|
  
- 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.) X4 A4 X. h8 f8 |% E6 Z# J
CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,7 f% {& h4 X- y$ T. J
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
+ \6 q0 J/ w2 ?- g. c/ |" Umain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
/ y5 Y) X: l7 k% y$ e; yin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.; Z4 q% r9 q3 G2 c9 B2 \
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.0 q7 b1 Q5 A' E/ [
similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,
# R3 M- W4 m, J \3 X% V4 Bnormally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
' T0 `+ M9 P# e% Ueg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. - g, @! r: v3 K" @
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.
( @$ p4 J6 h# l
/ A8 F# U6 q- m3 R' Gim not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
1 O; u1 }% Q. [$ fin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.2 t% n. Z: G+ o8 ~" i
For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
- f# t% |# K5 o+ f$ @! i9 RA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
7 J: o6 W& _9 ^, }1 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.
9 x9 y6 u* n0 f7 v- I* Pbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.! J3 Z& e/ y5 q9 B8 f
1 N7 D3 o. Y$ F+ C# N
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|