Billions of dollars of unsold diamonds are piling up around the world(markets.businessinsider.com)
markets.businessinsider.com
Billions of dollars of unsold diamonds are piling up around the world
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/diamond-sales-miners-stuck-gems-worth-billions-dollars-coronavirus-2020-6-1029300342
112 comments
This is all true today still. Just as OPEC controls oil supply, De Beers Group controls the diamond supply.
Equally true, all right. The US is the world's biggest oil producer, and numbers 3, 4 and 5 on the list are non-OPEC members Russia, China and Canada [0]. Similarly, Wikipedia attributes to De Beers a 36% market share in rough diamonds [1]
[0] https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-production-by-country/
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers
[0] https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-production-by-country/
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers
[deleted]
On same note, Blood Diamond is good movie about the topic.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450259/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450259/
Per usual the book is better.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/blood-diamonds-revised-edit...
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/blood-diamonds-revised-edit...
[deleted]
I guess if you ask the question, "why are diamonds not traded as a commodity like gold, silver, platinum, etc", you start to think they're not quite the same value as people want you to believe?
It's not a perfect analogy; gold, silver, and platinum can all be melted, reconstituted, combined, and separated without being damaged. Diamonds are more unique than that.
They could be more commodified than they are, but they can never achieve the commodification of a metal or a simple gas like e.g. nitrogen.
They could be more commodified than they are, but they can never achieve the commodification of a metal or a simple gas like e.g. nitrogen.
An ounce of diamonds doesn't funge like an ounce of gold. Each diamond has different purity and color characteristics.
Diamond traders do exist but due to the characteristics of individual diamonds, they're more like bond traders. Bluenile.com is a good example of a retail diamond exchange.
Diamond traders do exist but due to the characteristics of individual diamonds, they're more like bond traders. Bluenile.com is a good example of a retail diamond exchange.
The diamond market is a farce, there's no scarcity, they have almost no real use and sinthetic diamonds are a thing for ages, the only reason it didn't plummet is because the only artificial diamond manufacturer reached an agreement with the sellers to mark them as fake
Why would sellers and manufacturers agree to something only deBeers wants?
Well at the moment they were already selling everything for industrial use, now looks like there are more manufacturers of synthetic diamonds and they are indeed selling them, only they tell people... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-diamonds-debeers-syntheti...
So, serious question: if I was going to buy a ring for my girlfriend, would this be a good time to buy?
Moissanite my friend. Save money for things that you enjoy (travelling, hobbies, concerts) and avoid funding a dirty industry (dirty in every sense of the word).
A what-a-nite?
http://diamondssuck.com/
This helpful link explains what and why
This helpful link explains what and why
Explain that to his girlfriend, or any girl you’ve ever been with.
It just represents way too much in their heads.
It just represents way too much in their heads.
Bold statement to make about 3,500,000,000 people. That thinking rationally is impossible for their heads.
For what's worth my girlfriend already made it clear that she would be very upset if I ever bought her such expensive jewellery, precisely because of lost opportunity cost in things like enjoyable trips through Europe, attending concerts/plays and that sort of actually meaningful experiences. So hey, there goes your theory?
For what's worth my girlfriend already made it clear that she would be very upset if I ever bought her such expensive jewellery, precisely because of lost opportunity cost in things like enjoyable trips through Europe, attending concerts/plays and that sort of actually meaningful experiences. So hey, there goes your theory?
Unless someone's seen a study on this, neither of you is more right than the other.
Some will hear nothing more than 'not a diamond', and some will say 'you wasted how much'.
What're you going to do, if you're even thinking about it you're obviously set on her, so it only matters how she feels about them to the extent that you know!
Some will hear nothing more than 'not a diamond', and some will say 'you wasted how much'.
What're you going to do, if you're even thinking about it you're obviously set on her, so it only matters how she feels about them to the extent that you know!
> Unless someone's seen a study on this, neither of you is more right than the other.
Well, if one person makes a blanket statement about all individuals in a group, and the other disproves that with a single individual to which the statement does not apply, one of them clearly is more right than the other.
Well, if one person makes a blanket statement about all individuals in a group, and the other disproves that with a single individual to which the statement does not apply, one of them clearly is more right than the other.
Ok he should have said "many" or "most" : does it change the underlying face behind his statement ?
I don't have any statistics, but it seems obvious the group of women desiring diamonds is bigger (to say the least) than the group of women not interested by them.
Without generalization there can be no reasoning, because you can always find outliers that disprove any claim.
I don't have any statistics, but it seems obvious the group of women desiring diamonds is bigger (to say the least) than the group of women not interested by them.
Without generalization there can be no reasoning, because you can always find outliers that disprove any claim.
>I don't have any statistics, but it seems obvious that
So no, (1) you don't have any data, to even say "most" women do, and (2) that's not what the guy I replied to said, he said "all" women.
So no, (1) you don't have any data, to even say "most" women do, and (2) that's not what the guy I replied to said, he said "all" women.
For some people receiving an expensive jewelry is a more meaningful experience that going trips through Europe. Every person is different...
Yeah, some people are really brain washed.
“Explain that to his girlfriend, or any girl you’ve ever been with.”
“Bold statement to make about 3,500,000,000 people”
Wow... you must have very busy tinder profile. :D
“Bold statement to make about 3,500,000,000 people”
Wow... you must have very busy tinder profile. :D
I guess I was being a little tongue in cheek, but I’m mostly implying the discussion is not as simple as ‘hey this is really expensive, what about this cheaper alternative’. It’s a delicate thing because for many people it’s one of four things they probably dreamt about their whole life - marriage, ring, baby, house. There’s a lot of emotion behind all of it.
I’d love to be able to convince her that the ring money would do great in a Vanguard fund instead :p.
Edit: Looks like I have to put this disclaimer, for many people the things I listed above are milestones (not for all).
I’d love to be able to convince her that the ring money would do great in a Vanguard fund instead :p.
Edit: Looks like I have to put this disclaimer, for many people the things I listed above are milestones (not for all).
It's pretty offensive to assume that women just want "marriage, ring, baby, house"
Yes! There is money too
Let’s leave the misogyny somewhere else. Ideally nowhere, but definitely not here.
Well, you don't put emphasis on the price. I recently got my wife some diamond earrings. I would have bought her mined diamonds, but was considering lab produced stones. What is the difference? The difference is that lab stones are essentially "organic" diamonds - they cut out the suffering and corruption (pesticides) from the production of something nice. She liked the idea of getting a product that is part of an ethical supply chain. I enjoyed getting a nicer stones for half the price.
Dude, I had to talk my now-husband down from dropping two months' pay on a pretty sparkly. I’m so glad he didn’t surprise me with one - we were able to get something that I love wearing and feel less self-conscious about.
Suggested spending guideline: if you’re well off, spend about what you would on what you’d consider to be a great but not ridiculous gaming rig on her engagement present, and make sure she wouldn’t rather have a great gaming rig, sewing machine, musical instrument, etc. than a ring.
Addendum: I was later upset when he sold all his stocks during the 2008 crash because he thought he’d need the cash for our wedding - the wedding my parents were happily paying for, because Texas. A little more communication on both our parts would have prevented that loss.
Suggested spending guideline: if you’re well off, spend about what you would on what you’d consider to be a great but not ridiculous gaming rig on her engagement present, and make sure she wouldn’t rather have a great gaming rig, sewing machine, musical instrument, etc. than a ring.
Addendum: I was later upset when he sold all his stocks during the 2008 crash because he thought he’d need the cash for our wedding - the wedding my parents were happily paying for, because Texas. A little more communication on both our parts would have prevented that loss.
That says a lot about the women you know, or perhaps about what you think about them.
Ironically, the same can be said about your comment.
Have you ever seen moissanite? Its generally shinier and has more luster than a diamond. Some people in the know might be able tell by how much it gleams vs a diamond, but most people will just think you have a really awesome diamond. It's not a cubic zirconia
I think you've bought a little to strongly into the advertisements. Women are as aware of what diamonds represent as anyone.
[deleted]
Serious answer: have you discussed it with her? If you have talked it over and the major purchase of the engagement ring is something the two of you want to do then great, go for it. But it may be that the right decision for you is to think about alternate uses for the money.
Deciding to get married is wonderful. Congratulations! But sometimes people have a mental image of the sitcom scene where the one partner astounds the other by suddenly getting on one knee and plunking $30K on their hand. On reflection, that may not be the right way for people to start their life together, is all I'm saying.
Deciding to get married is wonderful. Congratulations! But sometimes people have a mental image of the sitcom scene where the one partner astounds the other by suddenly getting on one knee and plunking $30K on their hand. On reflection, that may not be the right way for people to start their life together, is all I'm saying.
I did the ring/knee thing once. In retrospect, was a mistake.
A true life partner will want to choose their own ring, and in particular, will want to think rationally about all of the other things you could do together with that money.
A true life partner will want to choose their own ring, and in particular, will want to think rationally about all of the other things you could do together with that money.
If I may interject, discussing potential surprises like this will kill the mood and ruin your big reveal later. So unless you’re sure your partner will take it well, I suggest not discussing things like this do just do as you please.
Some other friendly tips: you can secretly measure your partner’s finger size to get the perfect ring without them suspecting.
Going through the effort of getting the ring and sizing it properly without them suspecting shows how much you care and will yield you a better outcome than discussing this matter directly with them ;)
Edit: this is obviously with the assumption that you’ve at decided to get married. The surprise is about the ring not the marriage.
Some other friendly tips: you can secretly measure your partner’s finger size to get the perfect ring without them suspecting.
Going through the effort of getting the ring and sizing it properly without them suspecting shows how much you care and will yield you a better outcome than discussing this matter directly with them ;)
Edit: this is obviously with the assumption that you’ve at decided to get married. The surprise is about the ring not the marriage.
I would strongly advise against proposing in 2020 to someone you haven't discussed the prospects of marriage with.
It can be a romantic outing in and of itself. I took my wife ring shopping to a half dozen stores in a beautiful fall afternoon. We didn't but anything, that was never the plan. I just wanted to see what rings made her face light up, then I made a much cheaper purchase on my own time.
It can be a romantic outing in and of itself. I took my wife ring shopping to a half dozen stores in a beautiful fall afternoon. We didn't but anything, that was never the plan. I just wanted to see what rings made her face light up, then I made a much cheaper purchase on my own time.
If I may interject, no surprise with stakes that high is actually worth the downside risk. Just communicate. Unless you're sure your partner would have agreed that the surprise was worth not communicating, I suggest discussing things like this.
If they have decided to take your hand in marriage then I doubt they'd mind your choice of a ring.
Some care. I'd be pissed if my partner blew 30k on a few grams of carbon that frankly looks like cut glass unless you shove your face into it. I'd rather be handed a box with a loop of string, a symbolic offer to go ring shopping together.
All of this - I’m very glad my husband did not surprise me with two months’ salary worth of ring.
Half the population of any neighborhood is women. You don't need to speculate about this. Ask a few.
The general advice that I've heard (and which I agree with) is that when you propose should be the big surprise/reveal, not that you're proposing.
It seems to be best if both partners have discussed and agreed on marriage prior to the actual proposal, and it would then make sense to also have discussed the kind of ring (or price class of ring at least) that they would want.
Exactly what ring you get can be a surprise of course, but I think the price tag should be somewhat known beforehand.
It seems to be best if both partners have discussed and agreed on marriage prior to the actual proposal, and it would then make sense to also have discussed the kind of ring (or price class of ring at least) that they would want.
Exactly what ring you get can be a surprise of course, but I think the price tag should be somewhat known beforehand.
I guess so, but your idea of a proposal is different than mine. If the partners have discussed and agreed to get married then I'd say the proposal has already passed. But whatever makes folks happy is OK with me.
The pre-proposal discussion is probably more of a "think we should get married someday?" kind of thing, the actual proposal (and consequent concrete plans to get married) might not be until months/years later.
[deleted]
You should ask your married friends what a proposal is, and how ring shopping works, before you find yourself making an embarassing mistake.
> You should ask your married friends what a proposal is
If by "you" you mean me, I've been married since 86. (I understand that you may have meant a generic "you.")
FWIW, we didn't buy a ring. I can't say we took that money and put it to use X but in the first years of marriage we certainly had some months where we were only able to pay bills by looking under the couch cushions for quarters, so I think it was a sound direction, for us.
If by "you" you mean me, I've been married since 86. (I understand that you may have meant a generic "you.")
FWIW, we didn't buy a ring. I can't say we took that money and put it to use X but in the first years of marriage we certainly had some months where we were only able to pay bills by looking under the couch cushions for quarters, so I think it was a sound direction, for us.
I was proposed to via mindmap, essentially. Only fly in the ointment was that, as a German, he didn’t realize that greeting me with “we need to talk” set my mind in a completely different direction, but aside from that, seeing his thinking behind his long-term hopes for our relationship was quite romantic.
Looking for the stone together was entertaining after I was able to get him to understand that I really, really didn’t expect him to spend the “two months' salary” that is “customary” in my home country (USA).
If you want the romantic surprise, arrange a nice, private dinner (or other private special occasion) and get a silver CZ ring to present as a placeholder for the ring she’s going to help you pick out, making it clear that it’s a placeholder. If this does not go over well, better to find this out about her before making a big legal commitment!
Looking for the stone together was entertaining after I was able to get him to understand that I really, really didn’t expect him to spend the “two months' salary” that is “customary” in my home country (USA).
If you want the romantic surprise, arrange a nice, private dinner (or other private special occasion) and get a silver CZ ring to present as a placeholder for the ring she’s going to help you pick out, making it clear that it’s a placeholder. If this does not go over well, better to find this out about her before making a big legal commitment!
Did you get a diamond? If so, How do you justify to yourself that a diamond is moral, ethical, or practical choice?
Nice story!
A serious and somewhat foolproof answer that should work for most reasonable couples: Buy her a simple silver or gold ring when you propose. This shows commitment, and both silver and gold jewelry hold value far better than diamonds.
After proposing, you have several options:
* If she wants a diamond or moissanite or CZ or other ring, the two of you can go shopping for it later, or commission a custom one.
* If she doesn't want an expensive ring, you can spend it on other things.
* If she gets extremely upset and refuses just because you should have gotten a diamond ring the first time, you might want to rethink whether you want to spend your life with this person.
After proposing, you have several options:
* If she wants a diamond or moissanite or CZ or other ring, the two of you can go shopping for it later, or commission a custom one.
* If she doesn't want an expensive ring, you can spend it on other things.
* If she gets extremely upset and refuses just because you should have gotten a diamond ring the first time, you might want to rethink whether you want to spend your life with this person.
Finding a life partner is not easy. I suggest not adding "must be ok without a diamond ring" to your criteria. Also, communicate beforehand rather than taking a stand on an issue she will literally wear for life and expecting her to accede.
I say this as someone who likes the idea of moissanite, but relented to getting an "ethical" diamond from Canada (there is some dispute about provenance of these diamonds).
In other words, this isn't a hill to die on.
I say this as someone who likes the idea of moissanite, but relented to getting an "ethical" diamond from Canada (there is some dispute about provenance of these diamonds).
In other words, this isn't a hill to die on.
Lab grown diamonds. Moissanite and CZ don’t look the same. Lab grown diamonds are chemically identical.
Buy a synthetic diamond instead. De Beers is the worst, they artificially limit supply and spread misinformation about synthetic diamonds to protect their interests.
I would say that diamonds as jewellry is a bad idea in general; it is artificially scarce, can be developed in a lab in a more perfect way (in fact, "too perfect" is how jewellers know a diamond has been created artificially) and doesn't shimmer as much as other stones.
I would instead look at Moissanite[0]; looks better, holds it's value a little bit better although debeers has killed a second hand market for this kind of jewellry..
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite
I would instead look at Moissanite[0]; looks better, holds it's value a little bit better although debeers has killed a second hand market for this kind of jewellry..
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite
No, because they never go on sale. They're stockpiled to preserve artificial market scarcity, instead of degrading the perceived value of the product by discounting it.
Artificial diamonds are amazing more perfect in clarity and colour. Though because they target a more budget market, i’d buy a 1ct artificial stone and take it to a jeweller to set in a one of a kind ring made with platinum, gold, etc. I think you’ll still have enough cash for a small car or a long holiday.
I got a Diamond Foundry one for my wife. Incredible clarity, cut, and quality. Probably 2/3 the price of comparable “real” diamond but without all that pesky diamond mine slavery, corruption, and monopolization. Wife liked it MORE because it wasn’t a “blood diamond.”
Get a zirconium ring, instead. Save that money for something else: for example, downpayment for your next home.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/07/03/why-smart-peop...
Estate diamonds are way cheaper than new ones, and just as much a diamond by any metric as a De Beers diamond.
Why doesn't de Beers have an army of staff to buy those all up ?
Gold is always on option :)
Here is all you need:
https://ensorings.com/
Our wedding rings were 3D printed plastic. Simple bands. When they break or our fingers change size, I print some more.
[deleted]
Diamonds can wait forever too.
I wonder if the excess supply of diamonds would lower the price, since they're such a valuable and rare commodity.
I wonder if the excess supply of diamonds would lower the price, since they're such a valuable and rare commodity.
If ever there were a moment for tiny violins.
I saw one estimate there is one million people employed in diamond mining in Africa.
What now happens to their families?
In India where diamonds are cut they also employ a million people.
What now happens to their families?
What now happens to their families?
In India where diamonds are cut they also employ a million people.
What now happens to their families?
You're arguing to prop up overinflated diamond prices to protect an industry complicit in widespread corruption, human suffering, and political strife across the African continent [1]? You might want to re-think this one.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_diamond
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_diamond
What exactly is your point? That no evil enterprise is that bad so long as it employs people? You will find yourself defending some pretty bad shit with that argument.
I don't think I understand the viewpoint that an industry is evil because people involved in it do bad things.
If the output of the industry makes the world worse, then it makes sense to me to consider calling it an evil industry. Like, I have doubts about ad-tech, whether it benefits society.
But if on the other hand, it's just that an industry is lucrative and attracts evil people, I don't see that evil as accruing to the industry.
Mining stones and making pretty jewelry doesn't, that I can see, have any inherent component of injustice. I mean, there are diamonds mined in Canada; are they tainted somehow?
If the output of the industry makes the world worse, then it makes sense to me to consider calling it an evil industry. Like, I have doubts about ad-tech, whether it benefits society.
But if on the other hand, it's just that an industry is lucrative and attracts evil people, I don't see that evil as accruing to the industry.
Mining stones and making pretty jewelry doesn't, that I can see, have any inherent component of injustice. I mean, there are diamonds mined in Canada; are they tainted somehow?
How about some respect is shown for the 2 million human beings I mentioned working in developing counties who's jobs are at risk during what could be the largest economic downtime in 100 years.
How about violins are not pulled out and instead we think about the million (an estimate from a NGO) Africans who work in artisan diamond mines, their work is horrific and vital to their families.
And something really hard, don't just ignore the fact their lives are ruined because we hate De Beers and think about what happens now and how can we fix this?
If you don't want to fix this, at least don't jump around with glee about the fact lives are ruined.
How about violins are not pulled out and instead we think about the million (an estimate from a NGO) Africans who work in artisan diamond mines, their work is horrific and vital to their families.
And something really hard, don't just ignore the fact their lives are ruined because we hate De Beers and think about what happens now and how can we fix this?
If you don't want to fix this, at least don't jump around with glee about the fact lives are ruined.
Look up “Job Guarantee”. Then you’ll have your answer.
Unemployment is always a political choice.
Unemployment is always a political choice.
It's interesting that people are downvoting (from their computers made from Blood Rare-Earth Minerals) you but no one is posting links to relief efforts they've donated to or paid taxes for.
It's easy to martyr other people.
It's easy to martyr other people.
Ah yes, because you aren't allowed to criticize something unless you yourself are perfect morally clean.
What do you propose, the governments spend trillions on a bailout for diamond corporations because nobody wants or can afford diamonds? And the reality that diamond prices are hyperinflated through collusion and monopoly.
You say "employ" but the industry is still using child slaves, and even the children who get paid are in abysmal working conditions.
You are so innocent my child.
They can get jobs that actually contribute to improving society instead of causing pollution, thus improving the living conditions of everyone around them.
I could pay someone to break windows and then repair them, but that would be a bad thing.
I could pay someone to break windows and then repair them, but that would be a bad thing.
If they're piling up they're not worth billions anymore.
Sounds like they aren't worth billions of dollars anymore.
Well, if a single company manages to own all the piles of diamonds, they could artificially limit supply to keep prices high.
The company was De Beers and they no longer have a monopoly: https://www.diamondportfolio.com.au/investor-centre/market-i...
No, but the sharing "partners" might as well be part of De Beers as diamonds are still sold at prices way way above what they are worth. Like "selling iron for gold prices" expensive.
How can an optional* non-functional luxury good be sold for more than it's worth?
*Worth to your lady, not to you Economically, the diamond is a token of wastefulness that serves only to destroy value as part of the human mating ritual. Bitcoin for women, but even less liquid.
*Worth to your lady, not to you Economically, the diamond is a token of wastefulness that serves only to destroy value as part of the human mating ritual. Bitcoin for women, but even less liquid.
A bitcoin for women analogy might be generous; one diamond isn't fungible for another one. There's sentimental value.
Diamonds can be manufactured in a lab at a higher quality than what you can get out of the ground.
But then then went 180 and said that imperfections are a feature, not a bug, and therefore natural diamonds are still worth more :).
[deleted]
Only as long as there are people like you who insist that they are.
But they don’t.
De Beers held a diamond monopoly and stock piled diamonds to drive up prices for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers
The monopoly started breaking up decades ago, and is currently at 35%.
Not if they don't lower their prices!
>Smaller diamond producers have reduced their own prices. De Beers, a unit of mining group Anglo American, and its Russian competitor Alrosa have reportedly rejected price cuts and would rather allow buyers to pull out of previous contracts.
$5 they'll hold firm on their prices and just take tax credits in countries for "business losses".
>Smaller diamond producers have reduced their own prices. De Beers, a unit of mining group Anglo American, and its Russian competitor Alrosa have reportedly rejected price cuts and would rather allow buyers to pull out of previous contracts.
$5 they'll hold firm on their prices and just take tax credits in countries for "business losses".
Can they?
Diamonds are a practically useless product (except in science and the industry) based only on the social signalling [0] they give to their owner. And this signalling is due to their high price.[1]
De Beers created the demand artificially for engagement rings so they are pretty much done,I guess.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)
De Beers created the demand artificially for engagement rings so they are pretty much done,I guess.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)
> Not if they don't lower their prices!
These are fun semantics... if you can't liquidate your inventory for a substantial fraction of its "price" then I'd say that it simply doesn't have the value you've priced it at.
If there are only ten suckers in the world willing to buy a widget for a billion dollars, and you have a thousand of those widgets, then you're sitting on roughly ten billion dollars -- not a trillion.
These are fun semantics... if you can't liquidate your inventory for a substantial fraction of its "price" then I'd say that it simply doesn't have the value you've priced it at.
If there are only ten suckers in the world willing to buy a widget for a billion dollars, and you have a thousand of those widgets, then you're sitting on roughly ten billion dollars -- not a trillion.
They are likely treating it like real estate and taking a temporary loss in order to prop up future value when the economy recovers.
You took the words from my mouth.
The main take away for me was that 4.5 billion dollars is just 2/3rd of the annual worth of diamonds produced. Somehow I didn't expect that large a number of diamonds to be even created let alone sold. People still buy a lot of diamonds than needed (at least in my head).
Its quite old (from 1982), but some things might still be relevant today. The article leaves you with the strong impression that the market is highly controlled by a few players, and a diamond is not really an asset you would like to invest in.