> You can also evaluate debt loads by debt-to-income ratio, which is not to be overlooked Debt to income is literally the first thing I wrote in my comment. I

> You can also evaluate debt loads by debt-to-income ratio, which is not to be overlooked Debt to income is literally the first thing I wrote in my comment. I didn't overlook it. The absolute value of a debt is a meaningless number so "more debt" should always be evaluated in that context. And that's how I took the comment I originally responded to. Some extremely obvious things are being rehashed for no apparent reason in this thread. When evaluating relative debt load, asset values should have a multiplier to reflect both liquidity and volatility.