Two Ways to Own Gold Miners
A gold miners ETF is the simplest way to own the sector without betting on any single company, and the two biggest funds, GDX and GDXJ, split the industry neatly into two halves. GDX tracks the major gold producers, the established companies with the largest market values and the most diversified portfolios. GDXJ tracks the junior gold miners, the smaller, higher-risk companies that carry more upside and more danger. Garrett Goggin’s “Debt Free Gold ‘Annuity’” pitch argues for a third option: skipping the fund entirely and owning one exceptional miner outright.
The appeal of an ETF is diversification. A single mine can fail, a single country can turn hostile, and a single company can miss its guidance, but a fund holding dozens of miners absorbs all of those shocks. The cost of that protection is that you also own the sector’s average, not its best. And in gold, the gap between the average and the best is enormous, which is exactly the argument the pitch is making.
GDX: The Majors Fund
GDX is the VanEck Gold Miners ETF, and it holds the industry’s giants. Newmont and Barrick typically sit at the top of the fund’s holdings, followed by the other diversified majors, and the fund’s performance tracks the sector’s largest companies. Because those companies have blended portfolios with average grades and average costs, the fund reflects the industry’s mean economics rather than its outliers.
That is a feature for a core holding and a limitation for an income investor. The majors pay modest dividends, so the fund’s yield is modest. The majors carry diversified cost bases, so the fund’s margins are average. If you want broad, low-drama gold exposure, GDX is the cleanest way to get it. If you want the specific economics that produce a seven-to-nine-gram grade and a six-and-a-half percent yield, you have to leave the fund and buy the individual mine.
GDXJ: The Juniors Fund
GDXJ is the VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF, and it owns the next tier down: smaller producers and developers that do not qualify for the majors index. These companies are more volatile, more concentrated, and more dependent on exploration success, which is why the junior fund swings harder in both directions than its majors sibling. Some juniors become the next big producers; many never produce an ounce.
The key point for this pitch is that Lundin Gold is not a junior. It is a producing company with a real mine, real cash flow, and a real dividend, but it is small enough and concentrated enough that it is often grouped in the junior tier by fund providers. That grouping is informative: it tells you that the market itself sees the company’s single-mine profile as a source of risk, even though the asset is far better than the typical junior.
The Single-Name Alternative
The choice between an ETF and the single name comes down to risk tolerance. A fund gives you the whole sector’s average with no single point of failure. The individual mine, Lundin Gold, gives you elite grade, sub-twelve-hundred-dollar costs, a zero-debt balance sheet, and a real dividend, all bundled with the concentration risk of one asset in Ecuador, a bottom-ten Fraser Institute jurisdiction.
For the majors fund in detail, see our GDX explainer and our gold mining stocks coverage. For the company behind the pitch, read our Lundin Gold profile.
Costs and Concentration
Two practical details matter when you compare the funds to a single name. The first is cost. Both GDX and GDXJ charge annual expense ratios that are low in absolute terms, a fraction of a percent of assets each year, and they are cheap enough that most investors do not think about them. The more meaningful cost is opportunity cost: the funds own the sector’s average economics, so they give up the elite margins and higher yield that a single exceptional mine like Fruta del Norte offers.
The second detail is concentration, which cuts in a surprising direction. Even though the funds hold dozens of names, the largest constituents dominate the weighting, so a fund that looks broadly diversified is still leaning heavily on its biggest holdings. That is not the same as owning a single mine in a single country, and the fund unquestionably reduces single-asset risk. But it is a useful reminder that diversification in mining is a matter of degree, not a switch you flip. The fund removes the blow-up risk of any one mine; it does not remove the sector’s shared sensitivity to the gold price.
The clean way to frame the choice is that a fund is a bet on the sector, while a single name is a bet on a company. Garrett Goggin’s pitch is explicitly making the second bet, and it is honest that the second bet is riskier. For an investor who wants the sector without doing the homework on individual mines, the funds are the right tool. For an investor who has done the homework and concluded that one mine’s economics justify the concentration, the single name is a reasonable choice. The mistake is treating the two as interchangeable, because they carry different risks and different rewards even when they own overlapping assets.
Ready to see the research? Click here to access Garrett Goggin’s report.
NewsletterVetter is an independent publication. We receive compensation from some of the services we review through affiliate links. Nothing on this site is investment advice. Always do your own research.