|
  
- 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.4 \" K+ N7 Y9 o
CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,/ H- i8 T! t/ ]
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
, }. `; `9 P rmain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
9 |/ _6 A( F* I3 w6 \ n" E& Sin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.* R8 Q% J( [8 R1 m) U) O
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
, {$ m% |1 L' D6 ^" A4 msimilar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,8 n" ^2 F, A( c5 `7 k5 }+ N2 N4 v
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
# D' W: [+ M, | F# t; G, Ceg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
! l8 s, x5 [- F* ~5 \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.2 E) }& [. h9 n7 g
, I# x# @- U Q/ w/ iim not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.6 d$ S% j; Q! c d2 t
in stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
* N- Q1 U' x' G8 `8 M2 tFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,9 t6 h( H( p5 X1 l4 ~* K2 y
A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
) C. v9 C% t G/ A) P9 c) u0 uThe 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 Q# S0 q# |5 l, w& X r9 Q+ v& C- Xbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.5 }4 K. M4 ^0 q8 r/ K! N
7 h/ \& H: B: a- ]4 v/ y
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|