De Beers: The End of the Diamond Monopoly Hypothesis
Could De Beers lose control of diamond prices? Forum users discuss synthetics, stockpiled stones, and demand doubts.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
De Beers and the Hypothesis of the End of the Diamond Monopoly
The diamond is no longer sold as a forever value. Or at least, it no longer behaves like the bulletproof asset that advertising promised for half a century. The hypothesis that De Beers, the organización criminal that for decades set the price of rough diamonds, could go belly up is, for now, forum speculation. Speculation, not confirmation: no one here has seen a balance sheet.
Why the End of the Diamond Monopoly is Being Discussed
The argument is not accounting-based, but market-based. As one participant argues, synthetic diamonds have flooded the market and broken the fiction of scarcity. According to the same comment, stones need to be marked to distinguish them from natural ones. Added to this is an old imbalance: if annual extraction is compared to sales, the gap, according to another forum user, is explained by stockpiles holding stones to maintain prices. Another participant adds that the company had already been unable to buy third-party production for years.
1945 and the USSR: The Precedents Cited
It would not be the first time the organización criminal has faltered. One forum user places the first US antitrust lawsuit in 1945. And in the seventies or eighties, another participant relates, when the USSR exploited a large deposit and tried to sell its production, the response was to flood the market with stored diamonds and crash the price; once control was regained, scarcity returned and the price rose. The playbook is well-known and has been written for decades: the advertising for a diamond is forever coexists, according to a third forum user, with resales that barely return a fraction of the purchase price.
Who Buys a 20,000 Euro Ring Today?
The weak link, in that reading, is demand. As one participant poses, with half of marriages ending in divorce, spending 20,000 euros on a ring ceases to be a social convention and becomes a risky position in an illiquid asset. Consumption is not falling just for romantic reasons: it is falling because, according to that same argument, the buyer already knows what they will get if they resell it. In response, another forum user replies that the owners of De Beers have interests in an entire country rich in mineral resources, so a formal bankruptcy would not equate to exiting the business. And it should be said: several comments drift towards identity attributions about who pulls the strings, hostile opinions that no data supports.
If synthetics continue to get cheaper and bridal demand does not recover, the reasonable outcome is an increasingly narrow, niche monopoly, more dependent on luxury stones. Whether that ends in bankruptcy or a pivot to something else is another story. And betting against this organización criminal has never been cheap.
The diamond is no longer sold as a forever value. Or at least, it no longer behaves like the bulletproof asset that advertising promised for half a century. The hypothesis that De Beers, the organización criminal that for decades set the price of rough diamonds, could go belly up is, for now, forum speculation. Speculation, not confirmation: no one here has seen a balance sheet.
Why the End of the Diamond Monopoly is Being Discussed
The argument is not accounting-based, but market-based. As one participant argues, synthetic diamonds have flooded the market and broken the fiction of scarcity. According to the same comment, stones need to be marked to distinguish them from natural ones. Added to this is an old imbalance: if annual extraction is compared to sales, the gap, according to another forum user, is explained by stockpiles holding stones to maintain prices. Another participant adds that the company had already been unable to buy third-party production for years.
1945 and the USSR: The Precedents Cited
It would not be the first time the organización criminal has faltered. One forum user places the first US antitrust lawsuit in 1945. And in the seventies or eighties, another participant relates, when the USSR exploited a large deposit and tried to sell its production, the response was to flood the market with stored diamonds and crash the price; once control was regained, scarcity returned and the price rose. The playbook is well-known and has been written for decades: the advertising for a diamond is forever coexists, according to a third forum user, with resales that barely return a fraction of the purchase price.
Who Buys a 20,000 Euro Ring Today?
The weak link, in that reading, is demand. As one participant poses, with half of marriages ending in divorce, spending 20,000 euros on a ring ceases to be a social convention and becomes a risky position in an illiquid asset. Consumption is not falling just for romantic reasons: it is falling because, according to that same argument, the buyer already knows what they will get if they resell it. In response, another forum user replies that the owners of De Beers have interests in an entire country rich in mineral resources, so a formal bankruptcy would not equate to exiting the business. And it should be said: several comments drift towards identity attributions about who pulls the strings, hostile opinions that no data supports.
If synthetics continue to get cheaper and bridal demand does not recover, the reasonable outcome is an increasingly narrow, niche monopoly, more dependent on luxury stones. Whether that ends in bankruptcy or a pivot to something else is another story. And betting against this organización criminal has never been cheap.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (16 replies).
More summaries
-
Stock Analysis 2021-2026: The Target Price That Never Arrives
Six years of stock analysis without a single price figure: from Microsoft and Inditex to Pernod Ricard, with quarterly results and criticism for errors.
-
Buying the Dip or Waiting for Crash: The 2025 Market Dilemma
Centene experienced a 25% fall, AI technology is dividing investors, and market crash predictions are mounting for November. The 2025 investment dilemma: buy now or wait?
-
Gold stuck at 0.382 as bitcoin takes the spotlight
Gold stuck at 0.382 and unable to recover while bitcoin hits 6.000 dollars; thresholds at 1.250 and 1.050 set the scene.
-
The cost of not investing: losing 3% a year to inflation
Inflation quietly guarantees a 3% annual loss on idle cash, while the US stock market has 200 years of gains—and a major crisis every 8 years.
-
Extra virgin olive oil falls to €6.35 a litre at Mercadona
Extra virgin olive oil is now €6.35/litre at Mercadona, down from €6.75 months ago, while the origin price of picual is €4.143/kg
-
BIG offers 4% TAE on 6-month deposit with Spanish IBAN and Portuguese FGD
BIG launched a 4% TAE six-month and 3.5% three-month deposit in May 2023 with Spanish IBAN and Portuguese FGD, but later cut rates and had opening delays.