Sample Solution
The major theories of term structure are the Expectations Theory, Liquidity Preference Theory and Market Segmentation Theory. The Expectations Theory states that long-term interest rates depend on short-term rates and that changes in long-term interest rate can be explained by expectations about future short-term interest rates (Bodie et al., 2018). According to this theory, investors prefer short-term bonds over long term bonds due to their greater flexibility. This results in higher returns from long term bonds compared to short terms ones.
The Liquidity Preference Theory is based on the idea that investors demand a premium for holding longer maturity assets due to the higher risk associated with them (Dowd & Hutchinson, 2016). Under this theory, investors view long-term debt as relatively more risky than shorter maturities since they involve tying up capital for an uncertain period of time. As such, they require a higher rate of return than what would occur under normal market conditions.
Finally, the Market Segmentation Theory postulates that different securities have different liquidity characteristics which affect their prices (Kwast & Van Witteloostuijn 2020). This leads investors to separate markets into segments according to their preferences for different types of assets leading to varying yields across different types of securities.
Economists utilize these concepts when valuing securities as it helps them identify how current market conditions may affect a bond’s existing yield or when predicting potential changes in its value in the future. By understanding these theories one can determine which type of security will provide better returns given certain economic conditions and make informed decisions while investing.
his prompts question of what meets all requirements to be a soldier, and whether it is legitimate to kill each other as warriors. Soldiers are individuals who are involved straightforwardly or by implication with the conflict and it is legal to kill ‘to protect the blameless from hurt… rebuff wrongdoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as referenced above non military personnel can’t be hurt, showing soldiers as the main genuine focuses on, one more state of jus in bello, as ‘we may not utilize the sword against the people who have not hurt us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ likewise, Frowe recommended warriors should be distinguished as warriors, to keep away from the presence of close quarters combat which can wind up in a higher passing count, for instance, the Vietnam War. Additionally, he contended they should be essential for the military, remain battle ready and apply to the guidelines of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This proposes Frowe looks for a fair, simply battle between two members keeping away from non-warrior passings, yet couldn’t this prompt higher demise rate for soldiers, as the two sides have generally equivalent opportunity to win since both utilize comparable strategies? By the by, seemingly Frowe will contend that soldier can legitimately kill one another, showing this is simply, which is likewise upheld by Vittola, who states: ‘it is legal to draw the sword and use it against villains (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ furthermore, Vittola communicates the degree of military strategies utilized, however never arrives at a resolution regardless of whether it’s legal to continue these activities, as he continually tracked down a center ground, where it very well may be legitimate to do things like this yet never consistently (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is upheld by Frowe, who estimates the authentic strategies as per proportionality and military need. It relies upon the size of how much harm done to each other, to pass judgment on the activities after a conflict. For instance, one can’t just nuke the psychological militant gatherings all through the center east, since it isn’t just corresponding, it will harm the entire populace, an unseen side-effect. All the more critically, the troopers should have the right aim in the thing they will accomplish, forfeiting the expenses for their activities. For instance: to execute all detainees of war, they should do it for the right expectation and for a noble motivation, relative to the damage done to them. This is upheld by Vittola: ‘not generally legal to execute all warriors… we should consider… size of the injury caused by the foe.’ This is additionally upheld by Frowe approach, which is much more upright than Vittola’s view however suggests similar plans: ‘can’t be rebuffed just for battling.’ This implies one can’t just rebuff another in light of the fact that they have been a soldier. They should be treated as others consciously as could be expected. Be that as it may, the circumstance is heightened in the event that killing them can prompt harmony and security, inside the interests, all things considered. Generally, jus in bello recommends in wars, mischief must be utilized against warriors, never against the blameless. In any case, eventually, the point is to lay out harmony and security inside the federation. As Vittola’s decision: ‘the quest for equity for which he battles and the guard of his country’ is the thing countries ought to be battling for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Subsequently, albeit the present world has
