|
- 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.
! p0 X4 y) X: ~" T6 e, q* T/ TCDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,
. ^: i) e. _- ?8 v. b; O emore risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.7 G7 L3 }5 o {
main reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,, q( x: B# J7 e& G u. ~
in other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.* v: q4 g* @1 v
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.; _* [% y6 p9 u$ D2 A
similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,* T' T- O9 G% [) W: W; R
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
- e, n/ P1 k) Z) }) N8 b; jeg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
5 N$ e8 M7 K; Y# q0 }) ^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.( N" |0 Y- n5 {: G
& ]) h: W+ t, e8 W- w3 j
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.% {$ C8 `" y: k1 A
in stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.3 a! z3 w* g. Z0 m4 T& I/ Y1 w
For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
2 H4 g) N+ x: B i& R: XA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.8 Q; N# [7 s `* a; Z
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.
4 q, K* `8 L$ a+ ? V% b. A+ Obut the value of their assets did really drop significantly./ W* w/ J+ C# v
& X( h) X% [: x$ Z[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|
