Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
  • Mentions 442
  • Primary focus 219
Showing 219 database articles primarily about Business Cycle
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Business Cycle
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,326 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Business Cycle):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

Stocks Havent Looked This Unattractive Since 2007

AI Summary. The equity risk premium for the S&P 500 — the gap between stocks' earnings yield and the 10-year Treasury yield — has fallen to 1.59 percentage points, its lowest since October 2007 and well below the 3.5-point average since 2008. That leaves the reward for holding stocks over bonds near its long-term average of 1.62 points since 1957.

Eric Wallerstein Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
April 24, 2023
Is Database:
Database

@EricWallenstein The equity risk premium (ERP) for the S&P 500 has fallen to 1.59pp, its lowest since October 2007, below the average ERP of 3.5pp since 2008.

How narrow has the reward for holding stocks over bonds become?

Core argument: The S&P 500's equity risk premium — the gap between stocks' earnings yield and the 10-year Treasury yield — has fallen to 1.59 percentage points, its lowest since October 2007 and well below the 3.5-point average since 2008.

The equity risk premium (ERP) for the S&P 500, which measures the gap between the earnings yield of stocks and the yield of 10-year Treasurys, has fallen to 1.59pp, its lowest since October 2007. This is significantly below the average ERP of 3.5pp since 2008, indicating that the reward for holding stocks over bonds is at its slimmest since before the 2008 financial crisis. The current ERP is closer to the long-term average of 1.62pp since 1957, suggesting a return to historical norms. However, rising bond yields and a dimming corporate earnings outlook challenge equities' attractiveness. The Federal Reserve's efforts to manage inflation and prevent a banking crisis further cloud the stock market's prospects. Despite these challenges, some analysts argue that high nominal growth supported by inflation could sustain earnings, while others see opportunities in value stocks, which are relatively cheap compared to growth stocks amid current economic conditions.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The S&P 500's equity risk premium — the gap between stocks' earnings yield and the 10-year Treasury yield — has fallen to 1.59 percentage points, its lowest since October 2007 and well below the 3.5-point average since 2008.
  2. At 1.59 percentage points, the S&P 500's equity risk premium sits near its long-term average of 1.62 points since 1957, while rising bond yields and a dimming corporate earnings outlook weigh on equities' attractiveness.
  3. Some analysts argue high nominal growth supported by inflation could sustain earnings, while others point to value stocks as relatively cheap compared with growth stocks.

The S&P 500’s equity risk premium is currently at 1.59pp, its lowest level since October 2007. Since 2008 the mean ERP has been 3.5pp above its post 1957 mean of 1.62pp.

Stocks Havent Looked This Unattractive Since 2007: Extended Excerpt Image 1


“…The equity risk premium—the gap between the S&P 500’s earnings yield and that of 10-year Treasurys—sits around 1.59 percentage points, a low not seen since October 2007. That is well below the average gap of around 3.5 points since 2008. The current equity risk premium is closer to the longer-term norm. The average premium since 1957 is around 1.62 points, BlackRock research shows….”

Eric Wallerstein, "Stocks Haven’t Looked This Unattractive Since 2007,"Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-havent-looked-this-unattractive-since-2007-78fc374c

Stocks Haven’t Looked This Unattractive Since 2007

The reward for owning stocks over bonds hasn’t been this slim since before the 2008 financial crisis.

The equity risk premium—the gap between the S&P 500’s earnings yield and that of 10-year Treasurys—sits around 1.59 percentage points, a low not seen since October 2007.

That is well below the average gap of around 3.5 points since 2008. The reduction is a challenge for stocks going forward. Equities need to promise a higher reward than bonds over the long term. Otherwise, the safety of Treasurys would outweigh the risks of stocks losing some, if not all, of investors’ money.

Stocks Havent Looked This Unattractive Since 2007: Extended Excerpt Image 2


The allure of stocks dimmed recently when bond yields shot higher and the corporate-earnings picture continued to darken. The Federal Reserve now faces the dual challenge of raising interest rates to cool inflation while reaching into its toolbox to prevent a full-blown banking crisis from erupting—both of which cloud the outlook for stocks.

The S&P 500 has clawed back some of last year’s 19% decline, rising 6.9% in 2023. The Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond index has jumped 4.2%, boosted by an early-year rally and elevated yields.

The S&P 500 added 0.4% on Thursday after employment data pointed to the Fed gaining ground in its battle with the record-hot labor market. Bond yields edged higher.

Bonds are offering a “once in a generation opportunity, but not once in a lifetime,” said Tony DeSpirito, BlackRock Inc.’s chief investment officer of U.S. fundamental equities.

The current equity risk premium is closer to the longer-term norm: The average premium since 1957 is around 1.62 points, BlackRock research shows. That means stocks should still offer a better return than bonds given their historical outperformance, Mr. DeSpirito added.

The equity risk premium falls when bond yields rise, or a stock’s price/earnings ratio jumps—either due to weaker earnings or higher stock prices. The earnings yield, meanwhile, is the ratio of profits from the past year to current stock prices.

October 2007 would turn out to mark a precarious time in markets. Stocks had recently hit their highest level on record, and the federal-funds rate was near its current level at around 4.8%.

Over the following year, the S&P 500 would go on to drop roughly 45%, and the Fed would cut rates to near zero. Bloated stock valuations reset; bond yields cratered. By March 2009 when the stock market bottomed, stocks’ premium over Treasurys had risen above 7 points and a new bull market was born.

Stocks look pricey again today, and markets are facing a new host of challenges. By at least one valuation measure, U.S. equities are currently more expensive than those of any other country or region, Research Affiliates’ data show. That is based on the S&P 500’s price level relative to inflation-adjusted corporate earnings over the past 10 years, or the CAPE ratio. Although well off prior peaks seen in the late 1990s and 2021, the U.S. stock benchmark trades at a multiple around 29, pricier than it has been more than 90% of the time since 1881.

Stocks Havent Looked This Unattractive Since 2007: Extended Excerpt Image 3


Valuations have historically plummeted during economic recessions, though some analysts say lofty valuations won’t prevent stock prices from continuing to rise.

“We have seen the peak for stock-market valuations, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve seen peak prices yet in this cycle,” said Jawad Mian, founder of macro-advisory firm Stray Reflections.

The economy is much more resilient to high interest rates than it has been in the past, said Mr. Mian. High nominal growth—boosted by inflation—will continue to support earnings more than Wall Street’s consensus currently sees, preventing a significant drop in stock prices, he said.

Analysts expect earnings among companies in the S&P 500 to edge up roughly 1.6% in 2023, according to FactSet. At the end of last year, they were calling for a 5% increase.

Since 1957, equities have beaten out fixed income more than two-thirds of the time when they were held for at least a year, BlackRock research shows. Stocks’ favorability improves as holding periods lengthen.

Focusing on stocks’ slim risk premium misses part of the picture, Mr. DeSpirito of BlackRock says. Fed intervention—suppressing short-term rates and buying up long-term bonds—created an abnormal risk-reward profile for stocks after the 2008 financial crisis. He encourages investors to seek stocks with resilient margins and strong earnings growth, while avoiding overvalued companies.

Some investors say frothy valuations mean value stocks—those trading at a discount to their book value, or net worth—warrant consideration.

Value stocks are “dirt cheap” relative to growth, now more discounted than they have been four-fifths of the time in U.S. stock-market history, according to Rob Arnott, founder and chairman of Research Affiliates.

Although value stocks trumped their growth-oriented peers during last year’s rout, growth stocks are back in the lead. The Russell 3000 Growth Index has jumped 13% in 2023, while the Russell 3000 Value Index has edged up 0.1%.

When inflation has run between 4% to 8% a year, value stocks have outperformed their growth peers by 6 to 8 percentage points annually, Mr. Arnott said. Consumer prices rose 6% in February from the year before, the smallest increase since September 2021.

“Inflation is wonderful for value,” he added.

  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
    • Financial Markets
Previous articleApril 24, 2023US War Games Touch Nerve in Philippines as Tensions Flare With ChinaThe United States and the Philippines undertook their largest joint exercises in 30 years in the northern Philippines over the weekend. @FTNext articleApril 24, 2023SP500 Driven by Just 20 StocksThe largest 20 stocks in the S&P 500 have surged by $2tn in value since start of 2023, while the remaining 480 stocks have gained only $170bn.
Showing 218 database articles primarily about Business Cycle

3% vs. 60%

AI Summary. The direct lending market is roughly $2tn, or about 3% of total US household and business debt outstanding, compared with mortgages accounting for about 60% of total household and corporate debt at the peak of the housing bubble.

Torsten Sløk Apollo
Date Posted:
April 8, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Torsten Sløk notes the direct lending market is ~$2T or 3% of household and non-financial debt outstanding. To provide context, he shows that in 2006, on the eve of the crisis, mortgages accounted for ~60% of such debt.

Is direct lending too small to threaten the financial system?

Core argument: The direct lending market totals roughly $2 trillion, about 3% of total debt outstanding for US households and businesses.

The direct lending market is roughly $2 trillion, or about 3% of total debt outstanding for US households and businesses. By comparison, mortgages accounted for about 60% of total household and corporate debt at the peak of the housing bubble in 2006.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The direct lending market totals roughly $2 trillion, about 3% of total debt outstanding for US households and businesses.
  2. Mortgages accounted for about 60% of total US household and corporate debt at the peak of the housing bubble in 2006, compared with direct lending's roughly 3% share.

Related Articles:

  • JPMorgan Marking Down Loan Portfolios Of Private Credit Groups — JPMorgan has marked down the value of certain loans in private credit funds' portfolios that serve as collateral for the funds' borrowing from the bank, limiting how much it will lend against them. Unlike most banks, which require triggers such as missed interest payments, JPMorgan reserves the right to revalue those assets at any time.
  • Data Update 7 for 2026: Debt and Taxes — The author argues that companies are collectively over-investing in artificial intelligence and that markets will correct when that belief dissipates. Because debt, particularly private credit, now finances much of this investment, the author contends a correction would spread beyond equity holders and produce a banking-style crisis driven by non-bank lenders.
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
    • Financial Markets

Top 10% of Earners Drive a Growing Share of US Consumer Spending

AI Summary. An analysis of Federal Reserve data found the top 10% of US earners accounted for 49.2% of total consumer spending, up from 48.5% the prior quarter and the highest share in data going back to 1989. Spending by the bottom 80%, those making under roughly $175,000, has merely kept pace with inflation.

Jonnelle Marte Bloomberg
Date Posted:
September 17, 2025
Is Database:
Database

Mark Zandi finds Americans in the top 10% of the income distribution accounted for 49.2% of consumer spending in Q2, the highest level since 1989.

Are top earners accounting for a record share of consumer spending?

Core argument: The top 10% of US earners accounted for 49.2% of total consumer spending in the second quarter, up from 48.5% in the first quarter and the highest share in data going back to 1989, according to Mark Zandi's analysis of Federal Reserve data.

Consumers in the top 10% of the income distribution accounted for 49.2% of total spending in the second quarter, up from 48.5% in the first quarter, reaching the highest level in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. In contrast, the bottom 80% of the income distribution, or consumers making less than roughly $175,000 a year, have seen their spending merely keep pace with inflation since the pandemic.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The top 10% of US earners accounted for 49.2% of total consumer spending in the second quarter, up from 48.5% in the first quarter and the highest share in data going back to 1989, according to Mark Zandi's analysis of Federal Reserve data.
  2. Consumers in the bottom 80% of the income distribution, making less than roughly $175,000 a year, have seen their spending merely keep pace with inflation since the pandemic, according to Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi.

Related Articles:

  • The U.S. Economy Depends More Than Ever on Rich People — Moody's Analytics estimates the top 10% of earners account for 49.7% of all U.S. consumer spending, a record in data going back to 1989, up from about 36% three decades ago, with their spending alone equal to almost one-third of gross domestic product.
  • To Understand America Today, Study the Zero-Sum Mindset — Younger generations in the United States and other rich countries hold more zero-sum views than older ones, a pattern researchers link to growing up amid slower economic growth and lower mobility. People who have surpassed their parents, or whose families rose over generations, are less likely to think in zero-sum terms.
  • Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Divides — Zero-sum thinking — viewing gains for one group as losses for another — is associated with greater support for liberal economic policies, stronger alignment with the Democratic Party, and weaker alignment with the Republican Party. The authors also find it linked to believing the QAnon conspiracy theory holds some truth and to sympathy for the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
  • Workforce
    • Inequality

Litigation Nation, Engineering Empire

AI Summary. Regrouping US college majors to match Chinese disciplines yields a 2:1 ratio of science and engineering to humanities and social sciences, the same ratio as in China. The author argues America's building slowdown reflects structural economic shifts—urbanization reached 70% by 1960 and 85% by 2020, shifting needs toward maintenance—rather than a lawyerly culture.

Jonathon Sine Cogitations
Date Posted:
September 2, 2025
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Jonathon Sine argues China “is moving beyond its breakneck industrial prime, facing similar dilemmas to those America confronted in the 1960s and 70s.” The ratio of science/engineering to humanities undergraduate majors is 2:1 in both the PRC and US.

Does America's building slowdown reflect structural shifts rather than lawyerly culture?

Core argument: Regrouping US college majors according to Chinese disciplines yields a 2:1 ratio of science/engineering to humanities/social sciences, the same ratio as in China when management is grouped with science/engineering in both.

Dan Wang’s “big idea” [is] “China is an engineering state, building big at breakneck speed, in contrast to the United States’ lawyerly society, blocking everything it can, good and bad.” I re-group US college majors according to Chinese disciplines to allow for rough comparison. Surprisingly, the ratio of science/engineering to humanities/social sciences is 2:1, the same as in China (if one groups management with science/engineering, as I also do for China). As with China today, America’s breakneck building phase was decidedly winding down by the 1960s. Urbanization went from 40% in 1900 to 70% by 1960, and grew much more incrementally over the next 60 years to 85% by 2020. The country simply did not need to continue building dams, expressways, and energy production facilities at breakneck pace. It became much more a matter of maintaining and upgrading (which has not gone well, at least according to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ report card). The American [building/investment slowdown that started after the 1970s] may be more about structural economic shifts than lawyers.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Regrouping US college majors according to Chinese disciplines yields a 2:1 ratio of science/engineering to humanities/social sciences, the same ratio as in China when management is grouped with science/engineering in both.
  2. US urbanization rose from 40% in 1900 to 70% by 1960, then grew more incrementally to 85% by 2020, with America's breakneck building phase winding down by the 1960s.
  3. The US building and investment slowdown that began after the 1970s may owe more to structural economic shifts than to lawyers, qualifying Dan Wang's contrast between China's engineering state and America's lawyerly society.

Related Articles:

  • Industrial Colossus: China vs 1950s America — China's growth in its share of global manufacturing has slowed from roughly 1.5 percentage points per year in the early 2010s to just over 0.5 percentage points annually, about one-third the earlier pace. The author argues China's share of global manufacturing is likely near its peak.
  • The Real China Model — China generates more electricity annually than the United States and European Union combined, having added capacity equivalent to the United Kingdom's total supply each year. Electricity makes up nearly 30% of China's energy use, versus 22% in the US and 21% globally, and its share is growing about 6% a year.
  • America’s Housing Affordability Crisis and the Decline of Housing Supply — Housing production intensity has fallen substantially, especially in fast-growing Sunbelt markets once known for building, converging toward the low rates long seen on the coasts and in declining industrial centers. The authors argue incumbent-controlled regulation explains the weakening link between high prices, high demand areas, and new construction.
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
    • Growth

How America’s AI Boom Is Squeezing The Rest Of The Economy

AI Summary. About a sixth of America's 2% real GDP growth over the past year came from investment in computer and communications equipment and data centres, and one estimate puts the artificial intelligence boom's total contribution to growth at 40%. Average electricity bills rose 7%, attributed in part to data-centre demand, while housebuilding and non-AI business investment slumped and real consumption flatlined.

Economist Staff The Economist
Date Posted:
August 19, 2025
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

As AI-related investment has risen since 2023, residential and nonresidential investment have declined or flatlined. This may suggest that a relatively rate-insensitive AI buildout is crowding out more interest-sensitive forms of investment.

Is the AI investment boom crowding out the rest of the economy?

Core argument: Roughly a sixth of the 2% rise in American real GDP over the past year came from investment in computer and communications equipment, including chips, and data centres; one estimate puts the AI boom's contribution at 40% once grid upgrades and software intellectual property are included.

Something like a sixth of the 2% rise in American real GDP over the past year has come from investments in computer and communications equipment, including chips, and data centres. Add in the grid upgrades to power AI models, plus the intellectual-property value of the software itself, and one estimate puts the boom’s contribution to real GDP growth at 40%. The trouble is that the very sector powering so much of America’s economic growth is squeezing the rest of its output. Housebuilders, for instance, cannot afford to be blithe about higher borrowing costs. Data centres have also constrained the rest of the economy by keeping energy prices high. Average American electricity bills have risen by 7% so far in 2025, at least in part due to the extra strain data centres have put on the grid. Real consumption has flatlined since December. Housebuilding has slumped, as has non-AI business investment.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Roughly a sixth of the 2% rise in American real GDP over the past year came from investment in computer and communications equipment, including chips, and data centres; one estimate puts the AI boom's contribution at 40% once grid upgrades and software intellectual property are included.
  2. Average American electricity bills have risen by 7% so far in 2025, at least in part due to the extra strain data centres have put on the grid.

Related Articles:

  • Honey, AI Capex is Eating the Economy — Capital spending on AI data centers is around 20% of railroads' peak spending as a share of GDP and is rising quickly, having already surpassed the dot-com era peak in telecom investment. Unlike long-lived rail infrastructure, data centers are short-lived assets requiring frequent hardware replacement, and the capital is being reallocated from other sectors.
  • Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Programming — The four largest US hyperscalers spent $440bn on capital expenditure and research in 2024, with $596bn projected for 2025, a 35% increase, leaving large gaps between AI spending and AI revenues. These firms account for more than half of all capital expenditure growth in the US equity market.
  • The AI Boom’s Hidden Risk to the Economy — Net income at Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft rose 73% to $91bn in a quarter two years on, while their combined free cash flow fell 30% to $40bn, as heavy AI investment absorbs cash these firms once recycled into financial markets. That spare cash previously helped hold down long-term interest rates despite large federal deficits.
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment

Is it Over?

AI Summary. Benchmark scores show only modest capability gains in the latest large language model releases compared with the larger jump seen two generations earlier, alongside a broader convergence in performance across competing AI models. Commentators attribute this to inherent limits of the technology and the exhaustion of new training data, raising doubts that the spending on AI hardware is justified.

Joseph Wang Fed Guy Blog
Date Posted:
August 18, 2025
Is Database:
Database

Following tepid reactions to the release of GTP-5, Joe Wang observes, “It is looking more like companies are spending hundreds of billions on rapidly depreciating GPUs that produce a commoditized product that most clients only modestly benefit from.”

Are AI capability gains slowing enough to question hardware spending?

Core argument: GPT-5 users widely expressed disappointment with the release, which seemed in some ways a step back, and benchmarks show only modest capability gains since the significant improvement delivered by version 4 two years earlier.

GPT-5 users widely expressed disappointment in the capabilities of the new release, which seemed in some ways a step back. This sentiment is reflected in benchmarks that show a modest improvement in capabilities since the significant improvement in version 4 released two years ago. In addition, the benchmarks suggest a broader convergence in the capabilities of AI models. Commentary suggests this could be due to inherent limitations in the LLM technology and exhaustion of new training data. AI is fascinating technology, but it may not justify the enormous sums spent in its pursuit. It is looking more like companies are spending hundreds of billions on rapidly depreciating GPUs that produce a commoditized product that most clients only modestly benefit from. The entire macro landscape would look very different without the support of the AI boom.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. GPT-5 users widely expressed disappointment with the release, which seemed in some ways a step back, and benchmarks show only modest capability gains since the significant improvement delivered by version 4 two years earlier.
  2. Benchmarks suggest a broader convergence in AI model capabilities, with commentary attributing this to inherent limitations of large language model technology and exhaustion of new training data.
  3. Companies appear to be spending hundreds of billions on rapidly depreciating GPUs producing a commoditized product that most clients only modestly benefit from, and the entire macro landscape would look very different without the support of the AI boom.

Related Articles:

  • Honey, AI Capex is Eating the Economy — Capital spending on AI data centers is around 20% of railroads' peak spending as a share of GDP and is rising quickly, having already surpassed the dot-com era peak in telecom investment. Unlike long-lived rail infrastructure, data centers are short-lived assets requiring frequent hardware replacement, and the capital is being reallocated from other sectors.
  • Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Programming — The four largest US hyperscalers spent $440bn on capital expenditure and research in 2024, with $596bn projected for 2025, a 35% increase, leaving large gaps between AI spending and AI revenues. These firms account for more than half of all capital expenditure growth in the US equity market.
  • AI’s $600B Question — Comparing spending on AI chips to historical railroad construction overlooks that high-fixed-cost, low-marginal-cost businesses without monopoly or oligopoly power tend to see prices competed down to marginal cost, and that semiconductors continually improve in cost versus performance, unlike physical infrastructure. Speculative frenzies accompany technology, but the payoff will take a long time.
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
    • Financial Markets
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment

US Households and Firms Are in Great Shape

AI Summary. Household and banking sector leverage in the US have declined significantly since 2008, while corporate leverage has moved sideways and federal government leverage has risen significantly. On this measure, the US private sector is in strong financial shape.

Torsten Sløk Apollo
Date Posted:
March 31, 2025
Is Database:
Database

​​Torsten Sløk notes that US household and banking sector debt has fallen to its lowest level in decades as a % of GDP, while corporate leverage has moved sideways. “The bottom line is that the private sector in the US is in incredibly good shape.”

Is the US private sector in strong financial shape?

Core argument: US household sector leverage and banking sector leverage have both declined significantly since 2008, leaving the US private sector in what the author characterizes as incredibly good shape.

Household sector leverage and banking sector leverage have declined significantly since 2008. Over the same period, federal government leverage has increased significantly, and corporate leverage has moved sideways. The bottom line is that the private sector in the US is in incredibly good shape.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. US household sector leverage and banking sector leverage have both declined significantly since 2008, leaving the US private sector in what the author characterizes as incredibly good shape.
  2. US federal government leverage has increased significantly since 2008, moving in the opposite direction from the deleveraging in the household and banking sectors.
  3. US corporate leverage has moved sideways since 2008, neither declining like household and banking leverage nor rising like federal government leverage.

Related Articles:

  • Global Debt Report 2025 — About 60% of fixed-rate government debt in advanced economies maturing by 2027 — roughly $9tn — was issued before the recent interest-rate tightening, with weighted average yields below 2% versus projected 10-year rates near 3.6%, implying refinancing at nearly double the original cost. France, Spain, the UK, and the US face heightened vulnerability, with maturing debt exceeding 15% of GDP.
  • The Long-Term Budget Outlook: 2025 to 2055 — The Congressional Budget Office projects the 10-year Treasury note interest rate will average 3.8% over 2025–2055, close to its 3.7% average over the prior three decades, with the inflation-adjusted rate averaging 1.5%. It assesses that long-run rates are largely set by structural factors including demographics, saving and investment behavior, and federal debt.
  • Our Thoughts on Large US Deficits and Their Impact on Bond Yields — Total borrowing in the US is about average despite high government deficits, as high public borrowing has contributed to the need for higher interest rates that have depressed private sector borrowing. Risk premiums on long-dated debt look about average, with no market signs that economic or debt limits are currently being hit.
  • Business Cycle
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
    • Government Spending
  • GDP
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms