|
- 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.
6 A+ w0 F6 t9 x2 uCDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,
_4 h/ C7 c" u$ |4 A2 Hmore risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
/ \4 q% h" a2 _' h8 Umain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,' p. ?; d) j4 d+ G
in other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.% C t6 X' m! E
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.+ z0 r3 Z1 f. y. h
similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,; ?' Z1 e& ]7 u+ W) ^2 f" h6 T/ j
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
) G. D0 I$ U0 o r/ t( j) u5 V- Jeg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
6 e% C1 P. k% ^" Z& O+ |" j' Fbanks 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.4 p/ X3 {7 v% H8 y! x
1 {; s; N T9 v
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
5 V: i4 h d( G( ]in stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
) v) Q4 k4 z0 O! z+ j* y+ H7 C7 ?For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,- r) _: G2 C/ p) M
A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
8 V1 `1 }% y, ^; o/ @% tThe 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.
/ V; p8 a8 a" E, H3 X5 Pbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
O+ k4 G5 m- P
# _& ^% y8 S, i0 w+ o& s[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|
