|
  
- 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.
- r4 M3 B" k- m# o' I8 P' R3 tCDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,) j7 R' c) n0 c, \" J$ g. ]
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
* B7 M9 p m( _( kmain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,- Y3 [1 j! H3 P: C# y* Q
in other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities.4 _" N5 K7 j/ [9 {, v+ Q" y$ o- }
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.0 ]% r5 |* Z& U; D
similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,
q [* D/ w# X, enormally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest. . J5 S! C! p& g" Q* E
eg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future.
! l' Y3 a8 t D" obanks 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.! u2 @8 G1 Q! ~% ]
; A5 l5 w- a5 p% ^7 g4 a% h* K
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
q. y* a& v( ?7 O$ pin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
+ y- A% }- p& N% fFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,! f5 u5 g) w- @2 @4 k( ?- |9 j
A's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.; {/ t$ T, J, j0 N. 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. ! Z. h* s' w4 U5 a' k1 P' x
but the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
% S! K m3 R. m; {; R$ d: H! J4 l
9 `- x0 k1 _1 m: c5 j[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|