Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

According to your own source that rapid increase in borrowing cost happened in a very short amount of time coinciding with the period things began to go to shit. Prior to that, when most of the bad stuff leading up the crisis was happening, it retained a fairly normal level.

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.




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.


Yes - 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.


>Prior to that, when most of the bad stuff leading up the crisis was happening, it retained a fairly normal level.

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.


Right - I guess my point is why harp on one statistic as if that is supposed to make us feel good about what's going, when the reality is we don't know and the article is more of a "heads up". I think the article tries to head off most of the doom and gloom early on saying:

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.


Shorting bonds is actually not so easy for a retail investor.


Companies are borrowing because rates are low and Treasury curves are flat. Why not borrow? It's much better to lock in long-term financing now so if/when liquidity dries up you aren't forced to roll over short-dated debt.


Yes the article touches on this. But goes on to also say that this could be really bad in a crisis or this could be no so bad in a crisis depending on who you talk to and why.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: