Can someone please explain how a capital market differs from a large value payment system?
Answers: A Capital Market is a recognised term for a market where securities (typically shares or bonds) are priced, bought and sold.
A "large value payment system" is a 'made up' term that has no recognised meaning (it could be a reference to CHIPS, the major / central Banks "clearing" systems perhaps ??) .. in which case the difference is that the value of securities varies, depending on supply and demand, whilst the value of a payment made via CHIPS does not change.
(HELP within VERY HURRY) initial border Q~~?
Assume an initial margin of 50 percent and a conservation margin of 30percent. Joe buys 200 shares of stock on fringe at $70 per share. The price
of the stock drops to $60.
(a) What is the rationale for the margin requirements on different type of
indemnity? factors that affects the outside edge requirment.?
(B) At the time of purchase, what was the minimum amount of money that Joe
would enjoy had to invest?
(c) At what price stratum will Joe be faced next to his first margin phone?
Answers: Minimum margin requirements are set by the federal reserve but the broker can insist on greater outside edge. If you buy stock for $70 with 50 percent edge, you are required to pay $35 per share.the broker lend you the remaining $35.
I can't answer C. I don't know.
i dont know
Investors next to political surroundings: Why it is the reasoning among some Americans ...?
that war is a "well brought-up investment" (other than war leaves gvt at the mercy of big bank who are printing money with no importance?) Could "conspiracy theorists" have something valid here? I know at hand are 2 sides to each issue, but the pattern seem to be repeating themselves. Thanks for your insights.Answers: Whoa. Banks don't print money, the Federal Reserve and US Treasury switch that stuff.
I do not speak for most Americans, simply myself. My approach to this answers lay mainly surrounded by what has happen to date, not what could happen.
That mortal said, the US government prior to WW2 be largely isolationist, and we had the infant Military to prove it. Following WW2 one item became increasingly clear: the modern step of industrialization in developed countries be shrinking borders. There needed to be an outlet for the expanding economies of these countries and the protectioninst/mercantilist humour of the Developed Economies cannot be allowed to continue (this pissed past its sell-by date the French, since they had a snobbish loathing/competition near the Germans, which largely lead to WW2 to set off with). So, with the US and the remaining powers of Europe, the worldwide community was built up through the nouns of the World Bank, IMF (Bretton Woods Conference) and the Marshall Plan. Bear in mind, Mr. X have not compiled his argument for the Containments Theory at this point.
The restructuring of Europe meant that the US, which be largely untouched as a result of the War, was the sole super power whose military and reduction was significant satisfactory to prop up the UK and France. FDR's vision of dissolving the colonial programs of Europe at a snail`s pace coming to fruitition, the Global economy started diversifying, and near this growth, each untamed nation became a hotbed of entertainment. from the Democratic West and the growing Communist influence.
Under Eisenhower, a lot of these monetary programs came full boar, but when he vanished off he not here with one momentous message to the American people: "Beware the Military-Industrial Complex." Well JFK come in and that is to say exactly whom he cattered to, and no one can blame him. We be in a proxy time of war with the Soviet Union, and that intended we needed to be ready for any contingency.
So, throughout the Cold War strapping investment went into the US military and its technolization. Naturally, when a correct situation presented itself, Military Commanders and Presidents we all to in suspense to display this technology as a means of positioning the US contained by a state of superiority against the Soviet Union (Viet Nam, Cambodia Campaign, support of Israel in her two war, the Afghan War, Grenada, even the Bay of Pigs). These events required massive government spending surrounded by the private sector in direct to expand not only our technology foot, but also to increase our force strengths. With this massive dumping, naturally the business sector (and hence the economy) is going to flurish.
The military-industrial complex became a contrivance we used to wrestle with the Communist Empire, but when they be gone no one know how to turn it off. Bush senior tried, but cause a recession. Clinton tried, but caused us to become blind to international and domestic terrorism (there be at least 7acts of terrorism against the US underneath the Clinton, 2 domestic and the rest international). So, then come Bushh Jr. Initially, Bush kept the military spending levels equal as Clinton with the exception of increasing the GI Bill, Military Pay and Benefits and VA benefits. Then 9/11 occur and massive spending went into that.
As you will see, the MI Complex had a purpose that be perceived to be vital to our National Security. And, if you infer of it as a business, then during times of no conflicts nearby was a looming inventory that wasn't self used. This left abundant companies with dwindling profits which, if vanished to continue would result within job loss and also a loss to warranty (since they were responsible for generate products we needed for war). Now, does this means that when they get too heavy within the backstock, Congress declared war to abandoned out the wharehouses? No...but there are oodles who make this argument, and this is largely where on earth they come into play with this rationale that period of war is a good investment.
Do I believe them? Not surrounded by the least. When we are at period of war, there are companies that are right to invest in. BUT, the cutback always suffers contained by a war as establishment spending increases; especially in prolonged, abstract war like our War on Terror. With war of this nature, you cannot look at it any other approach than wars are clearly a detriment to the discount and therefore not a apt investment. Its like superbowl time, and you dump your money contained by Pepsi? Why? Because Pepsi sells soda, which relatives drink in mass quantity during the superbowl and because Pepsi owns Frito Lay too...two major staples outside of beer and hotdogs, for the Superbowl. Does that parsimonious the superbowl was created simply for Pepsi? No, but you can argue that since the hobby has become so commericialized the lines are presently blurred...which, relating to war and investing, i muse is where so several people receive confused and cant see the forest from the trees.
Hope this helped.
I've never hear that war is a "dutiful investment". Sounds like your falling for liberal propoganda. If your chitchat about adjectives war surrounded by general, it is polite for the economy. The political affairs spends billions of dollars making bombs, planes, guns, uniforms ect. and puts a great deal of people to work. If you are discussion about the time of war in Iraq consequently maybe you hear someone saying its a honourable investment because we will be safer in the call a halt.
I fall towards the middle. Knowing what we know very soon I wish we have not gone. But Saddam wanted everything to conjecture he had armaments (including his own generals) so its his own fault. Now that we are here we have to finish because it all right become a nightware when we leave.
Hmmmm.I'm not exactly sure hot to answer your sound out or what you mean, but here's what I mull over.
Sure, war is a great investment if you are a defense contractor or any other brand of company selling the technology to keep the country out of danger. The more bombs and planes we use in a time of war, the more money they make.
If you're discussion about the Iraq time of war and the US involvement in the Middle East, the singular way I could see that as man a good investment is that our system, although they won't say it, is tyring to maintain down the price of oil. If we be to pull out adjectives of our troops in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, and the rest of the Middle East, any number of rogue states (think Iran) could cut bad shipments of oil to the world through the Straits of Hormuz. It's be assumed that if this were to transpire, the price of oil would skyrocket to over $250 a barrell. Oil currently is around $90/barrell. If grease were to obtain that expensive really fast, this would cripple our cutback.
That is the only piece that I could think of that would cause this war a "correct investment".
Of course, a better investment would be to bring some of those troops home and invest in other sources of dynamism so that we weren't so dependent on oil from countries that don't enjoy our best interests at heart.