|
- 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.
6 d5 B1 }, ~- s e% NCDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,
" T+ \, @& O* m! a7 bmore risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
. n# \' @; x3 Hmain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
$ o9 ]* r. y {# j( ]in other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.& r8 _5 f/ p2 ?/ `& m' l0 J
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
2 r8 [' S0 ^, |) P& [similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,0 N, E9 R% S3 S- c& K; P
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest.
% o/ l X7 I1 [8 Veg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. & I( J5 m: |4 s' r G* K! Q
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.$ N# D( s" ~7 m2 A6 n
6 |3 |# V8 E. o2 Qim not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
4 j p* S0 V! R+ D6 min stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.1 z! u" q+ a" d# i; u
For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
/ a) H# @, l; ^ q( [A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
* r# j3 T5 G7 g7 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. $ r8 I+ t/ ^. r
but the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
u2 V* }/ w) q' \2 } d# g
2 T- |: c$ v" g6 k[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|
