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.
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.