|
  
- 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." R9 ], v+ c8 b! N' B3 g6 R
CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,
) {/ y6 u4 \( P7 _more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
5 n, J. ~1 S( r* O2 ?8 u% ymain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
1 J& ]- d2 I) ?. vin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.
/ M1 I: i# z0 E3 ?0 I) x5 KAlso, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
* W" F& o+ k" p$ [similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,
6 x# W8 K" L; B inormally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
) c4 s3 F' J, s( g3 g! Feg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. * M% [! c2 B. M0 d) p& G+ x
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.( t, A% ]% S! `" U2 b
2 E( T4 z8 ^2 m5 E: h7 p. U
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case./ l: m# p8 f& c0 o; i) Y
in stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
0 `9 e( K Q; [6 e' O, U* nFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
8 u7 g3 G8 u; NA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.# _/ V5 h0 l4 }4 s
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.
- g% e8 i# c- c* U) Kbut the value of their assets did really drop significantly.) E% d; p7 o$ e. D. l
5 Z; C* R- B6 [- s[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|