|
- 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.
5 B, Y1 C$ m" v* e ?CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,
3 s- E+ L2 n& n( qmore risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
" H. ~! y- E0 S% Cmain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,' a4 H9 M; d" E0 T; ?
in other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.
6 K' M" q" n7 H3 yAlso, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.
. ]6 ~' e- S, g' j: o& B) N9 f6 csimilar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,
! S) N; n$ d6 y! \normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest. ! i" f' d3 U# w( j5 B
eg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
( f6 Q$ `7 Z8 a0 v+ B' [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.: m+ k& K1 [6 }1 y
( \+ q: P- q1 v- T4 W
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.' ?8 L. j5 U7 {% `( h4 z) t e5 ~; E
in stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.4 i3 N2 h4 J9 z7 k; d( q
For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,5 T+ ~ T4 ], @# t, ]: x
A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.6 c0 d. n% E. n
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. ! f; v o1 y% B
but the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
$ j* [. b( O' T- i' d- T% C* r5 X2 z0 D1 C Z2 [) Z2 a, b0 |
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|
