Future Returns: Making Sense of the Metaverse
Why Goldman Sachs sees the metaverse as a US$8 trillion global opportunity.
4 min
Goldman Sachs sees the metaverse as an US$8 trillion global opportunity, so it’s no wonder the term is on the tip of investors’ tongues. The word was mentioned only seven times during investor presentations in 2020, according to corporate research company Sentieo, but at least 128 times last year. One huge player, the gaming company Roblox, surpassed US$39 billion in market cap in its IPO last March, and last October, Facebook changed its corporate name to Meta, creating widespread interest in the metaverse concept.
Broadly speaking it’s a network of digital, interactive virtual worlds where people come together for entertainment and commerce. Some of it will be experienced through consumer headsets. But while the metaverse’s apex is far off, we’re already living in a version of this digital world. During the pandemic, events like concerts by Lil Nas X and 21 Pilots, the Electric Daisy Concert music festival and fashion shows for Balenciaga and Moncler took place on gaming platforms like Fortnite and Roblox.
Morgan Stanley says there’s been a four-year acceleration in terms of player bases for gaming adoption during the pandemic. “Going forward, we expect that technological advances (such as 5G, edge computing) coupled with more use cases (beyond gaming, social media, entertainment) are likely to drive consumer adoption,” Goldman Sachs wrote in a report.
Penta examined some research and analyses from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Blackrock, and J.P. Morgan to identify strategies for investors who want to cut through the hype and figure out how to invest in the beginning of the metaverse’s investment cycle, which is already playing out.
On a recent podcast, Eric Sheridan of Goldman Sachs noted alternative investments are already being made in hardware, infrastructure, and even creator ecosystems for the metaverse. In December, for instance, Nike acquired virtual shoe designer RTFKT for an undisclosed sum as a foray into the metaverse. (Last year, he noted, there was about US$10 billion in private capital raised across related industries.)
Reid Menge of Blackrock wrote that recent volatility might distract investors from the long-term returns of metaverse opportunities. “Secular growth trends, such as digitalization of industries and an ever-growing reliance on data analytics, were accelerated during the pandemic and are multi-year transformations we expect to persist―regardless of the pace of reopening or moves in interest rates.”
Here are some highlights to keep under consideration when investing in the metaverse.
Decentralisation Is the Word
Decentralization is a key word when it comes to the metaverse, impacting both the tech and economic sides of this new world. Moving from central servers to peer-to-peer hosting will be essential to provide the sort of detailed, immersive experiences promised in the metaverse.
“If decentralization stays as its core, there is a debate out there in the technology industry of whether there will be large-scale winners in a Web 3.0, or if there’ll be a greater proliferation of smaller winners that take advantage of different niches,” Sheridan says. It may not mean aiming to pick one good horse from among market leaders, like in earlier iterations of the web.
This may also fundamentally change the nature of how consumers spend in the metaverse, and on what. Digital currencies offer new ways to pay and nonfungible tokens (NFTs) are a novel way to own goods.
“This democratic ownership economy coupled with the possibility of interoperability, could unlock immense economic opportunities, whereby digital goods and services are no longer captive to a singular gaming platform or brand,” J.P. Morgan wrote in a report.
Follow the Tech
Menge writes that as smartphone companies took off, they controlled both the hardware and the operating software. It helped them dominate the industry, and internet companies don’t want to miss the same opportunity in the metaverse. That’s why they want to provide both the platform and hardware as they enter this new world..
“We see the most immediate opportunity in those companies that can supply the big internet, software, and smartphone companies with the ingredients they need to develop glasses and headsets,” Menge wrote.
Two technologies that will play integral roles in this new universe are virtual and augmented reality. Market intelligence firm International Data Corporation notes VR and AR spending globally is expected to increase fivefold from US$12 billion in 2020 to US$72.8 billion in 2024.
While Goldman Sachs noted that AR represents a larger opportunity, it acknowledged both VR and AR still aren’t commonly used. “[T]he low penetration rates in the next 2 years are a key indicator around the timing of the Metaverse opportunity.”
Once the necessary hardware exists, Blackrock has its eye on “services that can be accessed by the new devices, and the software that will shape the metaverse.” It also likes firms that will design and create virtual worlds in the metaverse.
Look Carefully at Pain Points
Goldman Sachs noted that there are fundamental friction points such as “hardware form factor (especially cost curve), broadband connectivity and mass appeal use cases.” These will need to be dealt with to move forward with the metaverse, along with, as J.P. Morgan said, privacy and identity issues and regulatory infrastructure including accounting and tax.
But consumer pain points may prove the most challenging, including whether potential hundreds of millions of new users will be interested in sharing new and extensive private data. While the metaverse could impact any number of industries, such as advertising, e-commerce, education, and entertainment, the potential opportunities can vary.
Morgan Stanley points out that digital media and e-commerce offerings are already robust, and continue to improve. The firm’s Brian Nowak noted that some success stories from venture capital point to the importance of being 10 times better than the next best offering—a high watermark to clear.
“In the end, we have to ask, what consumer pain points will a metaverse solve for hundreds of millions of people?” Nowak wrote. He suggested companies with metaverse aspirations will need a “killer app” or a strong partner to drive mass adoption.
Consumers are going to gravitate toward applications powered by the buzzy new technology, analyst Michael Wolf predicts
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Couples find that lab-grown diamonds make it cheaper to get engaged or upgrade to a bigger ring. But there are rocky moments.
4 min
Wedding planner Sterling Boulet has some advice for brides-to-be regarding lab-grown diamonds, which cost a fraction of the natural ones.
“If you’re trying to get your man to propose, they’ll propose faster if you offer this as an option,” says Boulet, of Raleigh, N.C. Recently, she adds, a friend’s fiancé “thanked me the next three times I saw him” for telling him about the cheaper lab-made option.
Man-made diamonds are catching on, despite some lingering stigma. This year was the first time that sales of lab-made and natural mined loose diamonds, primarily used as center stones in engagement rings, were split evenly, according to data from Tenoris, a jewellery and diamond trend-analytics company.
The rise of lab-made stones, however, is bringing up quirks alongside the perks. Now that blingier engagement rings—above two or three carats—are more affordable, more people are dealing with the peculiarities of wearing rather large rocks.
Esther Hare, a 5-foot-11-inch former triathlete, sought out a 4.5-carat lab-made oval-shaped diamond to fit her larger hands as a part of her vow renewal in Hawaii last year. It was a far cry from the half-carat ring her husband proposed with more than 25 years ago and the 1.5-carat upgrade they purchased 10 years ago. Hare, 50, who lives in San Jose, Calif., and works in high tech, chose a $40,000 lab-made diamond because “it’s nuts” to have to spend $100,000 on a natural stone. “It had to be big—that was my vision,” she says.
But the size of the ring has made it less practical at times. She doesn’t wear it for athletic training and swaps in her wedding band instead. And she is careful to leave it at home when traveling. “A lot of times I won’t take it on vacation because it’s just a monster,” she says.
The average retail price for a one-carat lab-made loose diamond decreased to $1,426 this year from $3,039 in 2020, according to the Tenoris data. Similar-sized loose natural diamonds cost $5,426 this year, compared with $4,943 in 2020.
Lab-made diamonds have essentially the same chemical makeup as natural ones, and look the same, unless viewed through sophisticated equipment that gauges the characteristics of emitted light.
At Ritani, an online jewellery retailer, lab-made diamond sales make up about 70% of the diamonds sold, up from roughly 30% two years ago, says Juliet Gomes, head of customer service at the company, based in White Plains, N.Y.
Ritani sometimes records videos of the lab-diamonds pinging when exposed to a “diamond tester,” a tool that judges authenticity, to show customers that the man-made rocks behave the same as natural ones. “We definitely have some deep conversations with them,” Gomes says.
Not all gem dealers are rolling with these stones.
Philadelphia jeweller Steven Singer only stocks the natural stuff in his store and is planning a February campaign to give about 1,000 one-carat lab-made diamonds away free to prove they are “worthless.” Anyone can sign up online and get one in the mail; even shipping is free. “I’m not selling Frankensteins that were built in a lab,” Singer says.
Some brides are turned off by the larger bling now allowed by the lower prices.When her now-husband proposed with a two-carat lab-grown engagement ring, Tiffany Buchert, 40, was excited about the prospect of marriage—but not about the size of the diamond, which she says struck her as “costume jewellery-ish.”
“I said yes in the moment, of course, I didn’t want it to be weird,” says the physician assistant from West Chester, Pa.
But within weeks, she says, she fessed up, telling her fiancé: “I think I hate this ring.”
The couple returned it and then bought a one-carat natural diamond for more than double the price.
When Boulet, the wedding planner in Raleigh, got engaged herself, she was over the moon when her fiancé proposed with a 2.3 carat lab-made diamond ring. “It’s very shiny, we were almost worried it was too shiny and was going to look fake,” she says.
It doesn’t, which presents another issue—looking like someone who really shelled out for jewellery. Boulet will occasionally volunteer that her diamond ring came from a lab.
“I don’t want people to think I’m putting on airs, or trying to be flashier than I am,” she says.
For Daniel Teoh, a 36-year-old software engineer outside of Detroit, buying a cheaper lab-made diamond for his fiancée meant extra room in his $30,000 ring budget.
Instead of a bigger ring, he got her something they could both enjoy. During a walk while on an annual ski trip to South Lake Tahoe, Calif., Teoh popped the question and handed his now-wife a handmade wooden box that included a 2.5-carat lab-made diamond ring—and a car key.
She put on the ring, celebrated with both of their sisters and a friend, who was the unofficial photographer of the happy event, and then they drove back to the house. There, she saw a 1965 Mustang GT coupe in Wimbledon white with red stripes and a bow on top.
Looking back, Teoh says, it was still the diamond that made the big first impression.
“It wasn’t until like 15 minutes later she was like ‘so, what’s with this key?’” he adds.
Consumers are going to gravitate toward applications powered by the buzzy new technology, analyst Michael Wolf predicts
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
