| cheapbag214s |
|
|
| |
| Joined: 27 Jun 2013 |
| Posts: 20570 |
Read: 0 topics
Warns: 0/5
|
| Location: England |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Alpha Consumer usnews
Kim Kardashian engagement ring, valued at an estimated $2 million, features a 16.5-carat emerald cut diamond along with two side-diamonds, each weighing in at two carats themselves. Kardashian and her fianc NBA star Kris Humphries, have been gushing over the rock and their love for each other; Kardashian told People that she found the perfect man and the perfect ring. But are enormous diamonds really good investments?
[See the 100 Best Mutual Funds for the Long Term]
The diamond industry would like you to think so. Diamond sellers have written widely on the subject,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], arguing that diamonds make a better investment than stocks and real estate,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], partly because they do not depend on the health of a single economy. Plus, unlike stocks,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], they decorate your hands and allow you to impress your friends (or in Kardashian case, fans).
But here one of the main problems with locking up your money in a glittery gem: It not liquid. So if you suddenly need the money, you can necessarily turn the jewel into cash overnight. And if you do need to sell the piece quickly, you probably be forced to sell at a discount. In other words, just because a ring was purchased for $2 million doesn guarantee that one day it will sell for $2 million.
Also, because engagement rings are so tightly connected to a huge life event, they hold a lot of sentimental value, which has no cash value to others. That means you probably value your jewelry at a far higher price than strangers do, which won help you if there a time that you want to sell it. And if you end up keeping the ring in the family and passing it on to future generations, you have a beautiful family heirloom,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], but you never see the cash again. [See Even Celebrity Couples Need to Talk About Money.]
While diamonds popularity has demonstrated remarkable staying power over the last several decades,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], they haven always been the go-to stone, and there no guarantee that they will continue to be. In fact, it entirely possible that growth in synthetic diamonds will dilute the value of the gemstone, or that popular preferences will shift away from such flashy displays of wealth. Diamonds association with terrible violence in Africa certainly diminished demand for the stone in some circles. In fact,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], diamond values have stayed relatively flat since the 1980s.
Of course, wealthy celebrities don live by the same money rules as the rest of us. According to Fox News,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Humphries, 26, earns more than $3 million a year playing for the New Jersey Nets, and he has earned $17 million over the past six years. Still, that hardly makes a $2 million ring an affordable purchase. He went far beyond the old rule (invented by the diamond industry) about spending the standard two-month salary on an engagement ring. His splurge is the equivalent of an office worker earning $60,000 a year purchasing a $40,000 diamond.
[See the top-rated T. News,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych].]
But here a twist that just might justify the immense price of the ring: Given the fact that Kim Kardashian livelihood depends on fame, and the engagement has already landed the couple one magazine cover and countless article and blog mentions, it serves as a valuable publicity tool that could ultimately generate more money.
In fact, Fox News suggests that the couple wedding will likely be featured on a reality show special, and photos of the big day could sell for mega-bucks. In other words,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the $2 million ring is just a sparkly way of marketing the Kardashian brand. (Plus, Fox adds that the E! Network might have helped pay for the ring or negotiated a discount with the jeweler, who is also receiving plenty of publicity.)
Lastly,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], there the romance factor. Kardashian clearly wanted an enormous piece of ice on her finger and was impressed with her fiance choice. In her interview with People, she said that back in high school,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], she bought a fake ring for herself at Macy that looks just like the real thing currently perched on her hand. The desire to be bejeweled appears to run in the family; sister Khloe wears a $850,000 radiant-cut diamond and the Kardashian family is tight with jeweler-to-the-stars Lorraine Schwartz, who designed Kim bling.
The bottom line: Diamonds might be a good investment not the financial kind,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych].
"His splurge is the equivalent of an office worker earning $60,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],000 a year purchasing a $40,000 diamond."
I really wish I didn't feel the need to explain why spending in a way which leaves you at $1,000,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],000 remaining income for the year is not the same thing as spending in a way which leaves you with $20,000 in a year. (Pre-taxes)
Considering this is in the "money" section. I assume everyone reading this,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], except the person who wrote it, realizes the absolutely failed logic he tried to follow by considering it a linear cost comparison.
相关的主题文章：
http://www.philosophiaupjp2.fora.pl/dziekanat,36/tacoma-is-the-new-jersey-of-washington-state,7075.html#7243
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
http://www.miralaxhffwz.fora.pl/raina-propped-why-lsd-stays-in-the-body-cradled-the-hey-mean-addiction-recovery-forum-adderall-addiction-wisdom,1/mulberry-handbags-for-womens-spun4,16357.html#16547
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych] |
|
