|
  
- 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.
( l, l2 c$ X/ L. v& _! yCDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,$ d2 I" L Q7 a- C
more risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
8 n5 f( Z: o$ n( S7 gmain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
# v4 m7 t( z6 k7 Y8 }, Cin other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities. V0 n9 b/ \" @
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.: S: u4 F: B6 e% P
similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,% q4 k8 ` E" `& F) J
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest. / G7 K$ W) p G& V5 t- V# g) s
eg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. ! t* i8 P; c0 g1 _+ U! o; f+ k! x4 q% p
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.+ H1 b, w6 ]' Q% T! n
/ l3 k4 P1 v. _' ]4 Y: ^1 W
im not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
5 W0 N; r; I v( i6 Xin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.
, U, `. F. G6 N/ E# xFor eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
3 C" f* K+ i' A8 `$ E2 p, [3 v, B- PA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.: L# e5 k+ O/ |! g( k* a P
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. - J; b4 g- \' E- k- |+ B
but the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
c. q! e7 K; x1 G h- a/ K( B1 K2 s* v9 E$ b+ ^- f- O
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|