|
  
- 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 s; ~ x) X& w
CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,+ @7 N9 N# k1 r1 q' |- E. _7 {& j! ~
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
1 G# o: Y2 ?2 D6 ~/ p: O2 u. D( d' emain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
+ n, z0 j4 B! Xin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.- n3 R! i- R$ W: A* z
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
, E8 _0 {$ Z3 esimilar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,$ I. @2 K+ c4 K4 M% @2 `
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
( e( V# a. V5 |eg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
# P! K, ?$ G4 vbanks 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.* P1 h# w: M& P' t0 L4 w& L, [
4 |$ E- W6 F2 x) z6 m
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
2 B l9 {0 ]: O d" b- fin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.6 A! S4 u. u3 J' R/ L
For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
U7 c4 a3 k7 r1 R% T, x, h' _3 ~A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
5 d% d0 o3 v; C) D- `4 LThe 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.
/ I5 I$ d5 e$ m* Z* e9 abut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
* E j) g$ `% A# I! f2 w8 b1 M) o* }2 }% x% C* {+ u. Z6 N4 ~% [
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|