Concord watches

Once, when I was a teenager, my father and I were standing in line to buy tickets for the circus. Finally, there was only one family between us and the ticket counter.

This family made a big impression on me. There were eight children, all probably under the age of 12. You could tell they didn’t have a lot of money.

Their clothes were not expensive, but they were clean. The children were well-behaved, all of them standing in line, two-by-two behind their parents, holding hands. They were excitedly jabbering about the clowns, elephants, and other acts they would see that night.

One could sense they had never been to the circus before. It promised to be a highlight of their young lives. The father and mother were at the head of the pack, standing proud as could be.

The mother was holding her husband’s hand, looking up at him as if to say, “You’re my knight in shining armor.”

He was smiling and basking in pride, looking back at her as if to reply, “You got that right.”

The ticket lady asked the father how many tickets he wanted. He proudly responded, “Please let me buy eight children’s tickets and two adult tickets so I can take my family to the circus.”

The ticket lady quoted the price. The man’s wife let go of his hand, her head dropped, and his lip began to quiver. The father leaned a little closer and asked, “How much did you say?”

The ticket lady again quoted the price. The man didn’t have enough money.

How was he supposed to turn and tell his eight kids that he didn‘t have enough money to take them to the circus? Seeing what was going on, my dad put his hand in his pocket, pulled out a $20 bill and dropped it on the ground. (We were not wealthy in any sense of the word!)

My father reached down, picked up the bill, tapped the man on the shoulder and said, “Excuse me, sir, this fell out of your pocket.”

The man knew what was going on. He wasn’t begging for a handout but certainly appreciated the help in a desperate, heartbreaking, embarrassing situation. He looked straight into my dad’s eyes, took my dad’s hand in both of his, squeezed tightly onto the $20 bill, and with his lip quivering and a tear running down his cheek, he replied, “Thank you, thank you, sir. This really means a lot to me and my family.”

My father and I went back to our car and drove home. We didn’t go to the circus that night, but we didn’t go without.

Some ideas, like vampires, will not die. The graduate tax is such an idea. It cannot be the right solution to a big challenge: how to sustain excellence in UK universities in today’s straitened times.

In its purest form, a graduate tax would impose an extra, income-related impost on the incomes of graduates, with proceeds going to universities. Here are a few difficulties. As a tax, it would not cover non-residents and so would shift the burden from emigrants and students who come from the European Union (more than 100,000 a year!) on to those who remained in the UK. It would, presumably, not apply to those who obtained degrees abroad. It would mean that people with identical incomes and circumstances would pay different tax. There is also little reason to expect that any extra money would go to universities. And last, the UK already has a graduate tax, since graduates must be the predominant payers of higher rates of income tax.

Perhaps, the greatest drawback of moving from the current income-contingent repayment of fees towards a graduate tax is that it would again put the allocation of funds under the control of the state. Yet autonomy is the characteristic of all successful institutions. The introduction of fees – Tony Blair’s greatest achievement in public service provision – was a first, albeit tentative, step in that direction. The UK should foster competition among universities in the provision of high-quality teaching. The role of government is, then, to act as a bank, funding fees up front and taking repayment after graduates reach a threshold income. This is precisely what the present limited system achieves, though at too low a ceiling on fees, at just £3,000 a year.

Yes, this is a debt. But the idea that the British, among the most enthusiastic borrowers in the world, are put off by debt is laughable. If they are convinced that what they receive is worthwhile, they will surely take on the commitment.

Some ideas, like vampires, will not die. The graduate tax is such an idea. It cannot be the right solution to a big challenge: how to sustain excellence in UK universities in today’s straitened times.

In its purest form, a graduate tax would impose an extra, income-related impost on the incomes of graduates, with proceeds going to universities. Here are a few difficulties. As a tax, it would not cover non-residents and so would shift the burden from emigrants and students who come from the European Union (more than 100,000 a year!) on to those who remained in the UK. It would, presumably, not apply to those who obtained degrees abroad. It would mean that people with identical incomes and circumstances would pay different tax. There is also little reason to expect that any extra money would go to universities. And last, the UK already has a graduate tax, since graduates must be the predominant payers of higher rates of income tax.

Perhaps, the greatest drawback of moving from the current income-contingent repayment of fees towards a graduate tax is that it would again put the allocation of funds under the control of the state. Yet autonomy is the characteristic of all successful institutions. The introduction of fees – Tony Blair’s greatest achievement in public service provision – was a first, albeit tentative, step in that direction. The UK should foster competition among universities in the provision of high-quality teaching. The role of government is, then, to act as a bank, funding fees up front and taking repayment after graduates reach a threshold income. This is precisely what the present limited system achieves, though at too low a ceiling on fees, at just £3,000 a year.

Yes, this is a debt. But the idea that the British, among the most enthusiastic borrowers in the world, are put off by debt is laughable. If they are convinced that what they receive is worthwhile, they will surely take on the commitment.

Some ideas, like vampires, will not die. The graduate tax is such an idea. It cannot be the right solution to a big challenge: how to sustain excellence in UK universities in today’s straitened times.

In its purest form, a graduate tax would impose an extra, income-related impost on the incomes of graduates, with proceeds going to universities. Here are a few difficulties. As a tax, it would not cover non-residents and so would shift the burden from emigrants and students who come from the European Union (more than 100,000 a year!) on to those who remained in the UK. It would, presumably, not apply to those who obtained degrees abroad. It would mean that people with identical incomes and circumstances would pay different tax. There is also little reason to expect that any extra money would go to universities. And last, the UK already has a graduate tax, since graduates must be the predominant payers of higher rates of income tax.

Perhaps, the greatest drawback of moving from the current income-contingent repayment of fees towards a graduate tax is that it would again put the allocation of funds under the control of the state. Yet autonomy is the characteristic of all successful institutions. The introduction of fees – Tony Blair’s greatest achievement in public service provision – was a first, albeit tentative, step in that direction. The UK should foster competition among universities in the provision of high-quality teaching. The role of government is, then, to act as a bank, funding fees up front and taking repayment after graduates reach a threshold income. This is precisely what the present limited system achieves, though at too low a ceiling on fees, at just £3,000 a year.

Yes, this is a debt. But the idea that the British, among the most enthusiastic borrowers in the world, are put off by debt is laughable. If they are convinced that what they receive is worthwhile, they will surely take on the commitment.

Some ideas, like vampires, will not die. The graduate tax is such an idea. It cannot be the right solution to a big challenge: how to sustain excellence in UK universities in today’s straitened times.

In its purest form, a graduate tax would impose an extra, income-related impost on the incomes of graduates, with proceeds going to universities. Here are a few difficulties. As a tax, it would not cover non-residents and so would shift the burden from emigrants and students who come from the European Union (more than 100,000 a year!) on to those who remained in the UK. It would, presumably, not apply to those who obtained degrees abroad. It would mean that people with identical incomes and circumstances would pay different tax. There is also little reason to expect that any extra money would go to universities. And last, the UK already has a graduate tax, since graduates must be the predominant payers of higher rates of income tax.

Perhaps, the greatest drawback of moving from the current income-contingent repayment of fees towards a graduate tax is that it would again put the allocation of funds under the control of the state. Yet autonomy is the characteristic of all successful institutions. The introduction of fees – Tony Blair’s greatest achievement in public service provision – was a first, albeit tentative, step in that direction. The UK should foster competition among universities in the provision of high-quality teaching. The role of government is, then, to act as a bank, funding fees up front and taking repayment after graduates reach a threshold income. This is precisely what the present limited system achieves, though at too low a ceiling on fees, at just £3,000 a year.

Yes, this is a debt. But the idea that the British, among the most enthusiastic borrowers in the world, are put off by debt is laughable. If they are convinced that what they receive is worthwhile, they will surely take on the commitment.

If a graduate tax is an absurdity and provision of extra money from general revenue is inconceivable in today’s circumstances, where is the extra money to come from to ensure high-quality teaching? Since today’s fees, plus government contribution, do not cover these costs, this is a central question. There are three answers: cross-subsidisation from other sources of income; gifts; and higher fees. Raising the latter has to be the principal recommendation of the review of higher education funding being undertaken by Lord Browne, former chairman of BP. Yes, that will be unpopular. But, given the unpopularity of what the government is already committed to doing, it is almost a bagatelle.

The question is how to make such an increase in fees both workable and palatable. Workability must involve the elimination of the huge interest-rate subsidy. What about making it more palatable? Here the thoughts of Vince Cable, secretary of state for business, innovation and skills, are relevant. He condemns the present arrangement as a “poll tax” (though it is a fee for services). He argues that “it surely can’t be right that a teacher or care worker or research scientist is expected to pay the same graduate contribution as a top commercial lawyer or surgeon or City analyst whose graduate premium is so much bigger.” His solution is a “variable graduate contribution tied to earnings”.

Is this any more than a graduate tax? In theory, yes. One could imagine “equity contracts” in which universities replaced (or, more likely, supplemented) fixed fees with shares in future earnings. This would preserve the autonomy of fees, while creating what many consider greater fairness. The question is whether such equity contracts could work. Could the UK government enforce such contracts across the world? Could universities do so directly? Yes, the idea can be considered. But it is surely too complex to execute.

Forget a general tax on graduates. Eliminate the unaffordable interest-rate subsidy. Raise the fee limit, while making universities raise money for bursaries. Think about equity contracts. But remember that the aim is to support autonomy. A proposal that fails here simply fails.

Increasing demand for alternative sources of energy in Asia is helping drive performance in the renewable energy sector, according to Impax Asset Management.

Bruce Jenkyn-Jones, managing director of listed equities and investment manager at Impax Environmental Management, said his exposure to the region, at present about 20 per cent, would rise in the future.

Europe has traditionally been the dominant market for renewables but, he argues, burgeoning economies such as India need to have sustainable energy and high-quality infrastructure to drive their growth.

Mr Jenkyn-Jones, also portfolio manager for Impax Environmental Markets, says: “Asia woke up around the spike in oil price at $150 a barrel when it realised how dependent it was on imported oil and gas.

“Another example was during the Beijing Olympics when there was concern about air quality. This shows how environmental issues are important to support economic growth.”

Reflecting this, the most recent addition to the fund is Jain Irrigation Systems, an Indian company, which Mr Jenkyn-Jones says has developed a system which could help the country grow crops more cheaply.

Other drivers of growth have come from the ongoing BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and merger and acquisition activity.

“BP, in the short, medium and long term has had an effect. In the short term, we have invested in companies which provide clean-up solutions. More interesting though is the potential long-term energy policy in the US,” he says.

Mr Jenkyn-Jones says US president Barack Obama has made good progress with healthcare and financial reform and would be likely to use the political capital the BP disaster offers to try and push through energy reform.

Merger and acquisition activity has also proved fruitful for Impax, Mr Jenkyn-Jones says, with his investment in Chloride, which was the subject of a high-profile bidding war between Emerson Electric and Switzerland’s ABB, proving lucrative.

In addition, at least six of Impax’s holdings have been taken over by General Electric alone in the past decade, creating a “very profitable period” for the fund, Mr Jenkyn-Jones says.

Other positives in the sector include the UK’s Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government’s confirmation that £72.4m (€85.7m, $110.6m) of support for wind projects announced under Labour will go ahead. The new government has also brought forward legislation to establish a “green” investment bank by the autumn.

Beyond this, Mr Jenkyn-Jones says the sector has almost never looked so favourable with low valuations and high growth potential.

“The p/e [price/earnings] ratio of Impax Environmental Management is 16 with expected earnings growth for the next 12 months of over 30 per cent,” he says.

“This compares with a historic range for the fund [pre-financial crisis] of 18-22 times with average earnings growth of 20-25 per cent.”

The fund returned 17.9 per cent in the year to June 30 but has lost 6.6 per cent over the last three years, outstripping the respective figures of 0.8 per cent and -17.5 per cent for the FTSE Environmental Technology index, The broader MSCI World Small Cap index returned 20.9 per cent in dollar terms in the year to June 30, but has lost 26.4 per cent over three years.

He that has no money might as well be buried in a rice tub with his mouth sewn up – Chinese proverb

No wonder China’s respect for the US and Europe has dwindled. The Chinese take a dim view of poverty. That is because, historically, it has had so much of it to go round. Fear of destitution has underpinned the country’s high savings rate, though these days companies actually account for a bigger share of national savings than households. Still, Chinese people – like those in many parts of Asia – remain wary of debt. In China, a high proportion of cars, even houses, are paid for in cash. Chinese officials talk scornfully about US consumers’ proclivity to buy now and figure out the consequences later. Through this prism, the made-in-America crisis is seen as a modern morality tale in which reckless governments and citizens got their comeuppance.

Asian policymakers have been reasonably restrained about shoving this view down western gullets, though at times the temptation has been irresistible. After the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Chinese went through a phase of lecturing the US on the virtues of frugality. Just as Washington – and for that matter Beijing – was cranking up its mammoth stimulus, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China’s central bank, was urging the US to rein in excess. “Over-consumption and a high reliance on credit is the cause of the US financial crisis,” he pronounced. “The US should take the initiative to adjust its policies, raise its savings ratio appropriately and reduce its trade and fiscal deficits.”

Such remarks may have been partly tactical rather than a policy recommendation. Chinese officials were fed up with being badgered about the renminbi. By going on the offensive, they hoped to deflect criticism of their policies. In recent months, there has been less US-bashing, possibly because Asian economies remain dependent on exports, however well they have done in stimulating domestic demand. In so far as there is a consistent Asian message, it is: “Be virtuous. But not quite yet.”

However much Asians trumpet the value of parsimony, their governments have been as bold as any in opening the fiscal sluices. One reason is the bitter memory of the 1997 Asian financial crisis when the International Monetary Fund imposed fiscal austerity on several Asian countries. Those measures are now almost universally seen as a blunder that unnecessarily exacerbated economic misery.

Asian governments have taken the lesson to heart. According to the Fitch ratings agency, fiscal stimulus packages as a percentage of gross domestic product amounted to 6.9 per cent for Vietnam, 7.7 per cent for Thailand, 8 per cent for Singapore, 13.5 per cent for China, and a whopping 14.6 per cent for Japan. Taiwan, with a relatively modest stimulus of 3.8 per cent, gave $100 spending vouchers to each of its 23m inhabitants, including convicts. The Singaporean government subsidised businesses that retained staff. In China, the mother of all stimulus packages funnelled $585bn of spending into the economy, and even more through directing state-controlled banks to increase credit.

The scale of Asia’s stimulus may have matched, even surpassed, the west. But the context has been entirely different. Asian governments had plumped-up their fiscal cushions after the 1997 crisis, building a formidable pool of reserves. Such “prudence” meant, rather bizarrely, that poor countries such as China were foregoing spending and investment in order to facilitate rich foreigner’ binge-buying. But it also meant that, when the crunch came, they had the wherewithal to spend.

   We all know the line: “there’s a Hello Kitty everything.” And yet, I still manage to be surprised when I hear about new HK products! Over at Topless Robot Rob has spotted the latest travesty: Hello Kitty beer.

   It’s actually a really odd product. Apparently a joint venture between Sanrio and German brewery Beck’s, the labeling is pink and even sports a “female” symbol a well as Hello Kitty’s doubtlessly intoxicated face…but the bottle is still a manly green, which, um, is really ugly with pink, if you ask me. I mean, I could have forgiven the big burly BECKS logo, but couldn’t they have switched to a clear bottle, or even just a more standard brownish tint? I dunno.

   Of course, this is hardly Hello Kitty’s first alcoholic beverage– after all, she was created in 1974, so she’s ben legal for almost 15 years.  She’s hawked her own wine, sake, martinis, you name it. And I’m willing to bet that there are some bars in Japan with drinks illicitly named after the pop culture icon (and maybe some with legit drinks too). but ,if someone came to your con party with a six-pack of these, and you were legally of age to drink…would you?

   Javier Pastore is a very young professional football talent from Argentina who currently plays with the Italian Serie A club Palermo. He is also part of the Argentina national selection for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. Concord is happy to announce that this promising player is now the proud owner of a C1 Chronograph timepiece.

    During a visit to the Concord official retailer Joyería Danfer in Buenos Aires, he was presented with the latest models of the C1 Collection by their Sales Director, Mr. Facundo Gallo. After hesitating between various models, his choice finally rested on the stainless steel and white rubber chronograph, C1 Pure.

It is well-known that Concord Watches are among the beloved watches all over the world. Founded in Bienne Switzerland in 1908, Concord has continuously designed impressive watches of distinction and character. They are world renowned for pioneering the world’s thinnest watch with the creation of the Concord watch, Delirium, in 1979. Concord watches continues to set new standards in the watchmaking industry, designing sophisticated and one-of-a-kind bejeweled creations as well as timepieces of unsurpassed technical complication.

Concord Saratoga SL 0301003 has following features:

Series: Saratoga SL
Model: 0301003
Movement: Quartz
Case: Yellow Gold set with Diamonds
Bracelet: Yellow Gold set with Diamonds
Size: 25mm
Dial: Silver Diamond

Founded in 1908 in Biel Switzerland the brand was created to design watches with the American market in mind. Concord has had a few innovations in their history such as being one of the first “private label” luxury watches to incorporate precious metals and gems in their watches. They were also the first company to make a wristwatch made of coins. In 1979 they had a major breakthrough with the invention of the Delirium Watch which was the thinnest watch ever made at the time at 1.98 mm thick. They subsequently released a delirium 2 which was even thinner at 1.5 mm.

In 2007 the company made a drastic change in its vision. It closed most of it’s existing dealerships as sluggish sales and lack of a specific market created a huge grey market that hurt the company’s reputation. The launch of the C1 was highly touted and targeted the ever popular luxury sport market. The style and pricing were designed to compete with watches such as Panerai, AP and Hublot. With only a couple hundred dealers worldwide Concord was hoping for a grand relaunch into the Luxury sector. In 2008 Concord created two new C1 pieces. The C1 worldtimer and the C1 Gravity Tourbillion. The later won the prestigious “Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Geneve” as “Best design of the year 2008”. Whether this success will lead to ultimate success remains to be seen.

In 2009, Alex Grinberg was appointed as the worldwide CEO of Concord.

Sioux Indian story …

My grandfather took me to the fish pond on the farm when I was about seven, and he told me to throw a stone into the water. He told me to watch the circles created by the stone. Then he asked me to think of myself as that stone.

“You may create lots of splashes in your life, but the waves that come from those splashes will disturb the peace of all your fellow creatures,” he said.

“Remember that you are responsible for what you put in your circle and that circle will also touch many other circles.”

“You will need to live in a way that allows the good that comes from your circle to send the peace of that goodness to others. The splash that comes from anger or jealousy will send those feelings to other circles. You are responsible for both.”

That was the first time I realized that each person creates the inner peace or discord that flows out into the world. We cannot create world peace if we are riddled with inner conflict, hatred, doubt, or anger.

We radiate the feelings and thoughts that we hold inside, whether we speak them or not. Whatever is splashing around inside of us is spilling out into the world, creating beauty or discord with all other circles of life.

A young man was getting ready to graduate from college. For many months he had admired a beautiful sports car in a dealer’s showroom, and knowing his father could well afford it, he told him that was all he wanted.

As Graduation Day approached, the young man awaited signs that his father had purchased the car. Finally, on the morning of his graduation, his father called him into his private study. His father told him how proud he was to have such a fine son, and told him how much he loved him. He handed his son a beautiful wrapped gift box. Curious, but somewhat disappointed, the young man opened the box and found a lovely, leather-bound Bible, with the young man’s name embossed in gold. Angrily, he raised his voice to his father and said, “With all your money you give me a Bible?” He then stormed out of the house, leaving the Bible.

Many years passed and the young man was very successful in business. He had a beautiful home and a wonderful family, but realizing his father was very old, he thought perhaps he should go to see him. He had not seen him since that graduation day. Before he could make the arrangements, he received a telegram telling him his father had passed away, and willed all of his possessions to his son. He needed to come home immediately and take care of things.

When he arrived at his father’s house, sudden sadness and regret filled his heart. He began to search through his father’s important papers and saw the still new Bible, just as he had left it years ago. With tears, he opened the Bible and began to turn the pages. As he was reading, a car key dropped from the back of the Bible. It had a tag with the dealer’s name, the same dealer who had the sports car he had desired. On the tag was the date of his graduation, and the words… “PAID IN FULL”.

How many times do we miss blessings because they are not packaged as we expected? Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; but remember that what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for.

Sometimes we don’t realize the good fortune we have or we could have because we expect “the packaging” to be different. What may appear as bad fortune may in fact be the door that is just waiting to be opened.