|
- 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.
0 t2 a! J/ ~( _2 G# C$ [CDs could have different ratings, AAA -> F,
6 @8 C) m- N; lmore risky ones would have higher premium (interest rate) as a compensation for an investment.
/ ?' D! V2 t4 a2 N' g' H* Zmain reason why ppl buy those risky CDs is because the rate of return exceeds their internal rate of return,
l! w( g! p6 Y! |in other words, the interest rate of that investment > their required interest rate, therefore they invest in those securities., k, c3 G# ]* k+ a! c4 s
Also, fund managers would include risky assets in their portfolio for different purposes, eg efficiency.- x, \- d7 g F; D# u" c( s
similar to bonds, CDs trading in the secondary market have different value at different times,) v1 `/ t$ x# m4 \7 m5 a
normally the value is calculated by adding it's principle and interest. - w3 b5 G2 B1 V! N# E2 ~" y
eg. the value of the mortgage+the interests to be recieved in the future. + j, e2 r! q# q2 c+ w" L
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.
* D" {* x7 g; X+ G4 l7 Q; ]
1 d( m* G# h2 O3 Zim not quite sure if the multiplier effect does really matter in this case.
0 G0 b4 c+ T. sin stock market, it's the demand and supply pushing the price up/downwards.- S- Q3 ]7 E* z
For eg, A bought 10000 shares @10$ ; B sells 20000 shares to C @ $12,
$ D8 R3 \% L5 S5 F) SA's shares would suddenly increase to $120000 from $100000 which does not invlove any $ transaction.
8 V/ t7 J, c5 k# u) SThe 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. ( R! S' {0 }0 Y) h& x; _6 V
but the value of their assets did really drop significantly.
- e# n$ O& v) F$ h# `5 u% G2 X! u! N6 {
[ 本帖最後由 Kev 於 2008-10-8 07:26 PM 編輯 ] |
|
