Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

One of my biggest frustrations is how much of the world doesn’t seem to realize the largest fraud that is going on right in front of its face:

Diamonds

Photo by Swamibu

The Diamond Cartel run by De Beers.

It is a house of cards that De Beers has masterfully built in order to make people believe, dare I say worship, the idea that diamonds are unique, rare, and intrinsically valuable when it is anything but. Diamonds can be found all over the world, from Australia to Germany and especially in Africa. Merchants used to be able to dig them up by the ton, and in some places they still do. However, the diamond industry knew that the price of diamonds would plummet if the public could get a hold of them, so they locked away any excess and took a stranglehold on the number of diamonds available to people.

I found a great article at TheAtlantic that details the entire diamond industry and the monopoly that De Beers has had over any diamonds that show up in the market. These sections from the article shown below completely summarize how the De Beers cartel was formed and their subsequent brainwashing of the masses into believing that diamonds are rare and expensive:

The diamond invention—the creation of the idea that diamonds are rare and valuable, and are essential signs of esteem—is a relatively recent development in the history of the diamond trade. Until the late nineteenth century, diamonds were found only in a few riverbeds in India and in the jungles of Brazil, and the entire world production of gem diamonds amounted to a few pounds a year. In 1870, however, huge diamond mines were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa, where diamonds were soon being scooped out by the ton. Suddenly, the market was deluged with diamonds. The British financiers who had organized the South African mines quickly realized that their investment was endangered; diamonds had little intrinsic value—and their price depended almost entirely on their scarcity.

Except for those few stones that have been destroyed, every diamond that has been found and cut into a jewel still exists today and is literally in the public’s hands. Some hundred million women wear diamonds, while millions of others keep them in safe-deposit boxes or strongboxes as family heirlooms. It is conservatively estimated that the public holds more than 500 million carats of gem diamonds, which is more than fifty times the number of gem diamonds produced by the diamond cartel in any given year. Since the quantity of diamonds needed for engagement rings and other jewelry each year is satisfied by the production from the world’s mines, this half-billion-carat supply of diamonds must be prevented from ever being put on the market. The moment a significant portion of the public begins selling diamonds from this inventory, the price of diamonds cannot be sustained. For the diamond invention to survive, the public must be inhibited from ever parting with its diamonds.

The major investors in the diamond mines realized that they had no alternative but to merge their interests into a single entity that would be powerful enough to control production and perpetuate the illusion of scarcity of diamonds. The instrument they created, in 1888, was called De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd., incorporated in South Africa.

De Beers proved to be the most successful cartel arrangement in the annals of modern commerce. While other commodities, such as gold, silver, copper, rubber, and grains, fluctuated wildly in response to economic conditions, diamonds have continued, with few exceptions, to advance upward in price every year since the Depression. Indeed, the cartel seemed so superbly in control of prices — and unassailable — that, in the late 1970s, even speculators began buying diamonds as a guard against the vagaries of inflation and recession.

The diamond invention is far more than a monopoly for fixing diamond prices; it is a mechanism for converting tiny crystals of carbon into universally recognized tokens of wealth, power, and romance. To achieve this goal, De Beers had to control demand as well as supply. Both women and men had to be made to perceive diamonds not as marketable precious stones but as an inseparable part of courtship and married life. To stabilize the market, De Beers had to endow these stones with a sentiment that would inhibit the public from ever reselling them. The illusion had to be created that diamonds were forever — “forever” in the sense that they should never be resold.

De Beers needed a slogan for diamonds that expressed both the theme of romance and legitimacy. An N. W. Ayer copywriter came up with the caption “A Diamond Is Forever,” which was scrawled on the bottom of a picture of two young lovers on a honeymoon. Even though diamonds can in fact be shattered, chipped, discolored, or incinerated to ash, the concept of eternity perfectly captured the magical qualities that the advertising agency wanted to attribute to diamonds. Within a year, “A Diamond Is Forever” became the official motto of De Beers.

Toward the end of the 1950s, N. W. Ayer reported to De Beers that twenty years of advertisements and publicity had had a pronounced effect on the American psyche. “Since 1939 an entirely new generation of young people has grown to marriageable age,” it said. “To this new generation a diamond ring is considered a necessity to engagements by virtually everyone.” The message had been so successfully impressed on the minds of this generation that those who could not afford to buy a diamond at the time of their marriage would “defer the purchase” rather than forgo it.

By 1979, N. W. Ayer had helped De Beers expand its sales of diamonds in the United States to more than $2.1 billion, at the wholesale level, compared with a mere $23 million in 1939. In forty years, the value of its sales had increased nearly a hundredfold. The expenditure on advertisements, which began at a level of only $200,000 a year and gradually increased to $10 million, seemed a brilliant investment.

This article also goes into the illusion of price stability for diamonds and how very difficult it is to ever turn a profit on reselling the diamonds you buy from diamond dealers, hence the title of the article:

Selling individual diamonds at a profit, even those held over long periods of time, can be surprisingly difficult. For example, in 1970, the London-based consumer magazine Money Which? decided to test diamonds as a decade long investment. It bought two gem-quality diamonds, weighing approximately one-half carat apiece, from one of London’s most reputable diamond dealers, for £400 (then worth about a thousand dollars). For nearly nine years, it kept these two diamonds sealed in an envelope in its vault. During this same period, Great Britain experienced inflation that ran as high as 25 percent a year. For the diamonds to have kept pace with inflation, they would have had to increase in value at least 300 percent, making them worth some £400 pounds by 1978. But when the magazine’s editor, Dave Watts,tried to sell the diamonds in 1978, he found that neither jewelry stores nor wholesale dealers in London’s Hatton Garden district would pay anywhere near that price for the diamonds. Most of the stores refused to pay any cash for them; the highest bid Watts received was £500, which amounted to a profit of only £100 in over eight years, or less than 3 percent at a compound rate of interest. If the bid were calculated in 1970 pounds, it would amount to only £167. Dave Watts summed up the magazine’s experiment by saying, “As an 8-year investment the diamonds that we bought have proved to be very poor.” The problem was that the buyer, not the seller, determined the price.

The magazine conducted another experiment to determine the extent to which larger diamonds appreciate in value over a one-year period. In 1970, it bought a 1.42 carat diamond for £745. In 1971, the highest offer it received for the same gem was £568. Rather than sell it at such an enormous loss, Watts decided to extend the experiment until 1974, when he again made the round of the jewelers in Hatton Garden to have it appraised. During this tour of the diamond district, Watts found that the diamond had mysteriously shrunk in weight to 1.04 carats. One of the jewelers had apparently switched diamonds during the appraisal. In that same year, Watts, undaunted, bought another diamond, this one 1.4 carats, from a reputable London dealer. He paid £2,595. A week later, he decided to sell it. The maximum offer he received was £1,000.

Selling diamonds can also be an extraordinarily frustrating experience for private individuals. In 1978, for example, a wealthy woman in New York City decided to sell back a diamond ring she had bought from Tiffany two years earlier for $100,000 and use the proceeds toward a necklace of matched pearls that she fancied. She had read about the “diamond boom” in news magazines and hoped that she might make a profit on the diamond. Instead, the sales executive explained, with what she said seemed to be a touch of embarrassment, that Tiffany had “a strict policy against repurchasing diamonds.” He assured her, however, that the diamond was extremely valuable, and suggested another Fifth Avenue jewelry store. The woman went from one leading jeweler to another, attempting to sell her diamond. One store offered to swap it for another jewel, and two other jewelers offered to accept the diamond “on consignment” and pay her a percentage of what they sold it for, but none of the half-dozen jewelers she visited offered her cash for her $100,000 diamond. She finally gave up and kept the diamond.

The appraisers at Empire Diamonds examine thousands of diamonds a month but rarely turn up a diamond of extraordinary quality. Almost all the diamonds they find are slightly flawed, off-color, commercial-grade diamonds. The chief appraiser says, “When most of these diamonds were purchased, American women were concerned with the size of the diamond, not its intrinsic quality.” He points out that the setting frequently conceals flaws, and adds, “The sort of flawless, investment-grade diamond one reads about is almost never found in jewelry.”

To make a profit, investors must at some time find buyers who are willing to pay more for their diamonds than they did. Here, however, investors face the same problem as those attempting to sell their jewelry: there is no unified market in which to sell diamonds. Although dealers will quote the prices at which they are willing to sell investment-grade diamonds, they seldom give a set price at which they are willing to buy diamonds of the same grade. In 1977, for example, Jewelers’ Circular Keystone polled a large number of retail dealers and found a difference of over 100 percent in offers for the same quality of investment-grade diamonds. Moreover, even though most investors buy their diamonds at or near retail price, they are forced to sell at wholesale prices. As Forbes magazine pointed out, in 1977, “Average investors, unfortunately, have little access to the wholesale market. Ask a jeweler to buy back a stone, and he’ll often begin by quoting a price 30% or more below wholesale.” Since the difference between wholesale and retail is usually at least 100 percent in investment diamonds, any gain from the appreciation of the diamonds will probably be lost in selling them.

“There’s going to come a day when all those doctors, lawyers, and other fools who bought diamonds over the phone take them out of their strongboxes, or wherever, and try to sell them,” one dealer predicted last year. Another gave a gloomy picture of what would happen if this accumulation of diamonds were suddenly sold by speculators. “Investment diamonds are bought for $30,000 a carat, not because any woman wants to wear them on her finger but because the investor believes they will be worth $50,000 a carat. He may borrow heavily to leverage his investment. When the price begins to decline, everyone will try to sell their diamonds at once. In the end, of course, there will be no buyers for diamonds at $30,000 a carat or even $15,000. At this point, there will be a stampede to sell investment diamonds, and the newspapers will begin writing stories about the great diamond crash. Investment diamonds constitute, of course, only a small fraction of the diamonds held by the public, but when women begin reading about a diamond crash, they will take their diamonds to retail jewelers to be appraised and find out that they are worth less than they paid for them. At that point, people will realize that diamonds are not forever, and jewelers will be flooded with customers trying to sell, not buy, diamonds. That will be the end of the diamond business.”

Truth be told, everyone around me believes that diamonds are valuable yet I have never met one person that has actually sold a diamond before. After reading that article, I cannot understand why anyone would still logically fall into the trap of buying diamonds. Maybe it isn’t logical and is just all psychological. I guess De Beers did their job too well. After all, diamonds are forever, until they get “shattered, chipped, discolored, or incinerated to ash” that is.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!

Era of the Mobile Web

Cellular Nation

Photo by tanakawho

The Economist recently published an article on how the mobile web has sort of taken on a life of it’s own. They believe that in the future, most new internet users will be in developing countries and will use mobile phones.

I believe that future has already arrived. Last year when I went to Shanghai, China on a scholarship I saw almost everyone carry a mobile phone, from corporate executives that make $200 USD a day to farmers that make $100 USD per month. This is a country in which the poor accounts for nearly 80% of the population yet almost everyone I met could afford a cell phone.

Part of the reason could be attributed to globalization, which has drastically undercut the cost of most electronic toys. But another big reason is that the infrastructure for mobile anything is already in place. As long as a signal from a tower or satellite can travel to the far reaches of the globe, you can probably find a person there using a cell phone and surfing the web. Phones are not like most PCs that need an actual cable in order to hooked up with the rest of the world, instead all you need is a signal. Mobile phones have made communication and data transfers both cheap and easy.

Startling statistics from the article support this growing trend of mobile web users:

The simple answer is that the number of mobile phones that can access the internet is growing at a phenomenal rate, especially in the developing world. In China, for example, over 73m people, or 29% of all internet users in the country, use mobile phones to get online. And the number of people doing so grew by 45% in the six months to June—far higher than the rate of access growth using laptops, according to the China Internet Network Information Centre.

This year China overtook America as the country with the largest number of internet users—currently over 250m. And China also has some 600m mobile-phone subscribers, more than any other country, so the potential for the mobile internet is enormous.

It is not just China. Opera Software, a firm that makes web-browser software for mobile phones, reports rapid growth in mobile-web browsing in developing countries. The number of web pages viewed in June by the 14m users of its software was over 3 billion, a 300% increase on a year earlier. The fastest growth was in developing countries including Russia, Indonesia, India and South Africa.

Furthermore, for many people around the globe, a mobile web is just a cheaper solution of getting access to the Internet:

Xuehui Zhao, a recent graduate of the Anyang Institute of Technology in Henan province, explains that a typical monthly package for five yuan ($0.73) includes 10 megabytes of data transfer—more than enough to allow her to spend a couple of hours each day surfing the web and instant-messaging with friends. It is also much cheaper than paying 200 yuan per month for a fixed-broadband connection.

Just a few years ago, cell phones were only used to conveniently place calls where ever you were located. But now there are increasingly elaborate data services available for consumers to buy. For example, just with my T-Mobile plan I can add text-messaging, instant messaging, limited web services, unlimited web services, email services, ringtone customization services, and GPS services. And I don’t even have a smartphone, the data services available on those are much more intricate.

Besides services you can buy, the uses of the mobile phone has multiplied exponentially over the years. I can use my phone to place calls, take photos, share photos, stream videos, triangulate my location, get web updates through RSS, write/check emails, send text messages, send instant messages (though AIM, ICQ, Yahoo!, Google, MSN), surf the web, check bank accounts, etc… The choices are unlimited. If someone has thought of a way to use the mobile phone, it probably has already been implemented. And if it hasn’t been, it will likely be done within the next few months. Like the article says, a “wave of innovation” should arrive soon with this growth in mobile phone users.

Now, I am happy about all of this happening, but I am just curious, as a side effect of this growth, how many more e-mails from Nigeria should I be expecting asking for my bank account number so they can wire me hundreds of millions of dollars. I can’t wait, how about you?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
Filed under: Globalization | 2 Comments

Woot!! Cool Stuff Cheap

If you are ever looking for great daily deals, check out Woot.com and Sellout.Woot.com. They sell one item per day until it is sold out or until 11:59pm central time when it is replaced by another item. If an item sells out before 11:59pm, a new item will not be shown until the next release time. The awesome thing about Woot! is they usually sell really cool stuff cheap (from roombas to temperature air sensors to large LCDs). Also, I love their shipping: the cost for shipping is $5 no matter how many you buy (up to 3) or how small/large the item is.

The last thing I bought at Woot.com was an iPod Touch 16 GB for $295 and that was a while ago (before the 3G came out), I think it was about $40 cheaper than the Apple website’s refurbished version. So all in all, it was a good deal and I still use it regularly with no problems.

Note: Watch out for woot-offs! You can tell a woot-off is going on when the orange lights appear. They usually happen once or twice every month and instead of just one deal per day, a succession of items are able to be purchased from 24-72 hours. I’ve bought 2-3 things during a woot-off, but often the things I want are sold too quickly before I can make a purchase.

Woot!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
Filed under: Saving, Shopping | No Comments

Keep It Simple, Stupid

Keep it simple

List by Peter Fischli and David Weiss

Lifehacker recently had a post about How to Work Better. It is a list of ten items to follow in order to work more efficiently and effectively. I like how simple and to the point it is. I liked it so much that it’s now hanging in my work cubicle!

I would also like to add to the list:

  • Don’t put off tomorrow what you can do today
  • Haste leads to waste
  • Remove distractions
  • Organize work area
  • Prioritize assignments
  • Let technology assist
  • Read more
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
Filed under: Job | No Comments

What People Are Buying Worldwide

Global Spending

The New York Times just created a new interactive graph which documents the spending amounts of countries worldwide in various categories (clothing & footwear, electronics, alcohol & tobacco, household goods, and recreation).

Unsurprisingly, the United States leads the spending in every single category. It is no wonder Americans are going bankrupt left and right. With the way the economy is right now, I don’t know how much longer we can continue our current standard of living.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
Filed under: Shopping | 3 Comments

Where’s All That Money You’ve Lost?

Photo by Doublep1

Photo by Doublep1

Everybody has been losing their shirt and putting off their retirements in light of the current financial crisis that has plunged the Dow from a high of 14,279 to the current 8,451. In just last week, investors lost $2.4 trillion and over the past year, losses total to $8.4 trillion. But where has all that money gone? Associated Press has a good article that helps explain it:

If you’re looking to track down your missing money — figure out who has it now, maybe ask to have it back — you might be disappointed to learn that is was never really money in the first place.

Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale, puts it bluntly: The notion that you lose a pile of money whenever the stock market tanks is a “fallacy.” He says the price of a stock has never been the same thing as money — it’s simply the “best guess” of what the stock is worth.

“It’s in people’s minds,” Shiller explains. “We’re just recording a measure of what people think the stock market is worth. What the people who are willing to trade today — who are very, very few people — are actually trading at. So we’re just extrapolating that and thinking, well, maybe that’s what everyone thinks it’s worth.”

Shiller uses the example of an appraiser who values a house at $350,000, a week after saying it was worth $400,000.

“In a sense, $50,000 just disappeared when he said that,” he said. “But it’s all in the mind.”

Though something, of course, is disappearing as markets and real estate values tumble. Even if a share of stock you own isn’t a wad of bills in your wallet, even if the value of your home isn’t something you can redeem at will, surely you can lose potential money — that is, the money that would be yours to spend if you sold your house or emptied out your mutual funds right now.

And if you’re a few months away from retirement, or hoping to sell your house and buy a smaller one to help pay for your kid’s college tuition, this “potential money” is something you’re counting on to get by. For people who need cash and need it now, this is as real as money gets, whether or not it meets the technical definition of the word.

Still, you run into trouble when you think of that potential money as being the same thing as the cash in your purse or your checking account.

“That’s a big mistake,” says Dale Jorgenson, an economics professor at Harvard.

There’s a key distinction here: While the money in your pocket is unlikely to just vanish into thin air, the money you could have had, if only you’d sold your house or drained your stock-heavy mutual funds a year ago, most certainly can.

So that money was never yours to being with. It was all psychological. People mistakenly believed what was shown in their retirement account balance and house appraisal as actual money that they own. However, that money was never locked in to being with, it was just the best guess estimate of how much the collective society believes it to be worth. And like all other estimates, it can vary depending on the consumer confidence. I found this part of the article to be the most interesting:

“You can’t enjoy the benefits of your 401(k) if it’s disappeared,” Jorgenson explains. “If you had it all in financial stocks and they’ve all gone down by 80 percent — sorry! That is a permanent loss because those folks aren’t coming back. We’re gonna have a huge shrinkage in the financial sector.

If you choose, you can pour most of your money into stocks and track their value in real time on a computer screen, confident that you’ll get good money for them when you decide to sell. And you won’t be alone — staring at millions of computer screens are other investors who share your confidence that the value of their portfolios will hold up.

But that collective confidence, Jorgenson says, is gone. And when confidence is drained out of a financial system, a lot of investors will decide to sell at any price, and a big chunk of that money you thought your investments were worth simply goes away.

If you once thought your investment portfolio was as good as a suitcase full of twenties, you might suddenly suspect that it’s not.

In the process, of course, you’re losing wealth. But does that mean someone else must be gaining it? Does the world have some fixed amount of wealth that shifts between people, nations and institutions with the ebb and flow of the economy?

Jorgenson says no — the amount of wealth in the world “simply decreases in a situation like this.” And he cautions against assuming that your investment losses mean a gain for someone else — like wealthy stock speculators who try to make money by betting that the market will drop.

“Those folks in general have been losing their shirts at a prodigious rate,” he said. “They took a big risk and now they’re suffering from the consequences.”

If anybody believes that the US stock market and global economy is just going to bounce back like before and be stronger than before then they are delusional. Huge international companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers have basically bit the dust and aren’t going to make a comeback anytime soon. This will have severe repercussions for the US economy and like the article states, we are going to have a huge shrinkage in the financial sector.

And since they have really been wiped out, how can we reach the Dow high of 14,279 that we saw just a year ago? The simple answer is that we can’t. The economy is going to need to slowly rebuild itself, it is definitely not going to just bounce back as quickly as before. Most likely we are either going to see a U or L shaped recession and not the V shaped one we saw in the dot-com crash. This is of course based on the assumption that not more banks and institutions will be failing in the near future (which truthfully, I think some more major ones will be gone before this financial meltdown is through). Overall, the global net wealth has just decreased and it has not transferred from one person to another. It is just gone into the ether. It was never really there to being with since it was just our best guess estimate.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!