The truth behind online sales

Call them flash sales, secret sales or private sales, they all mean one thing: deals that promise heavy discounts for a limited period of time. A concept that is extremely popular abroad, online flash sales have now found their way into India.

But how is an online flash sale different from a store sale that luxury brands and designers often hold? Vehbi Sinan Tunalioglu, CEO, Brandmile.com, an Indian flash sale portal, explains the difference: "While both processes help suppliers liquidate their excess inventory, our main difference (when compared with brick and mortar stores) is the reach that we provide as our customers can buy the merchandise from any part of the country."

But are these 'super-saver deals' as great as the online sellers make them sound? Let's take a look at what lies beneath.

The lure of discounts It's hard not to reach for your wallet instantly when you come across a deal promising a 50% discount. Such heavy discounts are par for online sellers, who even claim to offer up to 70% discounts. But it's tough to determine the genuineness of these. As most sceptical buyers will tell you, sellers often hike the mark-up price and then offer a heavy discount. For instance, a flash sale portal was offering a designer handbag from Coach on 23 February at a discounted rate of Rs 16,999, claiming the original shelf price as Rs 33,525.

Evidently, the rate has been slashed by about 50%. However, when cross-checked on the US retail website for Coach, the same bag was priced at $298 (Rs 14,602). Amazon too had a similar bag which it can ship to India for a total delivery charge of $47 (Rs 2,303). Obviously, your total expenditure would be Rs 16,905. So, would you actually end up saving money if you buy from the sale?

The tag of exclusivity
Indian luxury flash sale portals claim to offer exclusive memberships. However, this is just an illusion. You don't strictly need to be 'invited-in'. Anyone can become a member by registering directly on the portal and then inviting anybody they want. In fact, some websites reward you with credit points each time one of your referrals makes their first purchase on the portal. So, if 99labels.com boasts about four lakh registered users, it would make your 'exclusive access' seem like a pin in the haystack.

Another hitch is that though you'll get trendy designer wear, it's going to be, unfortunately, last season's trends. Most of these sites, such as Fetise.com, mention clearly that they sell previous seasons' garments which have not deteriorated in quality. Other sites, such as Exclusively.in, will offer products from up-and-coming designers like Namrata Joshipura, Anaikka, and Raakesh Agarvwal, who would like to liquidate their unsold and excess inventory through these sites. Abdul Halder, a Bangalore-based fashion designer, says, "Usually, the products offered on flash sale sites are from a designer's existing collection. They often include products that haven't been showcased previously but are included to widen the product range, and, to an extent, make the deal more viable economically." So, if you are coveting a designer dress for less, be prepared to compromise a bit on the 'current season's trends.'

There is no race
Flash sales cash in on the urgency factor. They last for a day or two, or a week at the maximum. The deals are available for a limited time, but, you must ignore the ticking clock before you buy. Says Naina Singh, a 30-year-old advertising executive: "I came across a so-called exclusive deal on a sale portal, which was offering a six-piece Giordano travel combo set for about Rs 7,000, for only three days. I was still trying to make up my mind when the deal got over. After almost a month, I saw the deal again on the same website. What's more, the same set was also being offered under my credit card reward point scheme."

Though most websites feature only a handful of deals at a time, they need to constantly bring out new deals every week. There's no guarantee that their inventory will be sold, which is why the old deals get repeated after some time.

Check whether the product being sold for a limited period is also available on other sites. For instance, at a perfume sale for four days on FashionandYou.com, a 100 ml bottle of Hugo Boss No. 6 eau de toilette was available for Rs 2,975, while the online retailer Perfume2order.com is offering the same product for Rs 2,790. The more interesting part: While the former claims the original price to be Rs 3,800, the latter says it's Rs 4,900. No wonder, buyers are wary of the claims made by most online sellers.

Should you go with the crowd?
Flash sales on a group deal site, such as Crazeal.com and Mydala.com offer discounts on restaurants, trips and events only if a certain minimum number of buyers opt for the deal. So, the first thing you need to check is whether the booking amount will be refunded to you if the deal is cancelled due to a lack of buyers. Some consumer forums have complaints lodged by buyers of how the travel vouchers they had bought from deal sites were not honoured by the hotel or tour organiser, which claimed that they had no vacancies.

This led to the vouchers expiring and a loss for the buyers. However, sale portals are taking measures to resolve these issues. Says Ankur Warikoo, CEO, Crazeal.com: "We have proactively taken steps to review our customer policy which has led to a 90% drop in complaints. For travel deals, the merchant contact is always visible and we have put in place a 100% refund policy on travel deals within 14 days of purchase."

So, check the fine print carefully before opting for a travel deal from any flash sale portal. For how long is the travel voucher valid? Is it inclusive of everything or only the room rate? Will you have to pay a penalty if you cancel after booking?

Flash sales work best for discerning shoppers who can trawl the Net or those who are well aware of the retail store prices. For the newbie who wants to indulge in retail therapy online, it might be better to visit lots of similar sites and compare the prices of the deals before zeroing in on one.

Like This 1 | 2 Comments

View the original article here

Reclusive twins, 73, leave behind mystery in death

Patricia and Joan Miller were identical twins who pursued their dreams together. As a team, the Miller sisters met Bing Crosby, appeared on a TV show in the 1950s and purchased a house in California's picturesque South Lake Tahoe.

Their shared life ended in a mysterious double-death at their home last week. One body was in a downstairs bedroom, and the other was in the hallway just outside. They were 73.

There was no blood, no signs of struggle. Nothing indicated that the women had persistent health troubles. Their longtime home was not unkempt, a likely sign of mental or physical illness.

It was as if the two sisters, long each other's only companion, could not live without each other, said Detective Matt Harwood with the El Dorado County sheriff's office.

"My perception is one died and the other couldn't handle it," said Harwood, who has been unable to find any close friends or family members of the twins. "It appears purely natural, but we are still trying to piece it all together."

Police usually do not release the names of the dead without first informing their relatives, but the sisters' shrouded lives made that impossible, Harwood said.

Never married and without children or pets, the Miller sisters had long withdrawn into the four-bedroom home they purchased in 1976. When people called, the sisters came up with excuses to get off the phone. Without explanation, they stopped sending birthday cards to a childhood friend. And on the rare occasion when they left their home, the two women didn't chat up the neighbors.

"The circumstance surrounding their death is somewhat of an enigma," Harwood said. "These two only ever had each other, and we would like, at least for their sake, to notify their family."

A neighbor spotted an ambulance at the house a year ago and assumed the sisters had fallen ill. Someone asked police to check regularly on the house. When officers arrived Feb. 25 for a routine check, no one answered the door. The next day, police forced their way in and found the bodies.

As news of the deaths spread, former South Lake Tahoe residents called police to report that they had lived near the sisters for decades in some cases, and had hardly seen them. One sent in a postcard that claimed the sisters were the only remaining members of their family after their mother's death and their brother died at war.

Calls Tuesday to several longtime residents and social groups in the area turned up little, as many community leaders said they had never heard of the sisters.

Joan Miller was a senior accounting clerk in the payroll department at the Lake Tahoe Unified School District from 1979 to 1984. Patricia Miller, who drove a white convertible with red upholstery, worked in the El Dorado County's social services office during that same time.

"I never heard of anyone else being in either of their lives," said Betty Mitchell, 89, who supervised Patricia Miller in the social services office and saw the twins around town. "They were inseparable and really identical."

The sisters were friendly and often told stories of their singing adventures. They told Mitchell they had performed at Yosemite National Park and when their mother came to visit from Oregon, they all dined at Mitchell's home.

But the sisters were also guarded. When Mitchell urged them to join a community choir, they declined. They never discussed their social lives.

"They kept things to themselves," Mitchell said. "I don't even know if they had siblings."

The sisters grew up in Portland, Ore., before moving to the San Francisco area, where Joan Miller attended college, Harwood learned. The women briefly appeared on a 1950s television show called the "The Hoffman Hayride" and posed for a picture with Crosby as children. The twins also entertained troops at military bases, a childhood friend told Harwood.

The sisters never seemed interested in dating or expanding their social spheres. They listed each other as their next of kin, Harwood said.

"All they had was each other, and that's actually the way they wanted it," he said.

Joyce Peterson of the International Twins Association, a social group based in Oklahoma, said she once heard of 100-year-old twins who died within days of each other.

"As a twin, you've got this bond, you're close — almost like a married couple," said Peterson, of Minnesota, who serves as co-vice president of the group with her identical sister. "It's a bond no one else can understand."

The Miller twins appeared in poor health recently and possibly had been treated a year ago for dehydration or malnutrition, Harwood said.

Neighbors would call and the sisters would say, "Let me call you right back," and then wouldn't.

"They weren't taking care of themselves as they should or could have," Harwood said.

View the original article here

$7 billion swindle may keep Texas tycoon behind bars for life

HOUSTON (AP) — Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford spent more than 20 years charming investors, who handed him billions of dollars they had spent their lives accumulating through hard work and saving.

Stanford promised them safe investments that would help fulfill their dreams of being able to retire comfortably or pay their children's college tuition. All the while, he was pulling their money out of his Caribbean bank to pay for a string of failed businesses and a jet-setting lifestyle.

Stanford, once considered one of the wealthiest people in the U.S., with a financial empire that spanned the Americas, was convicted Tuesday on charges he bilked investors out of more than $7 billion.

Prosecutors said his business acumen was nothing more than an old-fashioned Ponzi scheme, and jurors convicted him on 13 of 14 charges, including conspiracy, wire and mail fraud. He was acquitted on a single count of wire fraud that accused him of bribing a regulator with Super Bowl tickets.

Stanford looked down when the verdict was read in federal court in Houston, where his financial empire was based. His mother and daughters hugged one another, and one of his daughters started crying.

"We are disappointed in the outcome. We expect to appeal," Stanford attorney Ali Fazel said after the hearing. He said he couldn't comment further because of a gag order placed on attorneys in the case.

Prosecutors and Stanford's relatives declined to comment on the verdict, but former investor Cassie Wilkinson found comfort in it.

"As an investor, you have to doubt whether or not you were stupid or just taken advantage of. This relieves that doubt. It's a vindication," said Wilkinson, 62, who lives in Houston. She declined to say how much money she and her husband lost.

A civil trial in which prosecutors hope to seize about $300 million from more than 30 Stanford-controlled accounts in countries including Switzerland, Britain and Canada started later Tuesday before the same jury and will continue Wednesday. U.S. District Judge David Hittner will likely set Stanford's sentencing date after the civil trial, which could last as little as a full day.

Jurors have been told not to comment on the case until the civil trial ends.

The most serious charges against Stanford carry up to 20 years in prison, and if Hittner ordered him to serve his sentences consecutively, the 61-year-old could spend the rest of his life behind bars.

In a similar but unrelated case, disgraced financier Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for orchestrating the largest Ponzi scheme in history.

Prosecutors say Stanford used investors' money to fund a string of failed businesses, bribe regulators and pay for luxuries such as yachts and private jets. His attorneys portrayed Stanford as a visionary entrepreneur who made money for investors and conducted legitimate business deals.

Stanford's net worth was once estimated at more than $2 billion, but he received court-appointed attorneys after his assets were seized or frozen.

During the more than six-week trial, prosecutors presented testimony from ex-employees, emails and financial statements that they said showed how Stanford took billions of dollars over 20 years from certificates of deposit, or CDs, at his bank on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua. They said he lied to investors from more than 100 countries, telling them their funds were being safely invested in stocks, bonds and other securities.

The prosecution's star witness — James M. Davis, the former chief financial officer for Stanford's various companies — told jurors he and Stanford worked together to falsify bank records and other documents to conceal the fraud.

Stanford did not testify in his own defense.

His attorneys told jurors the financier was trying to consolidate his businesses to repay investors when authorities seized his companies. They accused Davis of being behind the fraud and lying to get a reduced sentence.

Davis pleaded guilty to three fraud and conspiracy charges in 2009 as part of a deal with prosecutors.

Three other former Stanford executives are scheduled for trial in September. A former Antiguan financial regulator accused of accepting bribes from Stanford also was indicted and awaits extradition to the U.S.

Stanford, the largest private employer on Antigua, was widely known as "Sir Allen" after being knighted by the island nation's government.

The financier's trial was delayed after he was declared incompetent in January 2011 due to an anti-anxiety drug addiction he developed in jail. He underwent treatment and was declared fit for trial in December.

A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit that also accuses Stanford and his former executives of fraud is pending.

___

Follow Juan A. Lozano at http://www.twitter.com/juanlozano70

View the original article here

$7 billion swindle may keep Texas tycoon behind bars for life

HOUSTON (AP) — Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford spent more than 20 years charming investors, who handed him billions of dollars they had spent their lives accumulating through hard work and saving.

Stanford promised them safe investments that would help fulfill their dreams of being able to retire comfortably or pay their children's college tuition. All the while, he was pulling their money out of his Caribbean bank to pay for a string of failed businesses and a jet-setting lifestyle.

Stanford, once considered one of the wealthiest people in the U.S., with a financial empire that spanned the Americas, was convicted Tuesday on charges he bilked investors out of more than $7 billion.

Prosecutors said his business acumen was nothing more than an old-fashioned Ponzi scheme, and jurors convicted him on 13 of 14 charges, including conspiracy, wire and mail fraud. He was acquitted on a single count of wire fraud that accused him of bribing a regulator with Super Bowl tickets.

Stanford looked down when the verdict was read in federal court in Houston, where his financial empire was based. His mother and daughters hugged one another, and one of his daughters started crying.

"We are disappointed in the outcome. We expect to appeal," Stanford attorney Ali Fazel said after the hearing. He said he couldn't comment further because of a gag order placed on attorneys in the case.

Prosecutors and Stanford's relatives declined to comment on the verdict, but former investor Cassie Wilkinson found comfort in it.

"As an investor, you have to doubt whether or not you were stupid or just taken advantage of. This relieves that doubt. It's a vindication," said Wilkinson, 62, who lives in Houston. She declined to say how much money she and her husband lost.

A civil trial in which prosecutors hope to seize about $300 million from more than 30 Stanford-controlled accounts in countries including Switzerland, Britain and Canada started later Tuesday before the same jury and will continue Wednesday. U.S. District Judge David Hittner will likely set Stanford's sentencing date after the civil trial, which could last as little as a full day.

Jurors have been told not to comment on the case until the civil trial ends.

The most serious charges against Stanford carry up to 20 years in prison, and if Hittner ordered him to serve his sentences consecutively, the 61-year-old could spend the rest of his life behind bars.

In a similar but unrelated case, disgraced financier Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for orchestrating the largest Ponzi scheme in history.

Prosecutors say Stanford used investors' money to fund a string of failed businesses, bribe regulators and pay for luxuries such as yachts and private jets. His attorneys portrayed Stanford as a visionary entrepreneur who made money for investors and conducted legitimate business deals.

Stanford's net worth was once estimated at more than $2 billion, but he received court-appointed attorneys after his assets were seized or frozen.

During the more than six-week trial, prosecutors presented testimony from ex-employees, emails and financial statements that they said showed how Stanford took billions of dollars over 20 years from certificates of deposit, or CDs, at his bank on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua. They said he lied to investors from more than 100 countries, telling them their funds were being safely invested in stocks, bonds and other securities.

The prosecution's star witness — James M. Davis, the former chief financial officer for Stanford's various companies — told jurors he and Stanford worked together to falsify bank records and other documents to conceal the fraud.

Stanford did not testify in his own defense.

His attorneys told jurors the financier was trying to consolidate his businesses to repay investors when authorities seized his companies. They accused Davis of being behind the fraud and lying to get a reduced sentence.

Davis pleaded guilty to three fraud and conspiracy charges in 2009 as part of a deal with prosecutors.

Three other former Stanford executives are scheduled for trial in September. A former Antiguan financial regulator accused of accepting bribes from Stanford also was indicted and awaits extradition to the U.S.

Stanford, the largest private employer on Antigua, was widely known as "Sir Allen" after being knighted by the island nation's government.

The financier's trial was delayed after he was declared incompetent in January 2011 due to an anti-anxiety drug addiction he developed in jail. He underwent treatment and was declared fit for trial in December.

A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit that also accuses Stanford and his former executives of fraud is pending.

___

Follow Juan A. Lozano at http://www.twitter.com/juanlozano70

View the original article here