Analysis shows natural diamonds failed as a safe haven, while crystalline osmium can reduce portfolio volatility.
Technological advances in laboratory-grown diamonds (LGDs) have eroded the scarcity premium of natural diamonds, raising the question of whether diamonds still function as a safe haven. At the same time, crystalline osmium has become investable for the first time, as crystallization technology enables safe storage, certification, and global trading. Using monthly data from 2017–2025, we form diversified portfolios with and without diamonds and with and without osmium, as well as two-asset combinations with the MSCI World. The results show that diamonds no longer provide reliable stability, while osmium consistently contributes to reducing volatility. For portfolio investors, the key lesson is that traditional safe-haven roles can change; diamonds no longer offer robust protection, whereas crystalline osmium acts as a stabilizing component. These findings illustrate the contrasting effects of technological change: substitution and loss of value for diamonds, usability and stabilization for osmium.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolf et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: