|
  
- 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.0 q, z8 c6 N0 }5 u+ E! P; U
CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F," s9 m8 a( l# ?" b: V
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.5 f0 h" W" A& m5 ~$ R% P' D2 ~
main reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
- A( Q- I6 X( s3 C$ w7 zin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.: |( R$ T2 T2 T
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
- P1 j: X0 ^. xsimilar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,
, t1 q( ` {# k' G2 Unormally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest. ! v8 j: h, B9 |+ _
eg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
! _% F, T& z& }! mbanks 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.
& E- y" k( x) w" B3 L/ t$ b/ B$ L4 V/ w! U! _) W6 i
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
- u( a, x* x% n" S) s+ cin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
- t8 |* x. B) }( N( I, m8 [4 NFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,* X& ?3 ?8 \" ^) E4 c
A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.) n8 _ H: k) n- u; h
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. 2 R. I4 @: Z# H$ c4 s- U
but the value of their assets did really drop significantly.) Q; P, x4 z4 T _/ {# v+ S
4 G6 {3 P& ]+ a- `9 w, n
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|