to be a 0.1% loss every time I enter a transaction, I'm assuming due to the index value difference against the actual spot value of the price of gold for any day, probably due to their operating costs.  This solution should work pretty well, as this particular index closely follows the gold price, and should reflect an investment in gold over a long term very well. It is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough that you don't lose 2-3% every time you enter a new transaction, which would skew long-term results with regular purchases by a fair amount." Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating. "They may be confused. The combination of ""my wife received stock when younger"" and ""her father just died"" leaves questions. A completed gift, when she was a kid, means she has a basis (cost) same as the original owner of that stock. This may need to be researched. The other choice is that she gets a price based on the date of dad's death, a stepped up basis, if it was his, but she got it when he passed.  No offense to them, but brokers are not always qualified to offer tax advice.  How/when exactly did she get to own the stock. Upon second reading it appears I answered this from a tax perspective. You seem to have issues of ownership. What exactly does the broker tell you? In whose name is the statement for the account holding these shares? Scott, saw your update. For the accounts I have for my 13 year old, I am custodian, but the tax ID is her social security number. When 21, she doesn't need my permission to sell anything, just valid ID. What exactly does the broker tell her?"