News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The illiquidity premium?. Parent comment

Re:The illiquidity premium? by akharris on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:21AM (#1694496)
Same definition. Right now markets pay a premium for the convenience of liquid assets as you say. What I'm saying is that the investment profiles of the SWFs may lower that premium/raise the price of illiquid assets such that the two are effectively the same price. Feels like two sides of the same coin.

I could probably have been clearer, but I kindof liked the way the title sounded. Appreciate the feedback.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The illiquidity premium? by Retric on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @12:27PM (#1694783)
Perhaps a better way of stating it would be:

Illiquid investments currently need to pay a premium over their more liquid counterparts. However, an increase in long term investors may reduce this requirement over time.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The illiquidity premium? by eru on Thursday September 16, 2010 @04:58AM (#1697273)
Yes, that's clear. The clever title "Illiquidity premium" is OK.
[ Parent | on HN ]