information sur les diamant de synthese

bonjour a tous et toute
Bonjour a tous et toute
La société a déclaré sans équivoque que «la demande de diamants (naturels) se réduit en raison de l'évolution de l'industrie de la synthèse». Bien que nous ayons déjà soutenu depuis déjà plusieurs années, les producteurs envisageaient jusqu'à présent que la disponibilité de «matériel de détection» Au développement de deux marchés distincts: diamants synthétiques (cultivés en laboratoire) et naturels. Théoriquement, ce serait une situation gagnant-gagnant, prospère dans un marché à deux niveaux basé sur les prix et sur les produits. Cependant, c'est un vœu pieux.



Fondamentalement, Anglo American implique que les diamants synthétiques (cultivés en laboratoire) sont considérés comme une substitution économique à la nature. Une bague de fiançailles vendue avec un diamant synthétique signifie la perte d'une vente avec un diamant naturel. Mais cela va plus loin. Anglo-américain s'inquiète du marketing synthétique et du positionnement du produit.


Impact des synthetiques sur l'indice de prix brut brut
Crédit: DIB



Anglo American Corporation reconnaît maintenant dans son rapport annuel de 2016 que "les progrès technologiques rendent la production de synthèses artificielles de gemme commercialement viables et des sources de distribution accrues". Cela va encore plus loin. Il se rend compte que «le marketing des synthétiques cherche à les placer comme étant environnemental ou socialement supérieur.» [Lisez à nouveau cette ligne: «La commercialisation des synthétiques cherche à les placer comme étant supérieure à l'environnement ou à la société»]



C'est la véritable menace stratégique: les producteurs de synthèse déploient des ressources financières énormes pour délimiter les diamants naturels - pour convaincre les consommateurs que les «diamants naturels» sont mauvais ou même mauvais. Les synthétiques sont simplement positionnés, comme l'a déclaré Anglo, comme «supérieurs environnementaux et sociaux».



L'impact sur De Beers est une «perte potentielle de ventes de diamants brillants et bruts qui ont un impact négatif sur les revenus, les flux de trésorerie, la rentabilité et la valeur [du producteur]», déclare Anglo American. La stratégie d'atténuation des risques consiste principalement à positionner les produits synthétiques comme un produit «différent» et le développement de technologies de détection.



Nous supposons que si jamais on s'aperçoit que les risques sont «en dehors des limites de l'appétit pour le risque», Anglo American disposerait probablement de ses actifs miniers de diamants. Ils n'ont pas encore atteint ce point - on ne l'a même jamais mentionné - mais déclarer les synthes comme un «risque principal» serait la première étape d'un tel processus de prise de décision.



Position ambigu de Diamond Midstream sur les synthétiques



Les fabricants de diamants ont tendance à se pencher en arrière pour favoriser le curry avec les producteurs naturels. C'est le résultat de près d'un siècle du système de sightholder de De Beers: un fabricant ou un commerçant grossier dépend de la bonne volonté et de la volonté du producteur de vous vendre plutôt que de quelqu'un d'autre. Les revenus et les marges des fabricants de diamants dépendent de la valeur ajoutée créée entre l'achat de matières premières et les ventes de brillant résultant.



La montée en puissance des produits synthétiques a diminué la prise, la «prise» si vous voulez, des producteurs naturels sur leurs clients. Un fabricant à Surat (ou ailleurs) veut optimiser sa valeur ajoutée et ses marges. S'il y a plus d'argent à fabriquer en coupant et en polir des synthétiques, il ne voit aucune raison pour laquelle il ne devrait pas le faire. Anglo American ne l'a pas déclaré si brutalement, mais la demande réduite pour les diamants naturels qu'elle signale ne vient pas seulement des consommateurs, mais aussi du secteur intermédiaire.


Perspective - Prix à long terme du diamant brut et poli
Crédit: DIB



Au cours de la conférence Mines to Market, plusieurs conférenciers s'affrontent avec véhémence et déclarent fort que «les produits synthétiques ne sont pas des diamants». Certains des plus grands fabricants de diamants synthétiques au monde (et non les producteurs) étaient dans la salle, tout comme certains des distributeurs. Pour des raisons commerciales [valides], ils ne veulent pas s'identifier publiquement, car certains peuvent aussi directement ou indirectement être clients de De Beers, Alrosa et d'autres producteurs naturels. Un fabricant [de petits synthétiques] a confié que «même si les coûts seraient égaux, certains des produits synthétiques se ressemblent mieux dans les bijoux».



L'un des dirigeants les plus influents du courant dominant m'a averti cette semaine de ne pas "cibler" les entreprises qui vendent largement des synthétiques, mais seulement ceux qui délimitent fortement les activités naturelles du diamant. Dans la réalité d'aujourd'hui, il est difficile de distinguer la ligne de démarcation. On pourrait se demander si un produit est positionné et commercialisé comme «supérieur» à l'autre, pourvu que la personne qui possède les deux métiers soit en train de faire chacun d'eux légitimement.



Le fait que certains grands leaders de l'industrie en Europe et en Amérique prospèrent des entreprises de synthèse complique le problème. Les synthétiques ont été largement acceptées par le milieu de la circulation - d'autant plus qu'il y a de meilleures marges à gagner, car les prix brut synthétiques de production ont baissé au cours des deux dernières années. Les matériaux synthétiques doivent être polis; Surtout le petit bien
Partager cette traduction

........................................................................................................................................................
The company has now unequivocally stated that “demand for (natural) diamonds reduces as a result of developments in the synthetic industry.” While we have argued that point for several years already, the producers hitherto envisioned that availability of “detection equipment” would lead to the development of two distinct markets – synthetic (lab-grown) and natural diamonds. Theoretically, that would be a win-win situation, prospering in a price-wise and product-wise two-tiered market. However, this is wishful thinking.



Basically, Anglo American implies that synthetic (lab-grown) diamonds are considered an economic substitution for natural. An engagement ring sold with a synthetic diamond means the loss of a sale with a natural diamond. But it goes beyond that. Anglo-American is concerned about synthetic marketing and product positioning.


Impact of Synthetics on Natural Rough Price Index
Credit: DIB



Anglo American Corporation now acknowledges in its 2016 Annual Report that “technological progresses are making the production of man-made gem synthetics commercially viable and there are increased distribution sources.” It goes a step further. It realizes that “the marketing of synthetics seeks to place them as being environmentally or socially superior.” [Please read that line again: “The marketing of synthetics seeks to place them as being environmentally or socially superior.”]



This is the real strategic threat: Huge financial resources are poured in by the synthetic producers to delegitimize natural diamonds – to convince consumers that “natural diamonds” are bad or even evil. Synthetics are simply positioned, as Anglo said, as “environmentally and socially superior.”



The impact on De Beers is a “potential loss of polished and rough diamond sales leading to a negative impact on [the producer’s] revenue, cash flow, profitability and value,” states Anglo American. The risk-mitigation strategy is mainly to position synthetics as a “different” product and the development of detection technologies.



We assume that if the point is ever reached that the risks fall “outside the limits of risk appetite,” Anglo American would most likely dispose of its diamond mining assets. They haven’t reached that point yet – it’s never even mentioned – but declaring synthetics as a “principal risk” would be the first step in such a decision-making process.



Diamond Midstream’s Ambiguous Position on Synthetics



Diamond manufacturers tend to bend over backwards to curry favor with natural producers. That’s the result of almost a century of the De Beers sightholder system: A manufacturer or rough trader is dependent on the goodwill and willingness of the producer to sell the rough to you rather than to someone else. Diamond manufacturers’ revenues – and margins – depend on the added value created between purchase of raw material and sales of resultant polished.



The rise of synthetics has decreased the hold, the “grip” if you want, of the natural producers over their clients. A manufacturer in Surat (or anywhere else for that matter) wants to optimize his added value and margins. If there is more money to be made by cutting and polishing synthetics, he sees no reason why he shouldn’t do so. Anglo American didn’t state it so bluntly, but the reduced demand that for natural diamonds it signals isn’t just coming from consumers, but rather also from the midstream sector.


Perspective – Long Term Real Rough and Polished Diamond Prices
Credit: DIB



During the Mines to Market conference, several speakers outdid each other in vehemently and loudly declaring that “synthetics are not diamonds.” Some of the world’s largest synthetic diamond manufacturers (not producers) were in the room, as were some of the distributors. For [valid] commercial reasons, they don’t want to publicly identify themselves – as, inevitably, some of them may also directly or indirectly be clients of De Beers, Alrosa and other natural producers. One manufacturer [of small synthetics] confided that “even if costs would be equal, some of the synthetics simply look better in the jewelry piece.”



One of the mainstream’s most influential leaders warned me this week not to “target” companies that widely sell synthetics, but only those who strongly delegitimize the natural diamond business. In today’s reality, it is difficult to distinguish the dividing line. One might ask whether it matters if one product is positioned and marketed as “superior” to the other, as long as the person that carries both business lines is doing each of them legitimately.



The fact that some major industry leaders in Europe and America have prospering synthetic businesses complicates the issue. Synthetics have become widely accepted by the midstream – especially as there are better margins to be earned since synthetic rough production prices have been going down in the last two years. Synthetic rough needs to be polished; especially the small goods, which are labor intensive. They supply welcome employment. We are not aware of any credible reports on “resistance to synthetics in the consumer markets,” in spite of natural producers telling us at every opportunity that a woman only wants the “real” thing.



It’s the Bottom Line that Will Drive the Choices



Ultimately, it all comes down to a question of bottom line.  In a scenario of low profitability, it is not wrong for well-run businesses to consider diversification into other allied businesses, including synthetics. The only ones who have no option are the rough producer countries and rough producing companies. Hence, it will be in their long-run interest for rough producers ensure that the midstream industry continues to remain profitable.



Anglo American may not realize yet how serious the principal risk is that it has identified. Its situation is, in a way, better than those of other producers: Anglo American, through its Element 6 synthetics subsidiary, has the choice to “join the lab-grown business.” Many are convinced that this will eventually happen – and it’s more a question of “when.” Undoubtedly, they have the state-of-the-art technology and the patents to enable a swift market entry.



Lab-Grown Producers Lobby FTC



In 2016, the main producer of gem-quality synthetics re-established the International Grown Diamonds Association (IGDA) to lobby the U.S. government. In a submission to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), it cited research showing “that in 2014, laboratory-grown diamond production was approximately 360,000 carats.  By 2018, global laboratory-grown gem-quality diamond production globally is estimated to reach close to 2 million carats and by 2026 it is expected to cross 20 million carats.


Rough-Polished price mismatch widening again
Credit: DIB

In our Pipeline Chart, we estimate polished synthetic sales at 4% of overall polished diamond sales. Incidentally, the FTC is asked by the IGDA to amend its Jewelry Guides regarding marketing nomenclatures and to “prohibit the use of the term ‘synthetic’ to describe laboratory-grown diamonds, as this term is misleading, deceptive, and confusing to consumers,” it says.



“The properties of these laboratory-grown diamonds have been found to be optically, physically, and chemically identical to the earth-derived diamonds. The only difference between laboratory-grown diamonds and mined diamonds is their point of origin. Moreover, many of the human and environmental impacts associated with mining diamonds from the Earth are significantly lessened, and in some instances entirely removed, with laboratory-grown diamonds.” This implicitly underscores what Anglo American observed: Synthetic (lab-grown) diamonds are in many cases promoted as being socially and environmentally superior over natural.



Our main concern is that the lion’s share of the synthetic production is not clearly disclosed throughout the value chain. It’s fraudulent – though experts expect that in due time the differences will dissipate.



Synthetics’ Impact on Rough Prices and Diamond Exploration



Anglo American correctly noted the impact of synthetics on natural producers’ rough selling prices. In the supply curve analysis of rough diamond prices conducted by Pharos Beam Consulting and Tacy Ltd, it seems that current rough prices are some 4% below the “normalized prices,” i.e., the price level the rough prices would have reached if there were no synthetics in the market.  [The supply curve is a graphical representation of the relationship between the price of a good or service and the quantity supplied for a given period of time.] We expect this gap to grow to 10% by 2020 [see chart].



The competition provided by synthetics will eventually have a distinct effect on producer and producer countries’ policies. It discourages exploration companies to devote resources to search for new diamond deposits. It may take years to find a deposit, if at all, and to assess economic feasibility. By the time an economically viable deposit has been confirmed, it may take a few more years (and hundreds of millions of dollars) to develop a mine. At the same time, mass production of synthetics – and the public’s acceptance of these man-made stones as an economic substitute for natural diamonds – may make the new mine unviable from the start.



At De Beers, for example, its 2016 exploration budget was 15% lower than it was in the previous year – down from $34 million to $29 million. It must be noted, however, that this represented a general trend of reductions across all commodities. Having said that, $34 million represents the equivalent of 0.2% of annual production. That hardly seems like an investment in the search of future deposits.



Though De Beers and Alrosa operate on comfortable profit margins, there are nevertheless among the global diamond producers several operating mines that have been put on “care and maintenance” – a euphemism for a situation where the costs of production exceed the value of the output. If the rough price doesn’t rise sufficiently, these assets will eventually be disposed of or shut down. Analysts fear that Australia’s Argyle mine could shortly join that list, which would reduce global rough diamond supply by some 27-20 million carats (valued around $420 million) of predominantly small (though labor-intensive) diamonds.



The producers are deeply concerned about losing consumer confidence in diamonds. But what about the governments of mining nations? A research paper by a Botswana public policy think tank has suggested that leaving diamonds in the ground, assuming that they eventually (when mined) would yield a higher price, may well be a faulty assumption. And diamonds in the ground don’t produce current income – no annual yield. This is clearly not a popular view.



Price Volatility and Risks – Concern for Entire Pipeline



The Tacy Pipeline provides simple numbers. Behind each figure hides amazing stories – and ever-changing realities. The ciphers speak for themselves – and in this review only some salient issues were discussed. If one had to identify a single overriding concern shared by all players, it would be the enormous price volatility. This is quite a recent phenomenon in an industry in which (artificially maintained) price stability was probably one of its greatest attractions – providing comfort to all stakeholders, especially governments and bankers.



The midstream players don’t like auctions. At every conference, emphasis is placed on the desirability of long-term contracts, and our pipeline made a point in the “mine sales” category to identify the marketing mechanisms of the two main rough suppliers. Miners warn that the current geopolitical and macro-economic uncertainties are expected to cause continued price volatility – not only in diamonds, but in most other commodities as well. Overall, the commodity pricing environment seems to be increasingly more spot-price based, compared to the mid- or long-term contract-pricing mechanisms that used to be the norm.


Supplier Power: Rough Production
Credit: DIB



At the Mines to Market conference, there was one speaker offering a commodity trading platform enabling diamonds packaged in standardized packages to be traded by outside investors. A non-physical diamond trading activity where papers will exchange hands. In the past, these diamond commodity ventures, trading diamond-backed papers rather than diamonds, have always been short-lived and have generally only provided some profits to their promotors. Whether it will be different this time, we wouldn’t know.



The mining companies are acutely aware of the impact of price volatility. They feel constraint, and it generally reduces their “appetite” for investments in new mining projects. Whether two new Canadian diamond mines will actually be put into production depends on market prices – which are unpredictable now. Mines know their risks. The midstream may be less aware – or has seldom quantified its own risks.


Looking Forward – Natural Production stable at current levels till 2020
Credit: DIB



In our 2016 Diamond Pipeline, we stressed the good news – that money was made in 2016. It also highlighted that synthetics have become an integral part of the diamond value chain and that more decisive action is needed, also to avoid a withdrawal of explorers and natural miners from the market. Natural producers must also understand that their most “effective” fight against synthetics comes from a healthy midstream. It’s the bottom line that counts. If the industry’s midstream players would set fair earning targets, and the producers would allow them to secure a decent return-on-capital based on the present macro-economic risk profiles, we wonder how different the sharing of the considerable added value in the annual pipeline would look. A shift in favor of midstream can do wonders!  Let’s wait for 2017 – but don’t hold your breath.



Diamond Jewelry is Losing its Share of the Luxury Wallet – Forever?
The diamond jewelry market is losing its share of the consumer’s luxury wallet. The growth of diamond jewelry retail sales lags dramatically behind (nominal) global GDP growth. Diamond jewelry retail sales, since 2007, have fallen steeply behind inflation indices. In our 17-year pipeline chart [above], using an index (base) of 100 for the year 1999, diamond jewelry retail sales have risen by merely some 130%, while GDP rose by 240%. The diamond content in jewelry had risen to some 180% by 2011, but has fallen back to 150%. The diamond jewelry market is underperforming almost any relevant economic parameter.


Jewelry Demand has Underperformed Nominal GDP Growth & Even Inflation
Credit: DIB

However, are we doing worse than other luxury items? Bain & Co. recently published its authoritative 2016 LUXURY GOODS WORLDWIDE MARKET STUDY. “The overall luxury industry tracked by Bain & Company comprises 10 segments, led by luxury cars, luxury hospitality and personal luxury goods, which together account for approximately 80% of the total market. The overall [luxury] industry has posted steady growth of 4%, to an estimated €1.08 trillion in retail sales value in 2016. Yet among specific categories, there was a clear spread in this past year’s performance,” says Bain & Co.
“The market for personal luxury goods—the “core of the core”—was essentially flat, at €249 billion. That represents a 1% contraction at current exchange rates and no change in market size from €251 billion in 2015 (at constant exchange rates). This is the third consecutive year of modest growth at constant exchange rates, and it represents a new normal in which luxury companies no longer benefit from a favorable market and free-spending consumers. Brexit, the US presidential election and terrorism have all led to significant uncertainty and lower consumer confidence, hindering sales of personal luxury goods.”
“The Americas and Asia (excluding Japan) —two major luxury markets—both contracted by 3% in 2016. Europe declined 1%, primarily due to a decline in tourism, and potentially would have performed worse were it not for strong sales in the UK (driven by a depreciated British pound). In China, consumers started buying again in their home market, but that was not enough to offset a dip in purchases by Chinese travelers abroad. A key factor in this shift is tighter customs controls to limit foreign shopping in an effort to fight the “grey market” of unauthorized sales and stimulate domestic consumption. As a result, China’s overall share of global luxury goods purchases declined slightly from 31% to 30%,” concludes the consulting company.
The diamond jewelry business is basically in the same boat as the “core luxury business”. “Luxury cars, luxury travel (cruises), fine restaurants, fine wines and spirits, and fine food segments all grew, reflecting a redirection of luxury spending away from goods and toward personal pampering and experiences.”



Our pipeline gives global GDP growth. The producers, in their rough diamond sales, have steadily outperformed global GDP in the 2000-2007 period – and grown in tandem in a volatile manner. Though bouncing back up there in 2011, it has not kept pace with GDP since then – and has fallen in recent years, though rising lately. The producers have a great price-setting capacity, strongly based on their oligopolistic roots. The luxury markets are extremely competitive – and there diamonds are losing out. The midstream, as its name implies, is somewhere squeezed in between.

Bonjour Danielle200,

Super intéressant cet article.....je comprends bien les peurs actuelles que la situation peut faire naître chez de grands groupes diamantaires.......mais...mais...

Il faut bien comprendre que les technologies ne cessant d"être de plus en plus efficaces à produire des diamants de synthèse en très très grande quantifié, les prix mêmes de ces diamants de synthèse iront toujours continuellement à la baisse pour les années voir les décennies à venir.

Donc à long terme, soit un client voudra à tout prix un diamant naturel, soit il voudra un cailloux de synthèse à vraiment petit prix au même titre qu'un rubis Verneuil à prix ridicule.

Deux marchés distincts...même si je comprends les craintes actuelles.

Par contre le dureté 10 de ces diamants de synthèse, en dehors de la brillance superbe du '' carbone cristallisé dans le système cubique '' sera la particularité, le principale argument même, qui attirera la joaillerie populaire pour la synthèse alliant beauté et durabilité à petit prix. Ce qui permettra à des millions de femmes et d'homme de profiter       à prix abordables        des mêmes apparences que les clients ayant les moyens d'acheter des diamants naturels, petits ou gros, de même caractéristiques.....ce qui maintiendra à long terme des prix fermes pour les diamants NATURELS              


Bref...tout cela est et demeure du positif.

Belle et bonne journée.

Michel Zim