Gold vs stocks: Has Warren Buffett been wrong about the yellow metal all along?

While gold has surged to record highs in 2026, up 261% over the past decade and a jaw-dropping 1,954.92% over 25 years, the world's greatest investor remains completely unmoved. Buffett has spent decades calling gold useless, non-productive, and a speculator's game. So who is right: the market or the Oracle of Omaha?

Hold an ounce of gold for 100 years and you still have exactly one ounce. It has produced no income, generated no dividends, and created zero economic value in that time. Buffett calls it a pure "greater fool" asset, the only way you profit is if someone else is willing to pay more than you did. There is no business growing behind it, no earnings compounding, no product being built. It simply sits there, and it costs you storage and insurance fees for the privilege.

Over the past 25 years, gold has returned1,954.92%, from $272 an ounce in June 2001 to $5,589.38 on January 28, 2026. The S&P 500 managed 521% over the same period. Even over the last decade, gold's 261% price return has nearly dead-heated with the S&P 500's 262%. The "non-productive rock" Buffett dismisses has matched the world's most powerful stock market and demolished it over a generation. That is not a coincidence, it is a verdict on inflation, currency debasement, and the limits of his framework.

Buffett's model assumes stable, functioning financial markets where productive assets compound freely. Gold bulls argue his framework breaks down precisely when it matters most. The 2008 financial crisis, pandemic-era money printing, relentless US budget deficits, and aggressive central bank buying have systematically eroded the purchasing power of fiat currencies. In those environments, which have defined the past 25 years, gold has not been speculation. It has been insurance. And insurance does not need to pay dividends to justify its cost.

Buffett's opposition to gold does not extend to all precious metals. Between 1997 and 1998, Berkshire Hathaway quietly accumulated 129.7 million ounces of silver — worth billions. The reason was pure value investing logic: global silver consumption was outpacing supply by roughly 100 million ounces every year, inventories were being depleted, and prices had not caught up. Silver also powers the real economy, electronics, solar panels, medical devices. That industrial utility gave it something gold, in Buffett's view, fundamentally lacks: a reason to exist beyond sentiment.

Buffett will never endorse buying gold. But here is the uncomfortable truth, the temperament required to hold physical metals well is identical to the one he has spent his entire career championing. Patience through extended underperformance. Conviction rooted in your own analysis, not crowd consensus. The discipline to hold when the price is not cooperating and the thesis remains sound. Gold investors who bought at $272 in 2001 and held through years of scepticism and volatility were practicing Buffett's inner scorecard, on an asset he would never approve of.

Buffett's framework is built for a world of compounding businesses and stable money. Gold's 25-year outperformance suggests the world has not always been that place. The S&P 500 edges ahead once dividends are counted over the last decade, but over a full generation, gold has won. The debate is not really about gold versus stocks. It is about whether you believe the monetary system will remain trustworthy over your investment horizon. Buffett does. Gold buyers increasingly do not. At $4,490 an ounce, the market has its own answer.