|
  
- 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.
% t# `8 t+ P& C. s* ^2 s; H7 NCDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,& Y0 @4 k: d0 P: g% S
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
. ~9 z! U) N+ }1 G+ kmain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
_; T% ? i2 O& h$ ein other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.
: y1 h. `/ [/ b% j4 tAlso, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
, A" o# A8 D) c1 \8 b5 t9 Msimilar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,
3 V* t: |& V/ t) Xnormally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
o# ~1 G8 F5 E- e7 J feg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
) {5 [. Q" @* ~2 y8 bbanks 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./ V2 _4 m- m4 b& Z/ O
# `, g; H- U9 s% S* R! iim not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.: w3 v% C `' q7 W T: Y; x
in stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
, I, ~ r+ S% S% SFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,( ~% p, j! M; Z: X2 \$ _3 w, \. w ~
A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
; n Q/ ^4 u1 q7 [6 k7 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. ' _7 t7 Z9 u3 d5 u- O. s: r
but the value of their assets did really drop significantly.% z- S7 _* f2 A. j0 Q* y7 H
' t: U9 I1 P7 T) w[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|