Monday, February 3, 2014

With Engagement Rings, Love Meets Budget - New York Times

With Engagement Rings, Love Meets Budget

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/your-money/with-engagement-rings-love-meets-budget.html?ref=your-money-email&nl=your-money&emc=edit_my_20140203&_r=0

JAN. 31, 2014
     Tina Fineberg for The New York Times
    Your Money

    Ilona Kaprovsky, a 24-year-old New Yorker who works in finance, said she didn’t initially think she wanted a diamond as the centerpiece of her engagement ring — a lab-grown stone like a white sapphire, or even cubic zirconia, would be just fine. Besides, who would know the difference?
    But she eventually warmed to the idea when she and her boyfriend, Justin Veach, 28, started to talk about it more seriously. “During the process of buying the ring, we both were weighing what the value of the ring is,” said Mr. Veach, who is studying at Carnegie Mellon for his master’s in business administration and will probably finish with about $80,000 in loan debt. “Is it real? Does the diamond matter?”
    In the end, it mattered, as it does for the many American couples who collectively spend billions on diamond engagement rings each year. In 2012 alone, they spent nearly $11 billion on diamond engagement and wedding jewelry, according to Olya Linde, lead author of Bain & Company’s 2013 Global Diamond Industry Report. At a time when many young people are facing big student debts, a weak job market and rising housing costs, this luxury purchase still appears to be firmly planted on many ring fingers across the country.

    Diamonds’ Steady Rise

    After a spike in 1979 and a plunge in the early 1980s, the value of diamonds has been slowly climbing ever since.
    $20,000
    Rapaport
    Diamond
    Index
    16,000
    12,000
    8,000
    4,000
    ’80
    ’90
    ’00
    ’10
    ’14
    Source: Rapaport
    Average U.S. price per carat of the top 25 quality round diamonds, plotted monthly through January.
    The amount spent does tend to rise and fall with the broader economy, however, as it did in the latest boom and bust.
    Couples paid an average of $4,000 on engagement rings in 2012 (and another $1,000 for her wedding band, and $500 for his), according to a 2013 report from Jewelers of America, a trade group, using data from a variety of jewelers. That is about 25 percent less than the average spent on engagement rings in 2006, or $5,317, before the economy collapsed, according to another report by the group. In 2011, couples spent $3,538 on average.
    But arriving at the right amount to budget is something that many young people continue to struggle with, and retail analysts say that more people are beginning to use the credit programs offered by the largest national jewelry chains. Thinking about how that money might work harder for you invested elsewhere clearly saps all the romance out of the process. And as someone who grew up spending summers working in her family’s small jewelry store, I am not opposed to celebrating the occasion, within reason, with something sparkly.
    But let’s just pretend for a moment that you invested $12,700, or the current benchmark price for a high-quality one-carat diamond, according to the Rapaport Diamond Index, an industry benchmark for diamond prices. In a portfolio of 60 percent stock funds and 40 percent bonds with a real return of 4 percent, that $12,700 would rise to about $27,830 after 20 years, and nearly $41,200 after 30 years (that’s after inflation), according to calculations by Vanguard.
    If you invested an amount equal to the average ring price, or $4,000, the money would be worth nearly $8,800 after 20 years and almost $13,000 after 30 years.
    It is hard to compare those values with sentimental ones, as well as traditions that are deeply embedded in the American psyche. Diamond prices are generally less volatile than those of other commodities, and the average annual appreciation of a high-quality one-carat stone is about 3 to 4 percent annually, according to Edahn Golan, an analyst specializing in the diamond industry. “Supply is limited,” he said. “It’s a millions of years process, and they are mined faster than they are being generated by mother earth.”
    Of course, euphoric couples in love aren’t thinking about supply and demand (or that the growing middle classes in China and India are driving growth in the latter), nor do they view the ring as an investment. Even if they did, it’s not a terribly efficient value proposition, at least when you generally buy at retail and must sell at wholesale (and nobody initially plans to sell anyway).
    A ring with a 0.7 carat diamond that cost $4,895 on Blue Nile, an online jewelry retailer, might sell for 20 to 25 percent more at an average brick and mortar retailer, while the same size and quality ring could command at least 40 to 50 percent more at Tiffany or Cartier, said David Wu, a luxury goods and beauty analyst at the Telsey Advisory Group in New York.
    But what is interesting is that given how much has changed over the decades — men now snoop on their girlfriends’ Pinterest boards for clues about what they really like, and couples often shop together — the fact that it’s a purchase loaded with expectations persists.
    I spoke with about a dozen 20- and 30-somethings in the market for a ring, with budgets ranging from $1,500 to $25,000, and many of them, mostly men, admitted that they were concerned about appearances, which factored into their budget: I feel like I should keep up with people in our circle, said one. Her family is wealthier than mine, wrote another. The perception is that I earn a lot of money and should be able to spend in the same way, added another, who is earning a healthy salary now but has been in debt in the past.
    Launch media viewer
    Robert Neubecker
    And the most popular refrain: She is going to wear it for the rest of her life.
    It is a purchase that is “heavily driven by the heart and expectations,” said Holly Wesche, owner of Wesche Jewelers in Melbourne, Fla., and whose family has been in the jewelry business for three generations. “They are not thinking about their college debt or the house. They are trying to make it happen.”
    Many of the young and men and women I spoke with sounded relatively levelheaded about their spending plans — and the jewelers said that people tended to come into their stores highly educated on the topic and with a budget.

    RECENT COMMENTS

    Heather

     7 hours ago
    I've read almost all the comments and wanted to add my engagement ring story. I had a beautiful and expensive ring picked out at Tiffany's...

    NE

     7 hours ago
    A few people have mentioned the not-so-great mining practices of mining. A friend of mine is on a trip to Africa looking at artisinal...

    Denise

     7 hours ago
    Suckers for a brilliant marketing scheme by the diamond industry. What sheep people are.

    But others seemed to set budgets arbitrarily. One 27-year-old graduate student based his number — $1,500 to $3,000 — on what he could afford to pay off on credit. A 31-year-old lawyer decided to spend half his monthly income, or $5,000.
    “I found that coming up with a budget is difficult,” said a 28-year-old consultant in Los Angeles, who wanted to remain anonymous because he had not yet proposed and did not want to make his concerns public. “It’s not easy to discuss.”
    For Ms. Kaprovsky and Mr. Veach, it was an open discussion. The couple thoroughly educated themselves on the “four C’s” — cut, clarity, color and carat weight — that factor into a diamond’s value. They visited retailers in Pittsburgh, ranging from Zales to Tiffany, but ultimately bought a ring through Blue Nile: an elegant, hand-engraved platinum setting, which will showcase a round diamond, slightly shy of one carat.
    They knew that buying just below the landmark sizes, say 0.91 carat instead of one carat, would save them money, and the budget-minded couple also managed to save elsewhere: The total price came to $6,250, but since Mr. Veach bought the ring on his Upromise credit card, he received 10 percent cash back, or $625, which will go toward his Sallie Mae student loans.
    “We found our money values are pretty aligned,” Ms. Kaprovsky said. “We are both relatively thrifty and do our research when making large purchases.”
    88COMMENTS
    Engagement rings date back to Roman times, or further. But what many people probably do not realize is that the notion of a diamond ring was initially marketed to the masses in anadvertising campaign in the late 1930s by De Beers, which controlled the diamond industry at the time. The same firm’s copywriters also decided, in the 1980s, that the purchase should be worth two months’ salary.
    It is a powerful symbol. Even Mr. Veach joked about what wearing a cubic zirconia would say about their union. “A diamond is a 10 on the Mohs scale,” he told Ms. Kaprovksy, referring to the scale of mineral hardness, when making his case for buying the real thing. “C.Z. is an eight. What am I saying — our relationship is only strong as about an eight out of 10?”

    That underscores the notion that the industry really isn’t in the business of selling diamonds, as Martin Rapaport, publisher of the Rapaport Diamond Index, recently said. “We sell the idea behind diamonds.”

    Sunday, February 2, 2014

    Facebook Paper News App Coming to iOS - TIME

    Now Facebook Wants to Conquer the News Game

    Read more: Facebook Paper News App Coming to iOS | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2014/01/30/facebook-paper-news-app/#ixzz2sDPHIHJO



    DisplayMedia
    Facebook
    On Thursday, Facebook announced a new mobile app that offers a radically different approach to interacting with the social network. Paper, which will be available on iOS on Feb. 3, mixes News Feed posts and photos from friends with news content from media publishers in an attempt to craft a more relaxed and organized user experience.
    Through Paper, status updates, photos and news posts are placed on individual, full-screen cards that users swipe left or right to scan through. Like a newspaper, the app contains themed sections for topics like sports and food, which users can incorporate into their feed. These sections will feature not only content shared among a user’s Facebook friends but also content that Facebook notices is trending or that the company’s human editors decide is worth sharing. The act of making a post has also been overhauled, with Paper offering a visual editor that allows users to preview what their post will look like.
    The app has a heavy focus on presenting news from what Facebook calls “the world’s best sources.” Publishers such as TIME, USA Today, The New York Times and CNN are featured in a promotional video for the app, and their content will be used to help populate the app’s sections. Facebook has recently been focusing on increasing the quality of the posts on its network by tweaking its News Feed algorithm to surface articles from news organizations rather than meme photos.
    By providing an app that is tailored to promoting news publishers’ work, Facebook likely hopes to entice them to post more of their content on the social network. The company is currently in a battle with Twitter to become the definitive destination for discovering news.
    The stripped-down, visually-focused approach is also a nod to more modern publishing platforms like Instagram and Medium, which are considerably more streamlined than Facebook’s chaotic combination of written posts, photos and games. The app is ad free right now, according to The Verge, but it’s easy to imagine that it could one day be a useful platform to lure in brand advertisers who want to market through pretty pictures instead of typical News Feed posts.
    Paper is part of Facebook’s larger strategy to diversify its product line across a variety of apps rather than cramming more functions into its main website. The company acquired Instagram in 2012 to stake a claim in the photo-publishing space and has a popular messaging app called Facebook Messenger. It also created a Snapchat clone called Poke in 2012, which failed to grab user interest.


    Read more: Facebook Paper News App Coming to iOS | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2014/01/30/facebook-paper-news-app/#ixzz2sDPdN7gy

    Facebook Stock Soars After Strong Earnings Report - TIME

    Facebook Stock Soars After Strong Earnings Report

    http://business.time.com/2014/01/30/facebook-fb-stock-soars/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29


    Facebook made $1.5 billion in 2013, compared to $53 million a year earlier.
    Facebook CEO Zuckerberg listens to a question during a media event at Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park
    Robert Galbraith / REUTERS
    Facebook shares soared Thursday morning after the social network reported strong earnings that outstripped expectations the day before.
    The stock rose roughly eight points, or 15 percent, by 9:45 a.m., following a smaller surge in after-hours trading late Wednesday.
    The company announced Wednesday that it pulled in $523 million in profits in the fourth quarter of 2013, about an eight-fold increase over the same quarter last year, as ads on the site became increasingly valuable. Profits on the year reached $1.5 billion, up from just $53 million in 2012.


    Read more: FB: Facebook Stock Soars After Strong Earnings Report | TIME.comhttp://business.time.com/2014/01/30/facebook-fb-stock-soars/#ixzz2sDOxqlCX

    Saturday, February 1, 2014

    Currency Crises Abroad Are Benefiting the U.S. - TIME

    Currency Crises Abroad Are Benefiting the U.S.

    http://business.time.com/2014/01/30/currency-crises-abroad-are-benefiting-the-u-s/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

    dollarstack
    Victor Albrow / Getty Images
    Analysts are calling them “The Fragile Five,” a catchy sobriquet for five countries–Turkey, Brazil, India, South Africa and Indonesia–that have been experiencing serious turmoil in their economies and currencies in recent weeks.
    To one degree or another these five economies have been rocked by foreign investors who are taking their money and parking it in safer and increasingly more lucrative investments in developed countries like the U.S. This capital flight has caused these nations’ currencies to plummet in value, forcing central banks to raise interest rates and possibly weaken economic growth at home. This week, the Turkish Central Bank raised its interest rate a stunning 4.5%, hoping to convince investors to keep their money in Turkey.
    So what exactly does a currency crisis in Turkey or India have to do with the U.S.? In recent days, foreign leaders like Brazilian President Dilma Roussef reportedly laid blame for economic troubles in her country at the feet of the United States’ Federal Reservesaying ”the withdrawal of the monetary stimulus in developed countries” was fueling “market volatility.” Some analysts have dismissed this as simple scapegoating, but according to Eswar Prasad, a Cornell economist and author of a forthcoming book on the international monetary system, The Dollar Trap the analysis is not entirely off the mark. Volatility in places like Brazil “isn’t an indictment of Federal Reserve policy, but it certainly is a side effect,” he says.
    Presad explains that, following the financial crisis, the central banks of developed countries like the United States and Britain engaged in unprecedented efforts to keep interest rates very low, which motivated investors to look abroad for higher returns. Now that the U.S. is beginning to unwind this stimulus, and investors are beginning to worry about future growth prospects in places like Turkey, the reverse is happening. Money is flowing quickly from poorer countries to the developed world, fomenting economic instability in the process.
    The reason for this instability, Prasad argues, is dominant position of the U.S. dollar in global finance. But this is not just a worry for the citizens of The Fragile Five. It also affects the lives of everyday Americans in countless ways, from how much they pay for their mortgage to how much the U.S. government can afford to spend on things like Social Security.
    A series of financial crises from those in Latin America in the 1980s, to the Asian crisis of the 1990s, to the global meltdown we experienced five years ago has convinced developing countries that they need to amass large currency reserves to stabilize their own currencies and enable banks and businesses in their home country to continue operating during financially stressful times. Turkey, for instance, sold its dollar reserves last week in an attempt to prop up the price of the Turkish lira and quell instability.
    Instead of just holding onto dollars, however, central banks like to keep much of their reserves in U.S. treasury debt so that it can earn a return from the savings, while still being “liquid,” or easy to convert to cash in a pinch. The result is massive foreign demand for U.S. government debt. As of June 2013, roughly one-third of the U.S.’s outstanding $16.8 trillion in debt was owned by foreigners, while the Federal Reserve owned one-tenth. That’s a whole lot of demand for U.S. debt that is purely the result of the dollar’s role as the world’s “reserve” currency.
    The effect of all this foreign demand is to keep interest rates in America much lower than they otherwise would be. That means that we’re paying less for our cars, mortgages, and government debt that we would without that demand. It also means that the swift reduction in the deficit we’ve seen in recent years is probably unnecessary, especially because turmoil abroad is only going to make investing in U.S. government debt more attractive to investors in the near term. “The U.S. is in a very good position,” Prasad says. “All of this turmoil is going to drive even more capitol to our shores.”
    So is there any downside to the dollar’s dominance of the globe? Unfortunately, yes. While demand for U.S. debt abroad drives down interest rates, it also drives up the price of the dollar, making U.S. companies less competitive internationally. And at a time when Americans are starved for good paying jobs, it can ill afford to be fighting for its share of exports with one hand tied behind its back. So while the reign of the U.S. Dollar might make it easier for the U.S. government to take care of its citizens, it’s making it harder for Americans to take care of themselves.


    Read more: Currency Crises Abroad Are Benefiting the U.S. | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2014/01/30/currency-crises-abroad-are-benefiting-the-u-s/#ixzz2s8DZobaL

    Toyota Stops Sales of Avalon, Camry Models, May Recall More - TIME

    Toyota Stops Selling Cars for Fear Seats Might Go Up in Flames

    Read more: Toyota Stops Sales of Avalon, Camry Models, May Recall More | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2014/01/31/toyota-sales-camry-flame-resistance/#ixzz2s89R15vf


    May recall six models due to issue with flame resistance in heated seats
    Toyota logo
    Kiyoshi Ota / EPA
    Toyota has halted sales of certain car models due to worries about a lack of flame resistance in some of the seat materials. About 36,000 cars are affected, CNN reports.
    Some of the material used for seats in Corolla, Avalon, Camry, Sienna, Tacoma and Tundra models sold since 2012 does not “retard flame” at the rate required by the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standards, CNN reports. In 2012, the company reportedly switched fabric suppliers. The problem may lead the company to recall several models, though the carmaker said the problem isn’t a motor vehicle safety issue.
    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will decide whether or not to recall the cars. Over the past several years, the company has recalled car models for a variety of reasons ranging from airbag sensors to the carpet used in floor mats. In 2010 and 2012, the company was fined for being slow in its recall efforts.


    Read more: Toyota Stops Sales of Avalon, Camry Models, May Recall More | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2014/01/31/toyota-sales-camry-flame-resistance/#ixzz2s89nsFl6