|
  
- 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.7 H0 O9 [2 G" d, e/ a8 o# d( C
CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,: o& t' _. R! e# E
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
0 a+ ]( h# D+ Fmain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
7 C5 l& H' ?- x5 f' n0 Gin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.9 L, E& ^% e |- ]
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.% d4 ?5 |: d4 h( s
similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,6 d+ `1 W+ q4 Z8 I9 y
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
4 B: P4 {3 d& U9 X2 \1 n Ueg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
s6 ?3 R% `9 P* ibanks 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.3 C. U- L7 s( q) g; u: R1 ]& @
2 x( O: D6 }) a9 E1 S
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
' k1 n t2 a3 X. rin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
6 E9 k4 g% u6 \% N# L. s% }* KFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12, c$ K/ }* {& t2 H2 V- W, \; o
A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
) s0 p, U5 `/ T G& ^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. 8 ]% @: ^! U G7 `+ c5 Z5 F
but the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
5 I Z% k% @( a; L8 n w* R/ J
/ S [& l% W. }[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|