3 ms·
To be clear, my source is showing the spread, not the absolute cost to borrow. I didn't say we are over, under or properly levered. If you are implying we are
by dtwest 7y ago
To be clear, my source is showing the spread, not the absolute cost to borrow.
I didn't say we are over, under or properly levered. If you are implying we are over-levered, go ahead, just provide some evidence. The evidence Washington Post provided is meaningless under closer examination.
Although I think we are in agreement that a normal spread does not imply future stability.
- TheHypnotist 7y agoYes - I understand the chart. But maybe I'm missing something - you've said the article is lacking substance but haven't really substantiated that yourself? The only statistic pointed out is one you initially mentioned. If you have more data (I saw a neat SA link below), I'd like to take a look myself. The author in two consecutive paragraphs states that a number of government and private orgs are sounding alarms, and then proceeds to say the danger isn't immediate. He echoes this sentiment throughout. I think the over-leveraging has to be considered on a case by case basis, as it's hard to make that assertion across the board, especially given how much of a borrowers market its been for years. The article to me reads as a warning that this is unprecedented so we should probably be careful, but only time will tell.