Biggest overdraft?
Discussion
Anyone see this progamme on More4 last night (I was looking for adult entertainment 
)?
Morgan Spurlock (him of Supersize me fame)and his fiancee tried to live for a month on the minimum wage in Columbus, Ohio. It made for shocking television as they tripped from one debt to another, while earning $45 each per day (after tax).
)? Morgan Spurlock (him of Supersize me fame)and his fiancee tried to live for a month on the minimum wage in Columbus, Ohio. It made for shocking television as they tripped from one debt to another, while earning $45 each per day (after tax).
sideways mostly said:I thought USA today was one of those papers to be taken with a big pinch of salt? Arnt they the ones that published the story that claimed during 9/11 bombs went off in the twin towers?
USA Today on Wednesday ran an article on the total US deficit wich they made to be 25.2 trillion dollars.
That's 95,000 dollars a head
Incidentally I like this one: www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
I don’t quite understand what you mean by deficit, I’m used to the term deficit being used in terms of trade and not debt. I checked up to make sure you didn’t mean trade deficit.
Perhaps while we are at it though some one could explain how exactly the U.S., U.K. and many other countries could have a trade deficit year upon year. Is this impact offset by wealth creation within the country or are countries with a deficit genuinely going downhill?
Sideways,
Assuming the figure you have is correct (and I can't really comment) the situation is actually worse than you consider, your total debt per head is based upon the total number of citizens but this cannot be true as the US also has the highest number of millionaires in the world, and not everybody will have debt I'm sure a good proportion of the populace earn decent wages. Does the figure assume mortgages as this would then make more sense.
Assuming the figure you have is correct (and I can't really comment) the situation is actually worse than you consider, your total debt per head is based upon the total number of citizens but this cannot be true as the US also has the highest number of millionaires in the world, and not everybody will have debt I'm sure a good proportion of the populace earn decent wages. Does the figure assume mortgages as this would then make more sense.
) Its simpler than that-just taking the debt and deviding by the number of people in the USA.You could argue that the figure could be higher in that only a proportion of the population are wage earning so the per head figure could be higher.
The bit that interested me was the article was raising the problems in the economy-the property bubble,excessive healthcare costs,the war cost,rising oil prices , irresponsible tax cuts,all coming together at the same time.They are clearly getting worried themselves.If you then factor in China's accelerating economy and long term competitiveness servicing the US debt may not be sustainable.
>> Edited by sideways mostly on Friday 28th October 12:32
>> Edited by sideways mostly on Friday 28th October 12:33
The bit that interested me was the article was raising the problems in the economy-the property bubble,excessive healthcare costs,the war cost,rising oil prices , irresponsible tax cuts,all coming together at the same time.They are clearly getting worried themselves.If you then factor in China's accelerating economy and long term competitiveness servicing the US debt may not be sustainable.
>> Edited by sideways mostly on Friday 28th October 12:32
>> Edited by sideways mostly on Friday 28th October 12:33
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Presumably that changes significantly on the strength of the borrower/type of deal?
I'd agree that for prime, weapons grade-type borrowers, terms have been more relaxed of late. I spent March-September this year looking only at loans to IG corporates and, with it being a borrower-driven market at the moment (and I think that competition in the market is responsible for a relaxation of terms rather than bankers' bonuses), some positions taken by the lenders were a little racy.
However, in more structured/leveraged deals it seems pretty much business as usual. However, the degree of leverage which is considered acceptable to lenders seems to have ramped-up hugely in the last 5 years.
After a couple of years out of the project finance world, I've just picked up a deal and the sponsors seem more tied up than most of the other deals I saw previously (very hefty lock-up, rapid ramp up in equity injections etc)...
Nugs I am a long way from being an expert but if ability to reduce debt is tied to ability to earn and if a company,or countries,competitive set changes markedly when they are already heavily extended( probably the wrong term...don't shoot me) and their earning power is reduced arn't they stuffed?
I've just moved in-house with my primary focus being lends to PE houses - maybe I'll see you across the negotiating table sometime?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff