Market prices are as of October 22, 2026. Fund data come from the documents linked in the text, with the date of each document noted.
Gold is optional in a Canadian portfolio, not essential. If you want it as insurance, I think a reasonable starting point is about 2.5% of your investable financial assets, with 5% as a ceiling rather than a target, held in an unhedged, CAD-listed physical gold ETF. Zero is also defensible. Ten percent is hard to justify for a portfolio built for growth.
Among the Canadian funds, my provisional first choice is the BMO Gold Bullion ETF (ZGLD). The Purpose Gold Bullion Fund’s non-hedged series (KILO.B) is a credible alternative, and the CI Gold Bullion ETF’s unhedged series (VALT.B) is the cheapest of the three on the documents I could verify. The margins are small, and I explain below what would change the order.
The decision in one table
| ZGLD (BMO) | KILO.B (Purpose) | VALT.B (CI) | PHYS (Sprott) | CGL.C (iShares) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Currency exposure | Unhedged | Unhedged | Unhedged | Unhedged (CAD line of a USD trust) | Unhedged |
| Latest verified MER | 0.22% for 2025 (management fee 0.20%) | 0.28% in Oct 2025 ETF Facts (partial waiver); current figure unconfirmed | 0.17% for 2025 (management fee 0.155%) | 0.39% for the six months to Jun 30, 2026 | 0.55% |
| Average bid-ask spread (12-month, ETF Facts) | 0.10% (to Dec 2025) | 0.19% (to Aug 2025) | 0.13% (to Feb 2026) | Not checked | Not checked |
| Average daily volume | 162,793 units | 20,809 units | 6,296 units | Not checked | Not checked |
| Net assets | C$1.33B (Dec 31, 2025) | About C$280M (aggregator, Aug 2026) | About US$67M (Dec 31, 2025) | About US$14.7B (Jun 30, 2026) | Not checked |
| Custody | BMO’s vault, Toronto | Royal Canadian Mint | London vault; custodian not named | Royal Canadian Mint | CIBC Mellon, with the Mint |
| Distinguishing feature | Documented custody terms; manager and custodian are both BMO | Mint vault; 1 kg in-kind redemption | Lowest verified cost | Closed-end: premium or discount to NAV | Highest cost |
Why own gold at all?
Gold pays nothing, so no one can derive a fair price from fundamentals. The price depends on what the next buyer will pay.
The long record is sobering. Gold touched about US$850 an ounce in January 1980, roughly US$3,300 in today’s money by the LBMA’s account, and it did not regain that peak after inflation until 2025: about 45 years. Depending on the inflation measure, sources date the breakthrough to April or to September. Over that stretch the real return was well under 1% a year (my calculation, which depends on the price series and the inflation measure used). The recent Canadian-dollar record looks very different. The unhedged iShares fund (CGL.C) rose about 2.4 times from 2021 to 2025, roughly 98% after Canadian inflation. I treat that as a surge, not a base rate.
On October 22, 2026, spot gold traded around US$4,084 an ounce, according to a USAGOLD daily report that called it a fifth straight lower session; other feeds differed during the day. At the Bank of Canada’s October 22 rate of 1.4021 Canadian dollars to the US dollar, that is about C$5,700 an ounce. The January 2026 record was roughly US$5,590 (an intraday spot high; sources differ by a few dollars and by a day), so gold is a little more than a quarter below its peak. A drawdown of that size is not unusual for gold, which fell by roughly 40% or more from its 2011 peak to its late-2015 low.
So the case for gold is not a return forecast. It is the possibility that gold pays off when other things do not: a bad decade for equities, a monetary scare, or a weak Canadian dollar. Even that is unreliable. In 2026 an oil-driven inflation scare and a Fed rate hike (the target range is now 3.75% to 4.00%) coincided with falling gold, because gold tends to respond to real interest rates more than to headline inflation.
What a small allocation does and does not do
I tested this with a simple model: 85% equities, 15% bonds, gold added in proportion, with round-number assumptions for returns, volatilities and correlations. It is a model, not a historical Canadian backtest. For context on what broad-market benchmarks actually measure, see my guide to stock market indices. I could not obtain monthly Canadian-dollar series I could cite, so I did not pretend to run one.
- At a 5% weight, the model improves the portfolio’s risk-adjusted return only if gold earns more than roughly 0.7% a year after inflation (about 1.3% if gold is as volatile as it has recently been). It raises median 20-year wealth only if gold earns roughly 2.3% or more.
- In a harsh scenario I chose (equities down 35%, bonds up 5%, gold up 20%), a 5% gold holding in a C$1 million portfolio would have cushioned the loss by about C$24,500 compared with no gold. In an unfavourable one (equities up 10%, gold down 45%, roughly the scale of the 2011-to-2015 decline), it would have given up about C$26,750. A 2.5% holding has about half of each effect.
- The difference between 2.5% and 5% is small in every test. The risk-adjusted measure moved by about 0.0015, which is noise. Choose between those weights on how much insurance you want, not on the model.
How much gold is reasonable?
Start at 2.5% of investable financial assets. Treat 5% as a ceiling if you want a bigger hedge. Zero is a legitimate answer for an investor who does not want an asset with no cash flow.
“Investable financial assets” means your RRSP, TFSA, non-registered accounts and cash. It does not include your home or a cottage you use personally. That changes what the number means: if your Canadian real estate is as large as your financial portfolio, 5% of financial assets is only about 2.5% of your total net worth.
| Portfolio | 2.5% | 5% |
|---|---|---|
| C$500,000 | C$12,500 | C$25,000 |
| C$1,000,000 | C$25,000 | C$50,000 |
The three leading Canadian ETFs
ZGLD (BMO Gold Bullion ETF)
ZGLD is my provisional first choice, for four reasons that are mostly documented and partly a matter of preference. BMO’s annual report for 2025 shows a 0.20% management fee and a 0.22% MER (0.23% in 2024), with the pre-waiver MER identical, so no waiver affected those figures. The ETF Facts dated January 23, 2026 show a 0.10% average bid-ask spread and an average of 162,793 units traded a day over the 12 months to December 31, 2025. Net assets were about C$1.33 billion at year-end, and the financial statements describe an open-ended Ontario trust that qualifies as a mutual fund trust. Neither the 2025 nor the 2024 report shows a distribution per unit.
The custody terms are the most specific of the three. The OSC’s November 2023 decision records BMO as custodian, the bullion held allocated and segregated, BMO bearing the risk of physical loss subject to listed exceptions, and an annual audit. The financial statements place the bars in BMO’s Toronto vault.
Two cautions. First, a contractual assumption of loss is not insurance. BMO’s balance sheet stands behind the bullion, but I found no insurance policy in these documents. Second, BMO is both manager and custodian, which concentrates responsibility in one institution. Scale and documentation are reasons I prefer ZGLD. They do not prove it is safer or will perform better than the others, and a gap of a few hundred dollars over ten years is not decisive.
KILO.B (Purpose Gold Bullion Fund, non-hedged series)
KILO’s issuer page is the most specific on the vault: gold in Purpose’s own area of the Royal Canadian Mint vault, fully allocated and segregated as one-kilogram bars, with auditors visiting in person every year. The fund has about C$1.1 billion across its series.
The fee needs care. The page shows a 0.20% management fee and a 0.23% MER as of June 30, 2026, but for the currency-hedged series. The latest ETF Facts I found, dated October 31, 2025, show a 0.28% MER for KILO.B (data to June 30, 2025, with a partial waiver), a 0.19% average bid-ask spread and 20,809 units a day. An aggregator lists 0.23% for KILO.B without a date, which I treat as unconfirmed. If KILO.B’s MER has fallen to 0.23%, it narrows the cost gap to ZGLD, but I would not promote it on that alone: ZGLD’s observed spread is half as wide and its volume is eight times higher. KILO.B remains a credible alternative for investors who value the Mint vault and the annual in-person bar audit.
VALT.B (CI Gold Bullion ETF, unhedged series)
VALT.B has the lowest verified cost. Its ETF Facts, dated April 21, 2026, show a 0.17% MER as of December 31, 2025, a 0.13% average bid-ask spread and 6,296 units a day over the 12 months to February 28, 2026. CI’s annual report shows a 0.155% management fee, describes the gold as fully allocated and segregated in a London treasury vault and never traded, leased or loaned, and reports about US$67 million in the unhedged series.
Its smaller size and thinner trading are why I rank it behind ZGLD, along with my own preference for a larger, more heavily traded fund. They are not evidence that it is less safe. Two things are unclear from the report: it does not name the custodian, and it does not state the fund’s legal form. It is not a “grantor trust,” an American term some aggregator pages use.
Why the cheapest fund does not automatically win
I compared the cost of holding C$50,000 for ten years. The model assumes a 5% gross annual return, applies each fund’s MER every year, and charges the ETF Facts bid-ask spread once for a round trip. The result is the terminal-wealth shortfall against a holding with no fees and no spread. The spreads are 12-month averages from different periods, not live quotes.
| Fund | MER used | Spread used | Ten-year cost on C$50,000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| VALT.B | 0.17% | 0.13% | About C$1,480 |
| ZGLD | 0.22% | 0.10% | About C$1,850 |
| KILO.B, last verified MER | 0.28% | 0.19% | About C$2,400 |
| KILO.B, if the MER is now 0.23% | 0.23% | 0.19% | About C$2,000 |
| CGL.C | 0.55% | 0.10% (my assumption) | About C$4,450 |
VALT.B is about C$370 cheaper than ZGLD over a decade on C$50,000, roughly C$37 a year. That is real money but small. Whether it outweighs ZGLD’s tighter observed spread, much higher volume, larger size and OSC-documented custody is a judgment call, and reasonable investors will go either way.
| Category | Winner | Runner-up | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ZGLD | KILO.B | Low to moderate |
| Lowest verified cost | VALT.B | ZGLD | Moderate |
| Taxable account | ZGLD | VALT.B | Low |
| TFSA or RRSP | VALT.B | ZGLD | Moderate |
| Liquidity and execution | ZGLD, among the three leaders (CGL.C and PHYS not checked) | VALT.B or KILO.B | Low to moderate |
| Custody documentation | PHYS | KILO.B | Low to moderate |
| Investors already holding USD | GLDM (US-listed) | IAUM | Moderate |
What would change the order:
- KILO.B’s current ETF Facts show a lower MER and a spread as tight as ZGLD’s. Then KILO.B moves to first.
- BMO’s MER rises or ZGLD’s spread widens materially. Then VALT.B or KILO.B moves up.
- A fund’s T3 history shows taxable distributions that the others avoided (see the tax section).
- A fund shows a custody or structural weakness that the documents I read did not reveal.
PHYS and CGL.C
PHYS (Sprott Physical Gold Trust) is a closed-end trust, so its market price can differ from its net asset value. Sprott’s second-quarter 2026 report shows a 0.39% MER for the first half and says units traded at an average discount of about 2.5% on the NYSE Arca, against 1.7% a year earlier. The Royal Canadian Mint holds the gold, which is described as unencumbered and fully allocated. PHYS has the strongest custody documentation, but the discount or premium when you buy and sell can matter more than any fee difference.
CGL.C (iShares Gold Bullion ETF, non-hedged) has the highest cost at 0.55%. Its prospectus says plainly that the fund does not insure its bullion. In 2025 it returned 56.19%, about 3.3 percentage points below the Canadian-dollar gold return implied by the LBMA price and Bank of Canada rates (about 59.45%). The MER explains only a small part of that gap and I could not explain the rest, so check BlackRock’s figures. I see no structural reason to pay CGL.C’s fee when ZGLD offers a similar scale for less.
Physical redemption: impractical at these sizes
KILO’s in-kind redemption right requires a minimum of one 1,000-gram bar, which is about C$184,000 at October 22 prices and exchange rates. Under the redemption terms in the 2020 prospectus (the latest I could access, so possibly out of date), redemption happens monthly on notice, and the holder pays custody and delivery costs. At a 2.5% allocation, one bar is the whole position only for a portfolio of about C$7.4 million, and at 5% about C$3.7 million. Physical redemption is impractical for most retail investors at the portfolio sizes in this article. Sprott’s report says PHYS units can be redeemed monthly for bullion on 15 days’ notice at NAV, with the holder bearing the costs. It does not state a minimum, so I cannot say what one would need to hold.
I treat redemption rights as a feature that supports the unit price through institutional arbitrage, not a reason for a retail investor to prefer one fund. If you want gold you can hold, buy it from a dealer and accept the premium and storage costs. An ETF is a claim on gold in someone else’s vault. (Gold-mining ETFs such as XGD and ZGD are equity funds, a separate category I did not evaluate.)
Insurance has not been demonstrated for any of these funds. The 2020 KILO prospectus says the fund does not insure its bullion and that the Mint’s insurance excludes war, terrorism and government confiscation. The CGL prospectus says the same of that fund. For ZGLD the protection is BMO’s contractual assumption of physical-loss risk. I found no insurance statement for VALT.B or PHYS.
Hedged or unhedged?
Many Canadians assume that “CAD-listed” means “CAD-hedged.” It does not. KILO.B, ZGLD, VALT.B and CGL.C trade in Canadian dollars but hold unhedged gold, so their returns depend on both the US-dollar gold price and the USD/CAD exchange rate. The hedged versions are different tickers (KILO, VALT, CGL and ZGLH). I discuss the distinction between a security’s trading currency and its underlying currency exposure in my guide to investing in global stock markets.
An unhedged fund’s return to a Canadian is roughly (1 + gold’s USD return) × (1 + the change in USD/CAD) − 1. A hedged fund sells US dollars forward, which largely removes the currency effect.
How the hedge is priced
Forward exchange rates are set by covered interest parity: the one-year forward rate equals the spot rate multiplied by (1 + the Canadian interest rate) ÷ (1 + the US interest rate). With the Bank of Canada at 2.25% and the Fed’s target at 3.75% to 4.00%, the one-year forward USD/CAD rate is about 1.6% below spot. Those “forward points” are not a management fee. They are the price of swapping one currency for the other, and they reflect the interest-rate gap. A hedge changes your currency exposure. Whether it improves your realized return depends on what USD/CAD does afterwards, and the forward rate is not a forecast of the future spot rate.
Actual hedged ETFs add their own wrinkles: transaction costs, rebalancing the forward contracts as the gold position changes in value, and tracking differences. The 2025 returns of the hedged funds differed by about three percentage points from one issuer to another (VALT 63.7%, CGL 60.8%, KILO 60.4%).
A plain-English example
Suppose you invest C$10,000 when USD/CAD is 1.40, which buys US$7,143 of gold. Gold rises 10% in US dollars over the year. For the hedged column I use a simplified static hedge: US$7,143 is sold forward at the one-year forward rate of 1.378 (1.40 × 0.9844, from the interest rates above). A real ETF hedge is rebalanced as the position changes in value, so its results will differ somewhat.
| USD/CAD a year later | Unhedged result | Hedged result (static forward) |
|---|---|---|
| 1.47 (+5%, Canadian dollar weaker) | C$11,550 (+15.5%) | C$10,894 (+8.9%) |
| 1.378 (the forward rate) | C$10,828 (+8.3%) | C$10,828 (+8.3%) |
| 1.33 (−5%, Canadian dollar stronger) | C$10,450 (+4.5%) | C$10,794 (+7.9%) |
When the exchange rate ends exactly at the forward rate, hedged and unhedged holders end up in the same place. If the Canadian dollar is weaker than the forward implied, the unhedged holder comes out ahead. If it is stronger, the hedged holder does. The hedged result is not fixed because a static forward hedge covers the original amount, not the 10% gain. The question is not whether the hedge “costs” something, but whether you want that exposure.
The real history is mixed. In 2022 and 2024 the unhedged iShares units beat the hedged units by 7.7 and 12.4 percentage points as the US dollar rose. In 2025 the hedged units beat the unhedged by 4.6 points as the US dollar fell while gold surged. That shows what happened, not which approach is better in expectation.
Why I prefer unhedged
The reason is the job the gold is supposed to do. If you hold gold as insurance against bad outcomes that include a weak Canadian dollar, a hedge removes part of that payoff. That is a judgment about purpose, not a currency forecast. If you expect the Canadian dollar to strengthen, or you cannot tolerate currency swings in the position, the hedged versions are reasonable.
RRSP, TFSA or non-registered?
The answer depends on things I cannot know about you, and it matters less than people expect.
First, separate two questions. The first is where to put new money. The second is where to hold gold when your RRSP, TFSA and non-registered balances already exist. They have different answers. My broader RRSP vs TFSA comparison explores how tax rates change the contribution decision.
The mechanics.
- RRSP. Contributions are deductible, growth is untaxed while it stays in the plan, and withdrawals are taxed as ordinary income. The benefit comes from the deduction and the deferral.
- TFSA. Contributions are made with after-tax dollars, and growth and withdrawals are tax-free.
- Non-registered. Gains are capital gains, and one-half of a gain is taxable. The Government of Canada cancelled the proposed increase in the inclusion rate on March 21, 2025, and the Income Tax Act (paragraph 38(a), current to September 30, 2026) still sets the taxable portion at one-half. You track your adjusted cost base in Canadian dollars and report each sale. For a broader view of Canadian investment and tax planning, see the Finance & Tax for Canadians roadmap.
New contributions. If your tax rate in retirement is expected to be meaningfully lower than your rate today, the RRSP’s deduction and deferral usually beat the TFSA for the same after-tax cost, and both usually beat a non-registered account. In my model the RRSP and TFSA tie when the two rates are equal, and the RRSP pulls ahead as the retirement rate falls. If you expect a higher rate in retirement, the ranking flips toward the TFSA.
Accounts that are already funded. This is the more realistic situation for most readers. The balances exist, and you are choosing which assets sit where. The rule of thumb is to put the asset with the highest expected growth in the most tax-sheltered space. Equities are expected to outgrow gold, so TFSA room is usually better used for equities. My TFSA deep dive explains the value of preserving tax-free growth room for long-term holdings. In my illustrative model, holding a C$25,000 gold position in the TFSA instead of in its best alternative cost roughly C$9,000 to C$28,000 of after-tax wealth over 20 years, depending on assumptions about returns and retirement tax rates.
Between the RRSP and a non-registered account the model was close and sensitive to assumptions. Gold tended to fit the RRSP when the expected retirement tax rate was high and gold’s assumed return modest, and a non-registered account when the retirement rate was lower or the return higher. The crossover moved with the investor’s expected retirement rate, gold’s assumed return, and how heavily taxed the non-registered equities were. The model does not establish a universal threshold. At the extremes the choice moved a C$50,000 position’s 20-year value by up to roughly C$16,000, under 1% of the portfolio.
Practical considerations may settle it:
- Rebalancing. Rebalancing inside an RRSP generally does not trigger immediate Canadian capital-gains tax, although trading costs and spreads still apply. A sale in a non-registered account realizes a gain. In a stylized portfolio held entirely outside registered plans, annual rebalancing cost roughly 0.8% to 1.1% of 20-year after-tax wealth in my simulation, an upper bound. If you have an RRSP, that is a reason to keep the gold there.
- Paperwork. For units of a Canadian fund held inside an RRSP or TFSA, the plan generally handles the reporting that would otherwise fall on you: you do not track adjusted cost base or report distributions on your return. Foreign-property reporting (below) generally does not apply to property held inside the plan either.
- Hedged versions may be better suited to registered accounts, because forward-contract gains can be distributed to unitholders. BMO’s report for the hedged ZGLH shows 2024 distributions of C$1.58 a unit (C$0.95 from capital gains and C$0.63 return of capital), and none in 2025. That is a tax-efficiency preference, not a rule.
Taxable distributions: physical gold ETFs can make them
Do not assume a physically backed gold ETF can never pay a taxable distribution. Gold pays no interest or dividends, but a trust must distribute realized gains, for example when it sells bullion to meet redemptions. CI’s annual report shows its gold fund distributing C$0.41 a unit on both Canadian-dollar series (US$0.32 on the US-dollar series) in 2022, automatically reinvested, and nothing in 2021 or 2023 to 2025. ZGLD’s ETF Facts say its December distribution can include net realized capital gains, and the ETF Facts for these funds say distributions are taxable in a non-registered account whether paid in cash or reinvested. A reinvested distribution is taxable even though you receive no cash, and it is added to your adjusted cost base. Investors who miss that adjustment pay tax twice.
ZGLD’s annual reports show no distributions for 2024 and 2025. I could not obtain T3 histories for KILO.B or earlier years for ZGLD, so check each fund’s distribution history before you buy for a non-registered account.
Three tax issues to take to a professional
- Foreign-property reporting (T1135). Under section 233.3 of the Income Tax Act, an individual whose specified foreign property cost more than C$100,000 at any time in the year must file Form T1135. The definition turns on the legal nature of the holding, not the exchange it trades on. It includes an interest in a non-resident trust and shares of a non-resident corporation. A US-domiciled gold trust listed in New York is the kind of holding that can count; units of an Ontario trust such as ZGLD are interests in a Canadian trust. A Canadian listing does not by itself settle the question, so confirm the fund’s legal form. I could not confirm VALT.B’s from the documents I read.
- Selling at a loss and switching. A loss can be denied under section 54 if you, or a person affiliated with you, acquire the same or identical property in the period beginning 30 days before and ending 30 days after the sale and still hold it at the end. The Act does not say whether two different gold ETFs, or two classes of one fund, are identical, and the answer may depend on the securities’ legal rights. I would not assume that switching either triggers the rule or avoids it, and purchases by a spouse or in other accounts can matter too.
- US estate tax on US-listed funds. This depends on several separate questions. The US federal estate-tax basic exclusion is US$15 million for 2026, per the IRS, but that is the figure for US citizens and residents. For a nonresident who is not a US citizen, the IRS taxes only US-situated property and requires Form 706-NA when US-situated assets exceed US$60,000 (this is a filing threshold, not an exclusion; the page, reviewed June 28, 2026, says it is not indexed for inflation). The Canada–US tax treaty may give a Canadian resident’s estate relief, which I have not verified in detail. Whether a particular US-listed gold fund is US-situated property is a separate question, and I could not establish the answer for GLDM or IAUM. They are different legal entities and I would not assume they share the same treatment. Holding such a fund inside an RRSP does not obviously resolve it, since the RRSP wrapper is a Canadian tax concept and I found nothing showing it changes US situs. A Canadian-listed fund avoids the question.
What a disciplined Canadian investor would actually do
Here is the framework I would use for a C$1 million investable portfolio.
- Decide whether you want insurance at all. If you do not want an asset with no cash flow, stop at zero.
- Pick the size. Start at 2.5% (C$25,000). Treat 5% (C$50,000) as a ceiling.
- Pick an unhedged, CAD-listed physical fund. My provisional order is ZGLD, KILO.B, then VALT.B, with VALT.B first if cost is your overriding priority. Check the current MER and the live bid-ask spread in your brokerage before you buy.
- Choose the account. Avoid using scarce TFSA room on gold. Between the RRSP and a non-registered account, the RRSP is a sensible default if you have a large one and expect a high retirement tax rate, because rebalancing there does not trigger immediate capital-gains tax. The difference is small.
- Enter in one or two purchases. In my simulation, staging a purchase over six months cost about C$330 of expected value on a C$25,000 position and improved the 5th-percentile outcome by about C$1,070. That is regret management, not a return enhancer.
- Review once a year. With a 2.5% target, I would rebalance only if the weight leaves roughly 1.75% to 3.5%. Use new contributions first.
- Write down what would make you sell. A confirmed change in a fund’s MER, a suspension of redemptions, or a persistent premium or discount of more than about 2% on a non-PHYS fund are all reasons to look again.
The counterarguments, honestly
Gold has no cash flow, so any return depends on the next buyer. Real yields are high (the 10-year US inflation-protected yield was about 2.9% in early October, near the 2008 record of about 3.15%), and gold took 45 years to regain its 1980 peak in real terms. The recent rally has been partly given back. A broad Canadian equity fund already carries some gold-miner exposure. A position earning nothing after inflation costs a small but real amount of growth: about 0.1 percentage points a year at 5% in my model, roughly 2% of median wealth over 20 years. And an asset that tripled in a few years invites buying high.
The verdict
Gold earns a small, deliberate place in some Canadian portfolios as insurance, and no place in others. If you want it, 2.5% of investable financial assets is a sensible start, 5% is a reasonable ceiling, and 10% is not for a growth portfolio. Buy an unhedged, CAD-listed physical fund.
ZGLD is my provisional first choice, KILO.B is a credible alternative, and VALT.B is the pick if cost is your top priority. The ranking could change on facts I could not confirm: KILO.B’s current MER and spread, and the T3 history of KILO.B. Check them before you buy.
What I could not verify: KILO.B’s current MER and distribution history, insurance for any of the funds, the legal form and custodian of the VALT funds, the treaty mechanics and US-situs treatment relevant to US-listed gold funds, and current spreads for PHYS and CGL.C. None of these is likely to turn gold from a good idea into a bad one, but several could change which fund wins.
This article is general information, not personalized investment, tax or legal advice. Fund fees, trading data and tax rules change; confirm them with the issuer, the Canada Revenue Agency or a qualified professional before acting.