Relatively "normal" cost of borrowing is one thing, but over-leveraging is another. Especially when there isn't a whole lot of room for the cost of borrowing to go down. Feds move to make.
Relatively "normal" cost of borrowing is one thing, but over-leveraging is another. Especially when there isn't a whole lot of room for the cost of borrowing to go down. Feds move to make.
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.
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.
People aren't good at predicting the future.
But the beauty of the free market is, if at any point you feel like things are going "to shit", you can position yourself accordingly.
The danger isn’t immediate. But some regulators and investors say the borrowing has gone on too long and could send financial markets plunging when the next recession hits, dealing the real economy a blow at a time when it already would be wobbling.