|
- 帖子
- 706
- 精華
- 0
- 威望
- 316
- 魅力
- 150
- 讚好
- 0
- 性別
- 男
|
12#
發表於 2008-10-8 07:03 PM
| 只看該作者
i thought it is the reason of rate of return.
& u6 O9 ~ V2 T6 dCDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,
S) N1 t, J) A3 C% \more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
( L Q& }8 m* H4 [# imain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
3 s' b8 W0 C/ ~9 lin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.5 a& x# j& v3 J/ N
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
/ I1 v% g3 G) s+ M3 r" ?9 @similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,
7 o/ J6 q4 V- B6 N& dnormally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest. ' S9 F+ M6 w/ U9 R: m
eg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
3 I9 c! y4 K$ }% J+ l- cbanks who sell the CDs, could enjoy a few benefits like, the present value of cash and passing the risk of holding a debt to another party.
' v$ p+ E( n8 i }+ o. i2 |3 t4 i+ a, t& c( c B0 `! b/ K
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
! [1 q9 h. \6 l! {- Tin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
, U4 j) p% h( u) D. B; CFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,0 g$ o$ j6 ^2 G% `
A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.- u7 ^/ ^# f" a6 [" d4 j5 ]% k' L2 B
The capital loss that ppl suffer nowadays, i believe, most of them does not really suffer a real $ lost yet as long as they dont sell their securities.
8 F) ? W2 X" {: {" Q6 H" t. bbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
; S$ w' z6 `% g2 Z* ^5 M J
) u4 ^) e* v4 S: ^9 g. `[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|
