|
  
- 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.
! Z }# s3 E' I# C$ O* ~CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,: o# U% s; s6 E* J8 ^$ N: O0 r
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.1 N i3 ~4 o+ Q0 D" y
main reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,1 h, o' J$ P6 h
in other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities./ Q3 S" I! [' _7 E5 X
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
' P* T b' Y3 usimilar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,5 W" z7 S% {( D
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
8 R- o( t3 W+ H5 v) M* Leg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
, P- |! b4 O1 Y, Ibanks 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.
' D# N2 @: D& k% o- E* j5 f8 v( `1 Q; [/ [8 W* U7 K( A) k) |
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
a6 J* d; Z, ` y) Cin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
" ~2 l, |4 X1 O* F y% d& g0 lFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
+ {- M& Y: [0 c' |) EA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.$ T; T6 D7 s8 A0 d" @
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.
- C4 X! K/ N% e% D+ e, |6 bbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.$ m2 \! {* C5 }* I
$ }1 z( L5 c' Z+ `" Z[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|