|
  
- 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.
' a( z6 j( Q6 y6 uCDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,
|& T3 f6 L8 xmore risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
: \' J$ s: X7 |% Y4 n% i& {main reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
/ G5 O0 d8 p6 M% min other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.7 t1 h6 D0 o# i7 o
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
+ ^6 f" E( Q) l: V2 {$ R& m2 r$ l. ~) hsimilar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,
/ `" x9 L, U" {9 h2 @& ]normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
* t1 U7 ~4 b/ `. Meg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. * @6 j7 V. Y0 t& r
banks 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.9 w& H4 P/ p+ T8 C: x" H( }
( U( V8 i) ^3 H- O3 q- x7 Z3 j" Aim not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
9 |0 M4 L; Y" f% e7 y b# k' Vin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
" J; E6 G5 A4 DFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
( e% o( r, Q6 L# T- KA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.! s9 m5 y, E9 k5 }3 {' Q& m
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. ( C# K$ ?. R5 G" F
but the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
' y9 B. K* l! p/ a" ?
* t. \, |' s" O[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|