Letto, molto interessante, ma nel passaggio:
In our model, the risk premium results from transaction costs paid to buy long-term bonds. We assume that transaction costs increase with the amount of long-term bonds held by private investors, suggesting that LSAPs reduce the long-term bond risk premium by reducing the absolute amount of privately held long-term bonds.
The second feature in our model concerns the transmission from the risk premium to the economy. We consider an economy with two types of investors. The first can invest in both short- and long-term assets. For them, a lower risk premium prompts them to reallocate their portfolios, but doesn’t change their spending behavior. If all investors behaved this way, a change in the risk premium would not affect the economy.
The second type of investor buys only long-term bonds, for example to match asset duration with life events, such as retirement date. If long-term yields fall, these investors have less incentive to save and may allocate more money to consumption or investment in nonfinancial assets. This boosts aggregate demand and puts upward pressure on inflation.
These two types of investors represent a form of financial market segmentation, allowing for the risk premium to affect economic activity.
The degree of segmentation is determined by what fraction of investors buy only long-term bonds. The higher the proportion of such investors, the more LSAPs affect the real economy.
Intendono dire i rischi di un acquisto long term o priprio letteralmente i costi?...che sono un'implicazione di rischio poi.
E nell'ultimo passaggio dice che più è alta la percentuale di di investitori privati detentori di long term bonds più l'economia ne riceve un beneficio
...semmai è assolutamente condivisibile il passaggio dove dice che abbassando il rendimento su un asset lungo si porta l'investitore stesso a valutare forme di investimento di carattere non finanziario.
Te cosa dici?
