De Beers undercuts the man made diamond price

[Texas Leaguer]

More high level trade reaction:
https://www.thediamondloupe.com/wor...try-analysts-react-de-beers-synthetic-diamond

 

[blueMA]

I am not familiar with MMDs. Are all MMDs discernible from natural by experts or is it just the DeBeers MMDs since they say they will be marking theirs in a permanent way?
I will be interested to see them. I could see buying blues and pinks for earrings, and whites to be reset into moi et toi and three stone rings.

Not discernible at all to the naked eyes. They're lab grown, the same in composition as mined diamonds, except missing the traces of carbon date-table old inclusions.

 

[kgizo]

I understand there isn’t any difference to the naked eyes. Earlier in this thread @TreeScientist said:
Could a professional tell the difference? Yes. A watchmaker/professional jeweler who takes the near-perfect Folex to the back of the shop could determine it was a fake, just like a jeweler could tell a MMD from mined diamond with the correct tools.

Regarding the underlined part, I’d like to know if a jeweler could tell the difference for all MMDs or just the Debeers MMDs. Thanks.

 

[Gussie]

I don't believe a jeweler could tell any MMD (LGD) from a mined diamond - except that it is marked. I think it has to be tested in a lab. These are not fakes or simulants. They are the exact same as mined diamonds, just produced in a lab and obviously not as old. Please correct me if I am wrong, anyone!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I don't believe a jeweler could tell any MMD (LGD) from a mined diamond - except that it is marked. I think it has to be tested in a lab. These are not fakes or simulants. They are the exact same as mined diamonds, just produced in a lab and obviously not as old. Please correct me if I am wrong, anyone!

This is correct. If not inscribed, detection is out of the realm of the average jeweler. A well equipped and experienced gemologist can run a few tests that will give a strong indication, but confirmation would be required at a lab.

When jewelers start seeing pinks and blues roll through randomly, they will be able to make pretty good educated guesses!

 

[blueMA]

https://www.brilliantearth.com/lab-created-diamonds/?abv=j1

"Lab diamonds can only be distinguished from natural diamonds using specialized equipment that can detect the minor differences in trace elements and crystal growth."

 

[daneshpastry]

agree w/ @blueMA i think the pricing is too high for what it is. i wonder how diamond in the rough is doing...i think some of their items are beautiful but they're also extremely pricey for what they are, like 5-10k for these eternity bands.

The price is ridiculous for what is basically fashion jewelry in precious metals. I agree they're appealing though - I wouldn't say no to one!

 

[diagem]

Interesting move from De Beers, it will be interesting to follow...
Anti-trust issues? Why would someone say that? Until a couple of days ago, MMD were being marketed to consumers with a direct erred connection to natural diamond values! That seems to me like an “anti-trust” issue, no? Maybe not officially but the consumers will have the last word on this one.

Until two days ago, I have read some vendors we all know the name of were selling their one carat size MMD’s between $7k to approx $3.5k, I would even dare to call this outrageous and a lot of food for thought! I cant even imagine how a consumer feels that just purchased that 2ct TW earrings a month ago?

De Beers are not loosing money in their new venture according to my humble experience in this arena. They are being transparent as this is not their main gig (they can afford to be large in their transparency). Do they have hidden interests?? Probably, but putting a real value on MMD’s based on actual production costs does service to the industry and consumers I believe.

About a year ago, I purchased a few MMD rough to run tests on (which I haven’t yet). Just to inform and give a sense of value..., I purchased a 1 carat cuttable rough MMD crystal which would probably yield a 0.40 carat RB for US$135.— total. The calculation is comfortably there I believe, and that was a year ago.

I have been writing a long time already that MMD’s cannot be priced on a below percentage off of natural diamond prices. This error must have been dealt with. I was sure Swarovski would do the job but De Beers just beat them to it.

 

[Johnbt]

"Debeers is mainly re-framing the narrative about synthetic diamonds "

Somehow you made me think of Toyota. Cars = excitement and pizazzs, right? So what will Toyota give you for $11k?



They throw the laughs in for free.

 

[whitewave]

Absolutely and utterly this. I was comparing a mined diamond with a MMD and was tempted to save 20%. My girlfriend had told me that she didn't mind what I got her, as long as it was white and not too small (if it was small, then a seamless halo).

I honestly think the older generation are losing touch with what millennials are truly after. I don't know a single person that would buy a mined diamond that is 25% of a MMD simply because it came from the ground.

If I am following this thread correctly, your MMD is now worth $800 a carat, no matter what you paid for yours. A mined diamond would still be about 30% less than what you paid at retail.

 

[whitewave]

I don't know how many chicks YOU know, but I have less than zero interest in anything Tiffany. Never have, never will. And neither do any of my friends in various age groups. When hunting for an ER, my husband talked me into visiting Tiffany to look at rings. I was already on PS and laughed at their ridiculous prices and low quality stones, and walked out. Take a look at eBay...it is swimming in Tiffany items that people can't sell even at a fraction of their original cost. SOOOO not exclusive....


I agree wholeheartedly.


I don't think so. Isn't the real reason people wear fake items because they're trying to pretend that they own the genuine item? If not, then why not buy a real item they can afford that doesn't have the caché of the coveted item? I think that says a LOT MORE about them being poseurs than the people they're trying to impress with their fake items.


AMEN!


I think the same thing. I would certainly have MMDs once they start putting them in hair barrettes. I love glittery little baubles for my hair. But I wouldn't consider them for jewelry. I spent too many years not having any REAL jewelry so now that I can afford little bits and pieces here and there, I will only wear real stones, not man-made items simulating real stones. But to each their own.

I have also NEVER wanted anything Tiffany.

 

[WillyDiamond]

Hold on a minute......I read the article and many of the previous posts. Some of the posters are calling these diamonds "fakes". Really? They are the same material that mined diamonds started with.

As far as the youth today.....they have different tastes and pocket book than older people. I am a watch enthusiast. The youth are not buying Rolex or Patek, they buy Apple watches with sync with their phones or corresponding ones that sync with competitive phones. I think someone has to take pause when they can buy a beautiful, flawless diamond for $800 vs. $5500+ for a mined piece. Only a lab can tell the difference not even the trained GIA jeweler at the store?

To the vendors on this forum, I would not be so euphoric.....I think DeBeers just turned the diamond business upside down. Look what happened to the NYC taxi medallions prior to Uber or Lyft. The NYC taxi medallions were selling at over $1m, now they are a fraction of that. The taxi owners hate Uber for coming into their monopolistic space. You diamond dealers have an inventory, now these diamonds hit the market, I say your inventory is worth less.

I'm a consumer, I like a good deal. Let the fun begin.

 

[tkyasx78]

Any mmd over one carat is still worth what it was before; as debeers is not selling any stones over 1 ct

If I am following this thread correctly, your MMD is now worth $800 a carat, no matter what you paid for yours. A mined diamond would still be about 30% less than what you paid at retail.

 

[Johnbt]

Our diamond, symbol of our love, forged in the fires of the Earth down through the ages. A nearly flawless miracle of nature.

Or...

Our diamond, symbol of our love, forged in the fires of the microwave last week on the graveyard shift. A nearly flawless miracle of better living through chemistry.

If you had a free pick, which would you take?

____________

Does Tiffany still do breakfast?

 

[tkyasx78]

I have also NEVER wanted anything Tiffany.

Same here , I find 0 added value in any branded tiffany item and have never looked into one. When buying a diamond or a ring, I would not be interested in the mark up for their products.

 

[tkyasx78]

Hold on a minute......I read the article and many of the previous posts. Some of the posters are calling these diamonds "fakes". Really? They are the same material that mined diamonds started with.

As far as the youth today.....they have different tastes and pocket book than older people. I am a watch enthusiast. The youth are not buying Rolex or Patek, they buy Apple watches with sync with their phones or corresponding ones that sync with competitive phones. I think someone has to take pause when they can buy a beautiful, flawless diamond for $800 vs. $5500+ for a mined piece. Only a lab can tell the difference not even the trained GIA jeweler at the store?

To the vendors on this forum, I would not be so euphoric.....I think DeBeers just turned the diamond business upside down. Look what happened to the NYC taxi medallions prior to Uber or Lyft. The NYC taxi medallions were selling at over $1m, now they are a fraction of that. The taxi owners hate Uber for coming into their monopolistic space. You diamond dealers have an inventory, now these diamonds hit the market, I say your inventory is worth less.

I'm a consumer, I like a good deal. Let the fun begin.

I do not think mmd are fake . Lab ruby is still a ruby and a “real” ruby.


I am not terribly young, but yes I have an apple watch and the only other watch I have is a 14kt gold watch. It was expensive but it is expected to have a band and watch that is 14kt. No, I would not buy a patek or rolex.

For my wedding ring , I have and would want a mined unenhanced diamond. But for earrings / necklaces/ bracelets/ hair pins , you bet I will be happy to spend 900$ on a mmd diamond!

For young kids looking to get married a mmd would be an excellent engagement ring. 900 for the diamond and ss setting and have a jeweler pop it into a solitaire setting and under 2k you have a diamond ring! As long as the wearer knows it is a mmd , it is not a problem!

I dont think diamond vendors will have a problem. Natural diamonds will always be in demand. I would not sell any of my over 1ct diamonds for a mm diamond.

When debeers starts selling 5 ct mmd for 3k ... then we will be having a very different conversation!

 

[stonewell]

I find this all so fascinating... while personally, I prefer natural diamonds for mind-clean reasons, I feel I can finally justify exploring MMDs at these price points. So, I look forward to dipping into the MMD offerings when they’re released - especially the pinks and blues!

What I am following with greater interest is the business strategy behind all of this and its execution. The best defense is a good offense and DeBeers is providing an excellent case study! They certainly aren’t wasting any time reaching out to the public either... I just landed in McCarran airport and came upon huge banners posted there. You can’t avoid the impressions they’re already pushing across to prep the market and adjust paradigms.

 

[Rpb]

For that matter what would now stop another mmd making company to price over 1 carat pieces for say, 1000 dollars per carat... That would change the entire pricing game further...

 

[tkyasx78]

For that matter what would now stop another mmd making company to price over 1 carat pieces for say, 1000 dollars per carat... That would change the entire pricing game further...

That would be a game changer and frankly I would be all over that!!

 

[TreeScientist]

"Debeers is mainly re-framing the narrative about synthetic diamonds "

Somehow you made me think of Toyota. Cars = excitement and pizazzs, right? So what will Toyota give you for $11k?



They throw the laughs in for free.

Haha thank you for reminding me of these. I loved these commercials! And yes, I see the parallels to the Lightbox marketing strategy.

As an aside, the Yaris isn't a bad little car. A friend of mine had one and, while it sucked for my 6'2" frame, it was perfectly comfortable and reliable for her.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

...What does one do if one does not like any of the modern watches available and does not have the ability to find 50k for a 50 year old watch made of stainless steel, that one wouldn't want to wear in some places anyway due to safety concerns and wanting to not damage their 'investment'? A (good) replica can be bought for well under $500, perhaps even half that, so why not get one?

One should look at more watches until one finds something one likes and can afford. I think there are just different ways of looking at things and different personal value systems. Many people don't want a car that looks like a Maserati, they want a Maserati. And that desire for the genuine article runs deep and true for a lot of people, myself included, likely as a result of social conditioning, upbringing, and the terror of the stigma of being seen as a poseur and a fraud. Where I come from, this was simply not an option. I can understand how someone who doesn't have much might be thrilled with a replica of X item, but I truly don't think everyone can embrace that.

Why should what someone is wearing be the subject of judgement of others, though? Does it really matter if A.N.Other person is wearing a $300 copy of a $30000 watch? How does it affect the life of the person doing the viewing?....I think that is the point behind my wording - someone looking at someone else wearing a fake/replica item has zero understanding of the reasoning for their choices unless they stop and ask them about the item and what led them to buy and wear it. If the viewer assumes the wearer is successful / rich / super-hard-working, that is an assumption based on the 'Brand Value' advertising undertaken by the manufacturer of the original item. The viewer should instead not assume anything in particular, other than perhaps the wearer has aesthetic taste that matches the manufacturers' / that of other people who buy them / that of the viewer (if the viewer likes the look of the item in question).

The bolded statement hits the crux of the issue as far as I am concerned. When one sees a person dressed as a police officer, acting like a police officer, talking like a police officer and wearing all the accoutrement of a police officer, one ASSUMES the person is a police officer. Does one not feel deceived to learn that the police officer is a fake and just pretending to be a police officer because they like how it makes them feel? Once one knows of the attempted deception, confidence is diminished in the perpetrator of the deception. Why would I waste my time attempting to understand (or care, frankly) the myriad reasons why someone would choose to display themselves wearing replicas, when I've already lost confidence in who they may or may not be BECAUSE they're wearing replicas?

In any case, I too find the psychology of this subject fascinating, and divergent from the topic at hand. So I will not go further down this rabbit hole, but I will say that the subject touches on very deeply held convictions one way or the other, that one may not have questioned in oneself before.

I think you've picked up on two aspects of great relevance here.
...Would you still have coveted the items mentioned if they could be bought for $20 each at the local mall? Would the attraction to their beauty override the attractiveness imbued by their aspirational nature?

As I said previously, if everyone around me had those items, they would be ordinary and I wouldn't want them. It is the very nature of their rarity and difficulty to attain that enhances their attraction....for me. Personally, I do not like something if everyone has it, and even less so if the marketing is ubiquitous, like iPhones, iPads, iPods, etc. Marketing doesn't work on me very well, it turns me off completely.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hold on a minute......I read the article and many of the previous posts. Some of the posters are calling these diamonds "fakes". Really? They are the same material that mined diamonds started with.

As far as the youth today.....they have different tastes and pocket book than older people. I am a watch enthusiast. The youth are not buying Rolex or Patek, they buy Apple watches with sync with their phones or corresponding ones that sync with competitive phones. I think someone has to take pause when they can buy a beautiful, flawless diamond for $800 vs. $5500+ for a mined piece. Only a lab can tell the difference not even the trained GIA jeweler at the store?

To the vendors on this forum, I would not be so euphoric.....I think DeBeers just turned the diamond business upside down. Look what happened to the NYC taxi medallions prior to Uber or Lyft. The NYC taxi medallions were selling at over $1m, now they are a fraction of that. The taxi owners hate Uber for coming into their monopolistic space. You diamond dealers have an inventory, now these diamonds hit the market, I say your inventory is worth less.

I'm a consumer, I like a good deal. Let the fun begin.

I agree Willy. And I am certainly not euphoric. I have been watching the LGD evolution for quite some time as you might imagine, and over the last couple of years have become alarmed at the approach the growers were taking towards marketing their product. Demonizing the natural diamond industry and claiming (falsely in my opinion) that mmd is the socially responsible choice, and positioning the pricing at some discount to natural when cost structure and rarity is not comparable. These are both extremely misleading marketing approaches to the consumer.

I applaud Debeers for rebooting the discussion and informing the public appropriately on the distinctions between the two products. I don't think any other company would have been capable of throwing down this marker.

When General Electric first synthesized diamond in the lab in 1953, it was just a matter of time before LGD would enter the jewelry market. That time is now and yes, it will be disruptive. And yes, it will take some market share from the natural side. Particularly, as many have pointed out, because of the different buying habits of the new generation. So, if you are in the jewelry industry you better get ready for it.

Having said that, with proper and ethical marketing natural and synthetic can (and I believe will) coexist peacefully in the market, giving consumers more choices and enhancing the beauty of the overall jewelry that many of us enjoy. Debeers is intent on having a say on how that rolls out.

 

[sledge]

You made some really brilliant statements here.

One should look at more watches until one finds something one likes and can afford. I think there are just different ways of looking at things and different personal value systems. Many people don't want a car that looks like a Maserati, they want a Maserati. And that desire for the genuine article runs deep and true for a lot of people, myself included, likely as a result of social conditioning, upbringing, and the terror of the stigma of being seen as a poseur and a fraud. Where I come from, this was simply not an option. I can understand how someone who doesn't have much might be thrilled with a replica of X item, but I truly don't think everyone can embrace that.

Well said. I wish more people followed their hearts and did less to procure items because it's trendy or popular. It drives me crazy that many people lack their own internal drive and determination. While I may not always agree with their opinions, at least they are being true themselves.

The only thing I might add is to never let society, fear or upbringings alter who you are as a person. Earlier I used sunglasses as an example and how I buy the knockoff's because I find zero value in them as a whole, regardless who's name is on them and how much they cost. My social peers has frequently picked on me about this. Thankfully, or not depending on your view, I am bold enough to tell them to go pound sand because I am entitled to my own opinions. Although this is in no way true in regards to the sunglasses, one of the things I like to pop back at said combatants is that, "I set trends, I don't follow them". We usually laugh and it ends the conversation.

The bolded statement hits the crux of the issue as far as I am concerned. When one sees a person dressed as a police officer, acting like a police officer, talking like a police officer and wearing all the accoutrement of a police officer, one ASSUMES the person is a police officer. Does one not feel deceived to learn that the police officer is a fake and just pretending to be a police officer because they like how it makes them feel? Once one knows of the attempted deception, confidence is diminished in the perpetrator of the deception. Why would I waste my time attempting to understand (or care, frankly) the myriad reasons why someone would choose to display themselves wearing replicas, when I've already lost confidence in who they may or may not be BECAUSE they're wearing replicas?

In any case, I too find the psychology of this subject fascinating, and divergent from the topic at hand. So I will not go further down this rabbit hole, but I will say that the subject touches on very deeply held convictions one way or the other, that one may not have questioned in oneself before.

I think the pure aspect of this subject matter changes the psychology in its entirety. It's one thing for someone to wear fake sunglasses, diamonds, watches or bags. It's very different for someone to assume they have protection/safety from a LEO when in reality they don't. That messes with our basic need for shelter and protection in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

As I said previously, if everyone around me had those items, they would be ordinary and I wouldn't want them. It is the very nature of their rarity and difficulty to attain that enhances their attraction....for me. Personally, I do not like something if everyone has it, and even less so if the marketing is ubiquitous, like iPhones, iPads, iPods, etc. Marketing doesn't work on me very well, it turns me off completely.

That last statement is particularly powerful. I am much the same way. The more someone tries to sell me, the more likely I am to go the opposite way. Now if a friend and unbiased source is talking to me like a human, that has effect and sway.

If you really study marketing, it is almost illegal at how they target the general public. Especially kids. Companies are great at creating "need" through their advertisements and making people want/need things to fit in socially and sadly they start pushing that at a very, very young age.

 

[Miki Moto]

Hmmmm... so like the pearls where natural pearls are no longer even thought of anymore. Back in the day when cultured pearls first came on the market after Mikimoto mass created them, the price of natural pearls eventually came crashing down. Today, when most people think pearls, they are buying cultured pearls and not “natural”. The natural pearl buyers are a very limited group.

A strand of pearls was traded for the NYC Cartier building which I expect many are aware of. That is how valuable pearls were, worth the price of a NYC building. Many many years later after cultured pearls became accepted and mainstream in society, that same strand was rumored to have been sold at auction for only a fraction of that amount.

I hope that doesn’t happens to diamonds.

 

[blueMA]

Hmmmm... so like the pearls where natural pearls are no longer even thought of anymore. Back in the day when cultured pearls first came on the market after Mikimoto mass created them, the price of natural pearls eventually came crashing down. Today, when most people think pearls, they are buying cultured pearls and not “natural”. The natural pearl buyers are a very limited group.

A strand of pearls was traded for the NYC Cartier building which I expect many are aware of. That is how valuable pearls were, worth the price of a NYC building. Many many years later after cultured pearls became accepted and mainstream in society, that same strand was rumored to have been sold at auction for only a fraction of that amount.

I hope that doesn’t happens to diamonds.

Yes as you probably already know, round perfect natural pearls were exceptionally rare and valuable. Long ago in many regions, only the royals and aristocracy were able to afford or even allowed to wear pearls. The price tumbled down for the natural pearls because the exclusivity, or the appearance of it, went out the door with cultured pearls.
It's just matter of time...

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Yes as you probably already know, round perfect natural pearls were exceptionally rare and valuable. Long ago in many regions, only the royals and aristocracy were able to afford or even allowed to wear pearls. The price tumbled down for the natural pearls because the exclusivity, or the appearance of it, went out the door with cultured pearls.
It's just matter of time...

Not a perfect analogy however. Natural pearls were so rare that there was no 'commercial' market for them. They were accessible only to the elites. It was an extremely top heavy market, not broad based they way natural diamonds are today. Therefore, cultured pearls were the ONLY pearls the vast majority of consumers could own. That led the market as a whole to pass completely by natural. It was also aided by the fact that cultured saltwater pearls are a substantially natural product, consisting of a natural shell nucleus and nacre produced by the mollusk in the same process as a fully natural pearl.

Interestingly, synthetic diamond growers have tried to use the term 'cultured diamond' . However, they have been rebuffed in that attempt as their process is fully artificial.

 

[Miki Moto]

Interestingly, synthetic diamond growers have tried to use the term 'cultured diamond' . However, they have been rebuffed in that attempt as their process is fully artificial.

That's a key point as cultured pearls are still created by oysters and each pearl is unique, albeit the oysters get a head start creating the pearl by being nucleated. MMDs are truly artificially created, but that was also the thinking about cultured pearls (e.g. fake!) when they first came out.

Then the trade accepted cultured pearls and agreed they were "real", and society accepted it as well. Even before cultured pearls existed, there was glass pearls at very affordable prices, so people could get their hands on a pearl look (e.g. CZ look in diamond-speak). Much like the trade has not accepted a CZ as a diamond, I hope the trade will also not accept MMDs as a natural or "cultured" diamond.

Whether we like it or not... marketing guides our lives and our decisions subconsciously. To those who follow chats/blog/Instagram... those posts at its purest form is marketing, only the marketer is your peer. That's the reason why one person buys Colgate vs Crest, or Nike vs. Reebok, or avocado toast vs. buttered toast.

I hope the trade does not cave to pressure and accept MMDs to allow them to be marketed any differently.

 

[blueMA]

Not a perfect analogy however. Natural pearls were so rare that there was no 'commercial' market for them. They were accessible only to the elites. It was an extremely top heavy market, not broad based they way natural diamonds are today. Therefore, cultured pearls were the ONLY pearls the vast majority of consumers could own. That led the market as a whole to pass completely by natural. It was also aided by the fact that cultured saltwater pearls are a substantially natural product, consisting of a natural shell nucleus and nacre produced by the mollusk in the same process as a fully natural pearl.

Interestingly, synthetic diamond growers have tried to use the term 'cultured diamond' . However, they have been rebuffed in that attempt as their process is fully artificial.

I find it interesting that most people aren't even aware that public in mass have been subliminally conditioned by De Beers marketing over the years to the point that diamond had become the de facto symbol of love where it is culturally acceptable to trade their 3-4 months hard-earned salaries for tiny shiny (not so rare) stones. This was only justified because of the status symbol and the precious exclusivity it represented - which is also the reason why so many on PS keep upgrading their E-ring and ear studs. Soon, all the kids/teenagers will be fashioning the affordable MMD jewelries (along with my dog), and it's simply inevitable that they'll be even more accepting of wearing such due to the early exposure. The dangerous game is that the De Beers marketing of Lightbox will actually legitimize the final push over to the other side and the public acceptance of purchasing MMD.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I would be interested to get opinions from anyone who thinks synthetic diamonds will not go the way of synthetic corundum, synthetic spinel, synthetic alexandrite, synthetic emerald, etc. That is, these beautiful lab grown gems have all the physical and optical properties of the natural and are widely available at very affordable prices (down to pennies per carat), yet there never ceased to be a healthy market for their natural counterparts.

Please feel free to play devil's advocate just for the sake of the thought experiment.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I find it interesting that most people aren't even aware that public in mass have been subliminally conditioned by De Beers marketing over the years to the point that diamond had become the de facto symbol of love where it is culturally acceptable to trade their 3-4 months hard-earned salaries for tiny shiny (not so rare) stones. This was only justified because of the status symbol and the precious exclusivity it represented - which is also the reason why so many on PS keep upgrading their E-ring and ear studs. Soon, all the kids/teenagers will be fashioning the affordable MMD jewelries (along with my dog), and it's simply inevitable that they'll be even more accepting of wearing such due to the early exposure. The dangerous game is that the De Beers marketing of Lightbox will actually legitimize the final push over to the other side and the public acceptance of purchasing MMD.

Where I differ is in the concept that Debeers is playing some dangerous game or that they are 'legitimizing' the product. The product is legitimate and it is here to stay. That's just a reality that Debeers is recognizing. As you point out Debeers have always been market makers/shapers. They are simply taking a significant role in shaping the course of the emerging LGD market. And the course they are taking is to help guide it to it's logical and rightful place within the industry.

They are swimming with the tide, which is a very intelligent play and one likely to be successful in achieving their objectives.