Lending a Helping Hand is Not Really Lending at All

Lending a Helping Hand is Not Really Lending at All

Lending a helping hand does not mean waiting until someone asks you to do a favor, or pays you for the assistance, it means offering when you expect nothing in return. In reality, lending a hand, is not really lending at all, although at one time it could have been considered as such, it really means, giving a hand!

In bygone years, when a neighbor lent a hand to someone, he knew without a doubt that when his need arose, that neighbor and many others, for whom he had done nothing, would flock to his rescue and stumble over each other in the process! What a world, eh?

It just may be that the time for such giving and unselfish participation in the lives of others, has come back around to give us all the opportunity to experience the joy of giving a hand to someone in a less fortunate position than ourselves.

In times like these, we see what folks are made of! We see what it means to give from the heart, what it is like to lay your head down at night and feel blessed and peaceful for the gift of giving you have shared.

It isn’t about what you have it’s about what you give! You will find that you never run short of having something to give.

It may be a hand across a street, to an elderly person, standing at the light, hesitating, due to the short length of the walk light. Ever think about how scary it is to someone who knows they cannot make it clear across the street, before the light changes? It may just be that your presence, taking thirty seconds from your day to give, brings peace to the heart of the elderly! How much is that worth?

Lending a helping hand, is contagious it causes us to receive such inner blessing, we find ourselves searching for other ways to pass on this beautiful gift!

Don’t wait for a neighbor to ask, see what you can do to make their lives and work easier and more pleasurable, give the gift that returns the blessing!

Cheryl G Burke

http://cherylgburke.com

Lending a Helping Hand is Not Really Lending at All

Borrowing and Lending Rates

Borrowing and Lending Rates

 

Borrowing and Lending Rates

 

 

Equally unrealistic is the assumption of identical borrowing and lending rates for the investor. The risks involved in lending money to the federal government are less than the risks of lending money to ordinary investors, and investors therefore pay higher rates of inter est on borrowed funds than they receive through investment in riskless.

The amount of reduction in the slope of the line beyond the point of tangency obviously depends upon the magnitude of the difference between the borrowing rate for the investor and the lending rate, and thisdifference depends in part upon the credit rating of the investor. It is also realistic to acknowledge that the rate paid by the investor depends in part on the amount borrowed. This results in an extrapolation beyond the point of tangency which is curvilinear rather than linear.

 

The most visible professionally managed portfolios are mutual funds, and it is not surprising, therefore, that most research in the field of investments relating to portfolios is based upon mutual funds. Earlier, in studies of mutual funds were discussed to see whether their performance was consistent with the efficient market hypothesis. Here, the performance of mutual funds is discussed to test the explanatory power of Sharpe’s capital asset pricing model.

There are two excellent studies of mutual fund performance which explicitly discuss the nature of the relationship between the rate of return on portfolios and their riskiness through time. Both are in sub stantial conformity with the implications of Sharpe’s model. The first study was by Sharpe himself. He computed average annual rates of return and standard deviations of those returns for 34 mutual funds for the years 1954-63. The model implies that higher risk portfolios, on the average, will have higher returns. Sharpe’s inquiry indicates that this was true for the 34 funds during the period studied. The correlation between the average returns and their standard deviations was +0.836 indicating that about two thirds of the differences in returns were “explained” by differences in risk.

Further, the relationship between returns and risk was approximately linear, as implied by the model, except for the region of high risk. A possible explanation is that the high-risk portfolios were less efficiently diversified than the others.

 

Borrowing and Lending Rates