|
- 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.
" l9 y {% q/ a, ]CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,
M; X% F, q4 x* k$ @ p/ dmore risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
3 p4 s T, ^ O$ r2 Amain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,' `: ^5 j& p) p! W$ \
in other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.& c" P1 H9 F0 k9 F3 v
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency./ }( O; S; |- l( }
similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,
6 b5 x6 \& p3 N5 I1 a L9 Znormally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
9 u$ P/ j5 T b3 neg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. % X6 f3 M7 ^$ r B, v+ h( y. i
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.
* i5 L/ t! f ` D0 P9 ]4 N& p8 W4 J0 ]4 x( Y8 _9 _
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
7 E% [ Y% Y: M, K# p" H$ H6 l& kin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.( ~+ n! V# g0 c! J5 m5 r' j
For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12," o( l! q; c9 s" W
A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
2 I( T5 {: i9 _* nThe 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.
/ l5 E0 f( k1 ?" W2 \9 a2 L% {* Kbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.8 N! W* S- c# V
, J/ u, i* w) G
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|
