|
- 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.8 ]& f r* i- P- u! _
CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,; M% }2 I- G1 N, C0 y( I+ ~
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
0 u3 {# Y i# `; Vmain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
6 X( ^: y$ O$ t! o8 vin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.& Q- R4 S* P/ V
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency. L' B# u0 ^! G5 b+ s2 U
similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,/ E" B) C! e$ Q) H- M9 w7 j5 t2 J k
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest. $ u( `5 F( l3 o5 q a% y$ [
eg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. ) g7 |, Q, s" i: g& n
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.
) i* x$ ?% b% F3 o! i
8 H* L @ r2 Kim not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.; {! I. ~1 e+ T
in stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
5 p6 m0 k3 r& V* a* z/ `For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
% \( R+ }7 q" i% MA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.1 T1 R/ S* p' J: _- J, C/ n$ N
The capital loss that ppl suffer nowadays, i believe, most of them does not really suffer a real $ lost yet as long as they dont sell their securities.
6 Y! v" r7 B( `& n" A3 sbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
9 B# A' y1 I) I# J
: M6 A9 g6 \) O7 k/ i[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|
