|
  
- 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.) m2 M3 K, q+ @
CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,
8 i. G5 m) O- @ G4 d, c5 W1 ?more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
! o7 Q7 C2 b1 N% \main reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,9 F* Y S4 N$ ?7 y! I8 i- r
in other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.
h- b8 \0 w5 d% T$ j! f( b' |Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
% N( U5 Y0 H3 c) I4 x, _similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,4 Q* U" g. p( b# ]/ X
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
4 z. ^2 D$ N/ ? deg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. % g, D9 h% F1 t" _5 B! ?6 b8 W
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.
& A; n/ q! y" X/ u/ @5 a5 v; r$ n# ?
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
( H+ o# b8 j5 K1 A0 Y- win stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards." S) }, ^- Q0 |1 F# b' x
For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,2 M9 R3 S! f5 H
A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
0 i5 l' s5 W/ \# k/ {& wThe 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.
! C6 P& X5 ?. Q2 B! K# C0 Tbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
x# B6 ^) ^4 F7 e( O- X4 h; D; Q. o: j
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|