|
  
- 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.
, y; P7 d* O( R/ g. ?# jCDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,! r+ w0 F- O# ]
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.2 L$ d% F( I* Y3 h
main reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
0 {1 ~2 a- J, M" G" Vin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.
/ V; z! v/ g1 v" P! gAlso, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.- l' @& |& w* O& G# O! \, I
similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,- T: R, u/ A) n% _/ ~
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest. ' r/ G6 P+ } Z
eg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. & M8 i, W) D+ W. H0 b* t
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.: q: q2 w7 A$ {' |& t$ A
/ {- I& q% p9 \6 `; j
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.4 b0 `* }- j' c+ n4 a3 i
in stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
7 k6 G6 w+ a8 N7 o8 B, a0 H; TFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,( P# i9 `) e& V. h- b7 S
A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
4 I+ G! O5 C3 c, z" m% R3 eThe 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.
* ?, Z+ Q& f$ N; Lbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.& b7 k: s, l4 D* x6 U
! {! ?: e+ p7 L' c! u[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|