Foundation investment policy: gold ETF vs physical

Updated: August 9, 2026

OPRS may receive compensation when readers open an account through partner links on this page. Our analysis is based on independent research, BBB data, and IRS publications.

Four IRC sections frame every investment policy statement that includes a gold allocation. Section 4940 sets the 1.39 percent net investment income excise tax. Section 4941 prohibits self-dealing. Section 4942 requires a 5 percent annual minimum distribution. Section 4944 governs jeopardizing investments.

The choice between a physically backed gold ETF and direct foundation-held bullion turns on which IRC section puts the most pressure on your IPS. See the dealers OPRS clears and the ones we warn against before any institutional first-purchase conversation. A foundation-corpus dealer relationship is a multi-million-dollar counterparty exposure. A thin operator turns a one-quarter onboarding into a two-quarter audit problem at the 990-PF filing.

Element I is the gold ETF anatomy at the foundation level: SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) and iShares Gold Trust (IAU) as grantor trusts, the expense ratio stack, and the 5 percent minimum distribution liquidity advantage.

Element II is the institutional physical bullion anatomy: vault custody at Brink’s or Loomis, the all-in fee stack, the dealer spread amortization, and the counterparty isolation argument. Element III is the side-by-side comparison on a $5,000,000 corpus with a 10 percent gold sleeve.

Element IV is the verdict per foundation profile (under $10M, $10M to $30M, $30M-plus, and the operating foundation edge case). Element V is the five-step IPS drafting sequence from board committee through 990-PF disclosure.

What is actually inside a gold ETF for a private foundation

SPDR Gold Shares (NYSE Arca: GLD) and iShares Gold Trust (NYSE Arca: IAU) are the two dominant physically backed gold ETFs available to a U.S. private foundation.

Both GLD and IAU are organized as grantor trusts under SEC-registered prospectuses. That structure means each shareholder is treated for federal tax purposes as owning a pro rata interest in the underlying gold, not a share in an investment company.

The grantor trust treatment is the structural reason the ETF mechanics work cleanly inside a foundation chart of accounts.

The published expense ratios are 0.40 percent for GLD per the SPDR Gold Trust 10-K filings on SEC EDGAR and 0.25 percent for IAU per the iShares Gold Trust 10-K filings on SEC EDGAR.

These ratios are deducted daily from the trust’s gold holdings, which means the per-share gold backing declines slowly over time as the trust pays its sponsor, marketing agent, custodian, and trustee. The gold itself is held in the London vault of HSBC Bank plc (GLD) or JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. London (IAU) in allocated form.

Foundation operational advantages of the ETF path are material. The ETF settles T+2 like any equity, which means the 5 percent annual minimum distribution under IRC Section 4942 is met without any physical-asset-sale friction at year-end.

The position appears on the custody statement at the same prime broker as the foundation’s other public-market positions, which simplifies the 990-PF Part II balance sheet and the 990-PF Part IV-A asset detail. Audit trail is the broker confirmation, identical to an S&P 500 ETF position.

The foundation-specific tax posture is also clean. A private foundation pays the 1.39 percent net investment income excise tax under IRC Section 4940 on realized capital gains, ordinary income, and interest.

The 28 percent collectibles long-term capital gains rate hits an individual taxpayer holding GLD or IAU under IRC Section 408(m)(3). That rate does not apply to a foundation. Section 4940 is the only tax mechanism that touches foundation investment income, and it does not adopt the collectibles rate distinction.

This is the single point most family-foundation IPS drafts miss when they default to the ETF path “for simplicity.” The simplicity is real. The tax cost is the same 1.39 percent excise as any other public-market asset.

What is actually inside foundation-held physical bullion

Foundation-held physical bullion means the foundation takes direct title to allocated bullion bars or coins and contracts with a third-party institutional vault for storage and insurance. The two viable institutional custodians at U.S. foundation scale are Brink’s Global Services (with vaults in New York, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles) and Loomis International (with similar U.S. footprint plus London and Zurich access). Several specialized depositories such as Delaware Depository and International Depository Services also serve the foundation segment.

The all-in fee stack at this scale has three layers. The custody and insurance fee at an institutional vault runs approximately 0.20 to 0.40 percent of asset value per year for an allocated bullion position above $1,000,000. That rate declines toward 0.10 percent for positions above $50,000,000, per the published commercial rate sheets of the major vault operators.

The annual audit and chain-of-custody reporting fee is typically $5,000 to $15,000 per year on a foundation engagement, flat regardless of asset value within a band.

The one-time dealer spread at first purchase on institutional-grade LBMA-good-delivery bars (400 oz gold bars at 99.5 percent purity) runs approximately 1 to 4 percent, depending on the dealer and order size. That is materially tighter than the 4 to 8 percent retail dealer spread on IRS-approved coins.

The structural advantage of the physical path is counterparty isolation. The ETF shareholder owns a pro rata interest in a trust whose gold is held by a sub-custodian in London. The chain runs from the foundation to the prime broker to the trust to the sub-custodian to the physical bar.

The direct physical holder owns the bar in foundation name in a third-party vault under a custody agreement with the vault operator directly. The two chains have different failure modes. The ETF chain is exposed to a sub-custodian solvency event or an HSBC London vault disruption; the direct chain is exposed to a Brink’s or Loomis solvency event.

Neither is structurally safer; they are different.

The IRC Section 4944 jeopardizing-investments defense is the second structural advantage. Section 4944 imposes a 10 percent tax on the foundation (and a 10 percent tax on the foundation manager up to $10,000) on any investment that jeopardizes the carrying out of the foundation’s exempt purposes.

Treasury Regulations under Section 4944 evaluate prudence on a portfolio basis, not per holding. They explicitly accept that diversification is one of the criteria a foundation may rely on.

A documented IPS that allocates 5 to 15 percent of corpus to physical bullion as an inflation and counterparty hedge provides the strongest available defense against a Section 4944 challenge. Record the rationale in the board minutes and in the IPS itself.

The physical position and the ETF position are equivalent on the Section 4944 prudence test if both are sized appropriately and rationale-documented.

The IRC Section 4941 self-dealing prohibition is the hard constraint that disqualifies several seemingly attractive physical-storage arrangements. The foundation cannot store bullion in a vault owned or operated by a disqualified person (board member, donor, family member, controlled entity).

Home safes, family-office safes, attorney-trust vaults, and any private depository in which a disqualified person has a financial interest are all out. Institutional third-party vaults (Brink’s, Loomis, Delaware Depository, International Depository Services) are the only compliant storage venues. This is non-negotiable regardless of corpus size or operational preference.

Side-by-side comparison on a $5,000,000 corpus with a 10 percent gold sleeve

The table below puts three structurally relevant paths on equal footing. GLD carries a 0.40 percent expense ratio; IAU carries 0.25 percent. Institutional physical custody runs approximately 0.30 percent midpoint for custody plus insurance, plus a one-time 2.5 percent dealer spread.

The benchmark corpus is $5,000,000, the gold sleeve is 10 percent ($500,000), the horizon is 10 years, and the math holds the gold notional flat at $500,000 for clarity. Read the “10-year cumulative cost” column as the decision input.

The chart below plots the 10-year cumulative cost for each path on a $500,000 gold sleeve. It separates the one-time dealer spread on the physical path, paid in year 1, from the recurring custody fee.

The IAU path is cheapest at $12,500 cumulative. The GLD path is intermediate at $20,000. The institutional physical path is most expensive at $27,500 when both the spread and recurring custody are amortized across the 10-year window.

Verdict per foundation profile

Profile A: family foundation under $10,000,000 corpus

For a family foundation with a corpus under $10,000,000, the IAU ETF path is the operational default.

The 5 percent annual minimum distribution under IRC Section 4942 is the dominant operational pressure at this band. Your foundation needs $250,000 to $500,000 in annual grant liquidity. Locking 5 to 15 percent of corpus in physical bullion that requires a 5-to-15-day liquidation cycle to fund grants is operationally fragile.

IAU at 0.25 percent expense ratio on a $500,000 to $1,500,000 sleeve is the cheapest path on every horizon under 20 years. The Section 4944 prudence defense is intact because a public security with daily NYSE liquidity is the canonical prudent investment.

Profile B: family foundation between $10,000,000 and $30,000,000 corpus

For a family foundation in this band, the split allocation between IAU and institutional physical is the defensible position. A representative allocation is 60 percent IAU plus 40 percent institutional physical. The IAU portion delivers operational liquidity for the 5 percent minimum distribution. The physical portion delivers counterparty isolation.

The IPS should size the IAU liquidity sleeve to at least 18 months of distribution requirements. On a $20,000,000 corpus with a 10 percent gold sleeve, that means at least $300,000 of the $2,000,000 sleeve in IAU, even if the strategic target is more physical-heavy.

The remaining $1,700,000 in institutional physical custody at 0.30 percent recurring plus a 2.5 percent one-time spread is the defensible permanent-endowment posture.

Profile C: family foundation above $30,000,000 corpus with permanent endowment intent

For a foundation at this scale with multi-generational horizon and excess corpus above the 5 percent minimum distribution, the institutional physical path becomes the strategic default. The custody and insurance fee at institutional scale compresses toward 0.15 percent per year above $20,000,000 in bullion holdings, narrowing the cost gap against IAU substantially.

The counterparty isolation argument is the dominant strategic input at this scale. Your IPS is drafted on a 30-to-50-year horizon, and sub-custodian or trust-level disruption inside the ETF chain is a material risk over that window. Size one year of grants in the IAU liquidity sleeve as the operational hedge.

Profile D: operating foundation or program-related-investment heavy structure

For an operating foundation or a foundation with material program-related investments under IRC Section 4944(c), the gold sleeve sizing is structurally smaller because the foundation’s investment portfolio is partially absorbed by program-related work.

A 3 to 8 percent gold sleeve is more typical here, and the IAU path is the operational default at this sleeve size on virtually any corpus level.

The operating-foundation footprint compresses the strategic case for physical custody. Check this dealer against the 2026 OPRS list before any first-purchase decision. At the smaller sleeve sizes typical of operating foundations, the dealer relationship is the dominant counterparty exposure, and the dealer-screen criteria do not change with sleeve size.

The five-step IPS drafting sequence

The investment policy decision reduces to a five-step sequence from board committee through 990-PF disclosure. The sequence applies to any private foundation under IRC Section 501(c)(3) drafting its first gold-sleeve IPS or refreshing an existing IPS to add a gold allocation. Multi-foundation cases (a family with a private foundation plus a donor-advised fund plus a community foundation account) follow the same sequence per legal entity.

Where Augusta sits in the foundation custody picture

Augusta Precious Metals sits on the OPRS three-dealer shortlist for the precious metals category.

The Augusta industry-reported minimum sits around $50,000, well below the typical foundation first-purchase size at this article’s reference scale.

Augusta’s primary published programs target the retail self-directed IRA segment rather than foundation institutional custody directly. The dealer is structurally relevant to the foundation IPS decision in two operational contexts.

The first context is the board member or donor’s personal IRA. A foundation director who maintains a personal gold IRA at a vetted dealer brings operational familiarity with custodian onboarding paperwork, vault documentation, and spread negotiation. That familiarity transfers directly to the foundation-side first-purchase conversation.

The second context is the donor pipeline. An Augusta-affiliated donor giving appreciated bullion as an in-kind contribution under IRC Section 170 creates a chain-of-custody question. A dealer who can produce institutional-quality assay and provenance documentation makes that process clean.

Augusta structures its process around three published steps: Learn, Talk, Decide, staffed by salaried educators rather than commissioned salespeople. The free company comparison checklist serves as the lead asset for retirees and donors weighing an allocation before signing custodian paperwork. See Augusta’s published company comparison checklist before any foundation board recommends a bullion dealer when the IPS calls for a physical sleeve and the OPRS dealer screen has cleared the path.

When neither option fits the foundation

The gold sleeve does not always survive contact with the foundation’s actual constraints. Three scenarios where neither the ETF path nor the physical path is the right call, in order of frequency:

• The foundation’s investment policy statement excludes commodities as an asset class. Several institutional IPS templates from the major foundation-advisory firms exclude commodities outright on the basis that the foundation’s exempt purpose is best served by equity and fixed-income allocations. Adding a gold sleeve requires a board-level IPS amendment first; the gold versus ETF question is downstream of that amendment.
• The foundation is under 5 years to a planned termination or merger into a community foundation. Both the one-time ETF transaction cost and the one-time physical dealer spread amortize poorly on a short horizon. A short-horizon foundation either skips the gold sleeve entirely or accepts the IAU path as the only operationally clean exit.
• The foundation’s investment committee lacks any commodity-allocation expertise. The Section 4944 prudence test is a process test as much as an outcome test. A foundation that adds a gold sleeve without documented expertise on the committee creates a Section 4944 exposure that the lower expense ratio does not compensate for. Hiring an outside investment advisor with documented commodity experience is the precondition.

For a foundation in one of these three scenarios, the OPRS dealer screen still applies when the IPS amendment closes. See the 2026 OPRS dealer list and the operators we warn against if a dealer has already pitched the foundation board without addressing the IPS amendment, the termination horizon, or the committee-expertise question. A dealer that skips those three counter-cases is running a retail-IRA process on an institutional-foundation decision.

Frequently asked questions

Does a private foundation pay the 28 percent collectibles tax on a GLD or IAU sale?

No. The 28 percent collectibles long-term capital gains rate under IRC Section 408(m)(3) applies to individual taxpayers. A private foundation pays the 1.39 percent net investment income excise tax under IRC Section 4940 on realized capital gains, regardless of asset class.

The collectibles rate is not adopted into the Section 4940 framework. That is why family-foundation IPS drafts can default to GLD or IAU without the tax-rate concern that drives an individual retiree toward a self-directed IRA structure.

Can a foundation store its own bullion in a board chair’s home safe?

No. The board chair is a disqualified person under IRC Section 4946, and storage at a disqualified person’s premises is a per-se act of self-dealing under IRC Section 4941. The same prohibition applies to a director’s home, a donor’s home, the family office of any disqualified person, and any private depository in which a disqualified person has a financial interest. Institutional third-party vaults (Brink’s, Loomis, Delaware Depository, International Depository Services) are the only compliant storage venues.

How is a physical bullion position valued on Form 990-PF?

Physical bullion is reported on the 990-PF Part II balance sheet as an “other asset” at fair market value as of the close of the foundation’s tax year.

Document the valuation methodology in both the IPS and the audit working papers. The standard approach is the London Bullion Market Association PM fix on the last business day of the tax year, applied to the foundation’s allocated holdings.

The 990-PF Part III also requires disclosure of the minimum investment return calculation under IRC Section 4942, which includes the bullion position at its fair market value.

Does a gold ETF generate unrelated business taxable income for the foundation?

No. SPDR Gold Shares and iShares Gold Trust are organized as grantor trusts under SEC-registered prospectuses, and the trust’s gold is held in allocated form rather than through a leveraged or partnership structure. Neither trust generates unrelated business taxable income under IRC Section 512 in the ordinary course. A private foundation holding GLD or IAU is not exposed to the UBTI problem that affects foundation holdings in master limited partnerships or leveraged real estate funds.

Can a donor contribute appreciated physical bullion to the foundation?

Yes, subject to the substantiation requirements of IRC Section 170(f)(11) for non-cash contributions above $5,000 (qualified appraisal required) and above $500,000 (qualified appraisal must be attached to the donor’s return). The donor’s charitable deduction is generally limited to fair market value for long-term capital gain property, subject to the 30 percent of adjusted gross income limit for private-foundation gifts.

The chain of custody on donated bullion is the operational concern. Your foundation should require institutional-quality assay and provenance documentation at the time of transfer. The receiving vault should issue an acknowledgment of bar serial numbers that matches the donor’s documentation.

Sources cited

1. IRC Section 4940, Excise Tax Based on Investment Income (1.39 percent flat rate)
2. IRC Section 4941, Taxes on Self-Dealing
3. IRC Section 4942, Taxes on Failure to Distribute Income (5 percent minimum distribution requirement)
4. IRC Section 4944, Taxes on Investments Which Jeopardize Charitable Purpose
5. IRC Section 4946, Definitions and Special Rules for Private Foundations (disqualified persons)
6. IRC Section 170, Charitable, Etc., Contributions and Gifts (donor deduction rules)
7. IRC Section 512, Unrelated Business Taxable Income
8. IRS Form 990-PF Instructions (Return of Private Foundation)
9. SPDR Gold Trust 10-K Annual Reports (SEC EDGAR)
10. iShares Gold Trust 10-K Annual Reports (SEC EDGAR)
11. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Exchange-Traded Funds: A Roadmap for Investors
12. FINRA Investor Insight, Gold and Other Precious Metals: Glittering With Risk

More on OPRS

• Gold IRA custodian selection for HNW accounts and trust company evaluation
• $100k overconcentration: counterpoint to “how much gold should I hold”
• Dealer counterparty risk on a $1M-plus precious metals position
• See the 2026 OPRS dealer list and the operators we warn against