Just few examples of putting things into context:
* Household Debt Service Payments as a Percent of Disposable Personal Income https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TDSP
* Household Financial Obligations as a percent of Disposable Personal Income (FODSP) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FODSP
* Household Debt to GDP for United States© (HDTGPDUSQ163N) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HDTGPDUSQ163N
The real issue is that the big cities like Toronto are the economic centers of the region. When they pop, everything else will be in trouble too.
If you want to figure out what the correct price level is, find statistics that compares price of housing to median income in your area over time. That's the single most important metric determining the correct property valuations.
Prices can go up as long as incomes go up. Major cities have higher productivity and prices can go up until they start to eat too much from the income. In declining areas prices can go down and houses are still overvalued.
What is the price/income ratio now compared to long term average? How much of the 60% can be explained with prices rebounding to long term normal.
ps. I'm almost sure that house prices in Toronto are exceptionally high compared to income. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against people using wrong numbers to measure things. Find relevant numbers and use them.
Yes -- this is the whole point of owning a broad index.
You get exposure to the highest-performing stocks -- what those actual companies are changes over time.
And there's usually another company to step up and fill the gap when one of the leaders falls.
The government then makes up that you must be at least getting 4% (up to 9% if you have up to 1M) interest, and it wants 30% of that interest of anything over that 21K EUR limit.
Meanwhile the current interest at banks is anywhere from 0.05% to 1% here (most major banks are around 0.2%).
As a general principle taxing personal investment income should be taxes at least the same amount as labor income. Taxing labor has more negative externalities than taxing investment income.
By practically pay, he just means he has a very low interest rate, and possibly some regular account fee's.
Care to elaborate more on the housing.
Corporate debt is high because DEBT IS STILL CHEAP (fed is changing that). Of course they're going to borrow fuckloads of money, it's practically free by some measures!
The indexing "bubble" is actually a correction for a lack of value from active funds. I don't expect the correction to be corrected.
The cryptocurrency bubble is tiny. 65 billion? That's a rounding error.
5 Stocks accounting for most of growth is troublesome when corrected, but still not catastrophic. If we lose ALL of that growth then we go back to 2016 levels? Ok.