GOLD · IN MARCH 2000 DOLLARS
$295,605
About 196% more purchasing power.
The $408,527 ending value was equivalent to approximately $295,605 in starting-date dollars.
THE SAME FIFTEEN YEARS · TWO VERY DIFFERENT OUTCOMES
While the Nasdaq recovered,
gold more than quadrupled.
From the Nasdaq’s March 2000 peak to its April 2015 recovery, $100,000 measured against the gold price grew to about $408,527. The same starting amount measured against the Nasdaq Composite price index reached about $100,147.
One starting point. Fifteen years apart.
$100,000 each · March 10, 2000–April 23, 2015 · nominal values
Gold · London PMNasdaq Composite · price only
$0k$100k$300k$500k$700k
Gold ended 37% below its 2011 high—and still more than quadrupled.
THE CLOSING REVEAL · IN MARCH 2000 DOLLARS
Gold$295,605$408,527 before inflation
Nasdaq price index$72,465$100,147 before inflation
Recovering the dollars did not recover their purchasing power.
Historical benchmark illustration: March 10, 2000–April 23, 2015. The Nasdaq comparison excludes dividends. Both results exclude costs, taxes and withdrawals. This period begins at the Nasdaq’s bubble peak; it is not a typical-period comparison or a forecast. [1] [2] [3]
SAME STARTING AMOUNT. SAME DATES.
The market’s recovery was not the only possible outcome.
Our Fifteen Years to Recover page asks what happens when a market takes a large portion of someone’s retirement to regain its old high. This companion page asks a different question: what happened to gold during those exact same years?
What $100,000 became
Start: March 10, 2000End: April 23, 2015No withdrawals
Bars share one linear scale and show ending values, not the path between dates. Rounded calculations from source benchmarks. [1] [2] [3]
Gold bullion is the asset represented here—not gold-mining shares, leveraged products or a particular fund. The Nasdaq is an unmanaged index, not an investable account. These are benchmark calculations, not actual client results.
+308.5%
Gold’s cumulative price gain over the selected period.
+0.15%
Nasdaq Composite price gain, excluding dividends.
$308,380
Difference in ending values for a $100,000 start, before costs and taxes.
PURCHASING POWER · WHAT THE MONEY COULD BUY
Inflation widened the practical difference.
Consumer prices rose about 38.2% between March 2000 and April 2015. Getting back to the original dollar amount did not restore the original purchasing power. These calculations use actual CPI—not the hypothetical 3% assumption in the companion page’s calculator. [4]
NASDAQ PRICE INDEX · IN MARCH 2000 DOLLARS
$72,465
About 27.5% less purchasing power.
The $100,147 ending value was equivalent to approximately $72,465 in starting-date dollars. Reinvested dividends would improve this result.
Inflation adjustment uses monthly CPI-U: 171.200 in March 2000 and 236.599 in April 2015. Personal spending inflation may differ. All illustrations assume no withdrawals, costs or taxes.
THE NUMBERS · A REPRODUCIBLE COMPARISON
Fifteen years, measured both ways.
| Measure | Gold | Nasdaq price index |
|---|---|---|
| March 10, 2000 | $290.25 per ounce | 5,048.62 |
| April 23, 2015 | $1,185.75 per ounce | 5,056.06 |
| Cumulative price gain | 308.5% | 0.15% |
| Annualized price return | 9.76% | 0.01% |
| $100,000 starting amount | $408,527 | $100,147 |
| $1 million starting amount | $4,085,271 | $1,001,474 |
| $100,000 ending purchasing power¹ | $295,605 | $72,465 |
¹ Ending value expressed in March 2000 dollars. Gold observations are dollars per troy ounce; Nasdaq observations are index levels. Same calendar dates, different daily observation times: London afternoon benchmark and U.S. market close. Annualized returns describe this historical period; they are not expected future returns. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Calculation method and assumptions
Ending benchmark value = starting amount × ending benchmark ÷ starting benchmark. Gold: 1,185.75 ÷ 290.25. Nasdaq: 5,056.06 ÷ 5,048.62. Cumulative gain subtracts one from each ratio.
The interval is approximately 15.1184 years using elapsed calendar days ÷ 365.25. Annualized price return = (ending benchmark ÷ starting benchmark)^(1 ÷ years) − 1.
Inflation factor = 236.599 ÷ 171.200. Real ending value = nominal ending value ÷ inflation factor. Calculations use unrounded inputs; displayed dollars are rounded.
No trading, rebalancing or withdrawals are assumed. Gold has no dividend; Nasdaq dividends are excluded. Gold premiums, dealing spreads, storage, insurance, fund expenses, investment fees and taxes are excluded. Retail execution would differ from benchmark prices. This is historical arithmetic, not a portfolio simulation.
Supporting calculations and source records are available promptly on request: Wilder@BaileyFS.net.
“A market can spend years recovering while a different asset follows a very different path. The asset you hold matters as much as the time you wait.”
Wilder Bailey
Founder, Bailey Financial Services, Inc.
THE PATH WAS NOT SMOOTH
This result did not require selling gold at its peak.
The London afternoon gold benchmark reached $1,895 an ounce in September 2011. By April 23, 2015, it had fallen to $1,185.75—roughly 37% below that high. Someone who held throughout still ended with more than four times the March 2000 starting value. [2] [5]
A strong long-term result can contain a painful decline.
The investor who bought gold at its 2011 high had a very different experience from the investor who bought in March 2000. The purchase price and the need to sell both matter.
Gold does not pay interest or dividends. A retiree using it to fund living expenses would have to sell some holdings or draw income from other resources. The no-withdrawal illustration cannot tell us whether a gold allocation would have supported a particular retirement plan.
WHAT THIS COMPARISON DOES—AND DOES NOT—ESTABLISH
The dates explain part of the result.
The starting date is deliberately the Nasdaq’s March 2000 closing peak. The end date is its first new closing high in April 2015. That answers the companion page’s historical question, but it is a particularly unfavorable starting point for technology stocks. Other starting dates, ending dates and portfolios can produce very different rankings.
The Nasdaq figure is a price return, not a total return. Investors who reinvested dividends would have done better than the price-only illustration. A fully comparable investable-portfolio study would include those dividends and the ownership costs of both investments.
This interval also includes the 2008 financial crisis. It does not isolate the effect of dot-com alone. And it does not establish that gold will repeat its outperformance in the next downturn.
What it does establish is that the same fifteen years produced radically different price outcomes for these two benchmarks.
FROM MARKET HISTORY TO A RETIREMENT DECISION
The question is how your plan handles the waiting.
If your assets take years to recover
Where will essential spending come from? How much would have to be sold while values are depressed? What happens if living costs rise at the same time?
If a defensive holding rises
What rules govern its size, taking gains and redeploying capital? How would the plan handle a later decline in that holding?
Preparation connects asset allocation to dependable income, liquid reserves, concentration limits and written decision rules. A favorable historical result does not remove the need to manage the next period’s risks.
MY CONVICTION · YOUR RETIREMENT
I want capital prepared for a change in leadership.
This history helps explain why I take precious metals seriously as part of a defensive approach. When an expensive market falls, waiting for the same assets to recover is not the only strategy worth examining.
My concern about a major market reset is my investment judgment. This comparison is one historical example supporting the need to consider different assets and different economic environments. It is not a promise that gold will rise, a recommendation to put everything in gold, or evidence that I can identify every turning point.
My objective is to examine how retirement income can withstand a difficult period—and how capital can remain available for opportunities after prices change.
Wilder Bailey
FIVE QUESTIONS WORTH ANSWERING
Before you decide to simply wait.
- How many years of essential spending would depend on selling investments?
- How much of your portfolio relies on the same companies, sector or economic outcome?
- What role would a non-income-producing asset serve in your plan?
- What would you do if that defensive holding itself fell substantially?
- What written rules would guide taking gains, adjusting risk and reinvesting?
PORTFOLIO PREPAREDNESS REVIEW
What is your plan for the years in between?
Let’s examine your income needs, your exposure and the assumptions your retirement depends on.
Begin your preparedness reviewWilder Bailey · Watkinsville, Georgia
Start a conversation →
CONTINUE READING
Sources & measurement notes
Prepared September 26, 2026. Historical observations are from March 10, 2000 through April 23, 2015. Benchmark observations were verified before preparing these calculations.
- Gold: March 10, 2000 London PM benchmark, $290.25/oz
- Gold: April 23, 2015 London PM benchmark, $1,185.75/oz
- Nasdaq, Inc. via FRED: daily Nasdaq Composite closing levels
- BLS via FRED: CPI-U, all items, not seasonally adjusted
- World Gold Council: September 2011 London PM high of $1,895/oz
Bailey Financial Services, Inc. is a fee-only, state-registered investment adviser. This page reflects the author’s analysis and opinion and is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not individualized investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or commodity. Investing involves risk, including loss of principal. Historical results do not guarantee future results.
Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly. The Nasdaq comparison excludes dividends. Both benchmark illustrations exclude costs, taxes and withdrawals. Physical gold may involve purchase premiums, bid–ask spreads, storage and insurance; investment vehicles may have additional expenses. Gold can experience substantial declines and produces no income. Diversification and risk management do not guarantee a profit or prevent a loss. References to independent sources do not imply affiliation, compensation or endorsement in either direction.