|
- 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.3 x8 R0 e+ [2 g3 F6 l [6 L o
CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,) f0 ^# @3 u$ v
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.5 \) m9 {: u t
main reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,& B. m9 ^; s; S# ?
in other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.+ g6 L- {1 e& K/ |
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
3 \1 b% ]( D- t, qsimilar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,1 e5 N+ `; O4 z6 y7 o% k: M* |
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest. $ C6 Z1 E6 [( b( x; |
eg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
/ I2 T5 z7 Q7 M, \- ?2 ybanks 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.8 b4 V# V, n- C) e) I! i
u( X1 V* d1 h2 W- r) T' I
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
, _* B; K- L; T4 Jin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
4 o& P7 G# `% |% V- t$ A% F, qFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
+ R8 @5 U" X2 u% a, {" EA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.* i6 Q: z1 f( p5 t0 m1 ^
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.
9 y6 j; r& n) E% f5 Z6 zbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
0 |0 s. I( a+ l/ x6 W( q6 E% H5 _3 S0 x
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|
