|
- 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.
" a2 @# t1 y, E. l. z+ y. MCDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,! H2 W+ y2 b e
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
/ B+ }" h0 X: [$ fmain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
* | m, O$ j0 Q, Bin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.7 s& b& ]; j) T) o/ T; @
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
4 f$ s7 h* y' j, ?; s! n4 j3 \1 nsimilar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,+ e" u( d4 P; b8 @! p+ }6 h
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
& [8 X7 T/ ?/ _2 peg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. & j! C c2 e9 s5 ?# E7 A
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.
; k+ K% O0 _- Q9 q% c9 G/ W& c$ F! w& F6 A
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
$ T# r: E) Z1 a% \in stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.( o. A, a- k( R' r% W+ _0 J
For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
' x+ L. r; Q4 J QA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
/ O8 @, }2 H& T! S3 yThe 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 s4 }% {9 f" L& C+ X; v9 h# o
but the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
6 N: n6 {/ {2 l4 ]4 C( A6 t( y$ E& h/ R! X! q
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|
