|
  
- 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 ?0 g' p* @. d* \3 }9 D( A. z
CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,1 N% k [0 C( p1 g
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
$ P( |6 L% w$ n- l$ v: K6 R: }main reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
_3 B% x0 i% A1 o. t+ cin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities., |- ]6 m7 r$ p' n
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
7 @, v+ y2 q, z/ jsimilar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,
, h4 D3 g/ Q" ? q" E# M- gnormally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
$ f, `* y8 H, }$ Z6 aeg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. l* d+ |" Q& X% J
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.! r8 X* G3 I- h- O
3 t8 J) C; G+ o7 g9 E
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
0 y3 w& k+ w+ ~- ~/ @% P/ fin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
" ~8 `6 b u( ~0 E JFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
3 w" O8 x8 L9 S( u5 G. ~3 J3 GA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
' l8 ~& O6 g) VThe 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. 2 X, k! F/ n2 H F) L
but the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
2 K1 ]: N3 B( s, I# v0 Q1 Z& c. [( Z5 b+ x& G
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|