|
- 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.
) f! q7 \/ M0 e7 f# ^7 C XCDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,) z1 { ]4 G: ?
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.9 c6 y/ A2 c" d
main reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
* Z' O* F6 d; ?( qin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.% W3 S; ?! ]: }, v
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.3 W/ q, h' t0 M+ W# R1 C) v- a
similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,
3 w$ b! l4 n# ^normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
8 P5 E" V6 \1 h% o9 O- y% o5 Meg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. ! R4 r+ H x1 Y r0 S7 x& x
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.
' ^% J0 b Z) b( ^, ~$ } z9 ~2 Z6 l$ v5 ]1 r# {* q2 q/ K
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
! a6 K1 M: N; M; sin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.6 e( J1 s3 o1 @0 s& c- A) e
For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
C4 \: A. }; d( GA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.7 t, B4 Q4 r3 ^$ i, T
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.
1 i6 E$ e, e* y7 J, O6 Y. n1 tbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.5 `+ E7 r" R; d2 H {) l
) n$ v1 {1 A4 F8 A7 k3 g) d$ h
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|
