What's a normal personal debt / equity ratio for a highly educated person?
"Average person's life I'm going to say there is no normal debt level. Here's the standard life pattern: So it really depends on your situation, it's way too spread out to quote a ""normal"" figure. Cost of debt vs Gain from assets and Risk of income You need to strike a sweet spot based on: Someone who is more educated in finance will probably be able to run a tighter and more aggressive financial strategy, whereas someone who is educated in, say, creative media may not be able to do as good of a job. Running your life as a business Someone here mentioned this, I think it's very true. Unless you intend on living day to day, with no financial strategies, much of our lives parallel businesses. Both need to pay tax, both look for low risk high growth strategies, and both will (hopefully) have a purpose that goes beyond bringing in $$$." "Curious, are you asking about average, or the good numbers? The median family doesn't have $2500 to address an emergency. We are a nation of debtors, and spenders. A young couple at .8 is doing well. It means they saved 20% for a down payment, and just bought a house. Not too tough to buy with 5% down, have no other savings, and a student loan to put the debt to equity over 100%.  Older people should be shooting for zero. I semi-retired at 50, and my mortgage is at about 8% of my net worth. 50% would be too high. Others 50+ should have at least 50% equity in their home and nearly half their ""number,"" the amount needed to retire. So, a target is 25% maximum.  These numbers shouldn't impact you at all. You should plan wisely, spend frugally, and prioritize your goals. There are 'zero debt' people out there who make me look reckless, and others who invest in rentals with a goal of keeping them highly leveraged.  Neither group is wrong, what's right for you is what lets you sleep at night." "What is your biggest wealth building tool?  Income.  If you ""nerf"" your income with payments to banks, cable, credit card debt, car payments, and lattes then you are naturally handicapping your wealth building.  It is sort of like trying to drive home a nail holding a hammer right underneath the head.   Normal is broke, don't be normal. Normal obtains student loans while getting an education.  You don't have to.  You can work part time, or even full time and get a degree. As an example, here is one way to do it in Florida.  Get a job working fast food and get your associates degree using a community college that are cheap.  Then apply for the state troopers.  Go away for about 5 months, earning an income the whole time.  You automatically graduate with a job that pays for state schools.  Take the next three years (or more if you want an advanced degree) to get your bachelors.  Then start your desirable career. What is better to have ""wasted"" approx 1.5 years being a state trooper, or to have a student loan payment for 20 years?  There is not even pressure to obtain employment right after graduation.  BTW, I know someone who is doing exactly what I outlined. Every commercial you watch is geared toward getting you to sign on the line that is dotted, often going into debt to do so.  Car commercials will tell you that you are a bad mom or not a real man if you don't drive the 2015 whatever.   Think differently, throw out your numbers and shoot for zero debt. EDIT:  OP, I have a MS in Comp Sci, and started one in finance.  My wife also has a masters.  We had debt.  We paid that crap off.  Work like a fiend and do the same.  My wife's was significant.  She planned on having her employer pay it off for each year she worked there.  (Like 20% each year or something.)  Guess what, that did not work out!  She went to work somewhere else!  Live like you are still in college and use all that extra money to get rid of your debt.  Student loans are consumer debt." The problem with having no debt at all and relying totally on your income from working is that if you lose your job you'll have no income. Now there are 2 types of debt: good debt and bad debt. You should stay away from bad debt. But good debt is good — it should produce an income higher than the interest payments on the debt. Good debt will help you supplement your income from work and eventually replace your income from work. I have over $2M in good debt, have been semi-retired since 42, and sleep very well at night. By the way I also have zero bad debt. As Joe says, you have to be at a level you are comfortable with, can sleep at night, and try to limit your bad debt by showing some delayed gratification when you are starting off.
$100K of mortgage debt at 4%, 30 years will result in a $477/mo mortgage. It would take about $23K in income to have 25% of the monthly income cover the mortgage.  This means, that with no other large debts, a bank will lend you about 4X your income.  If, instead of 25%, we decided that having 20% of income go to the mortgage, the ratio drops to just over 3X.  In the end, it comes down to keshlam's advice regarding a budget. I think the question can't be answered as asked, given the fact that you offer no numbers. For the average person, credit card debt, student loans, and cars payments add up to enough to chip away at the amount the bank will lend you. Since (per one of the linked questions) the maximum debt service should be 36%, you start with that and subtract all current payments.  If this doesn't suffice, let us know what, exactly you're looking for . P/E ratio is useful but limited as others have said. Another problem is that it doesn't show leverage. Two companies in the same industry could have the same P/E but be differently leveraged. In that case I would buy the company with more equity and less debt as it should be a less risky investment. To compare companies and take leverage/debt into account you could use the EV/EBIT ratio instead. Its slightly more complicated to calculate and isn't presented by as many data sources though. Enterprise Value (EV) can be said to represent the value of the company if someone would buy it today and then pay off all its (interest bearing) debt. EV is essentially calculated like this: (Market Capitalization plus cash & cash equivalents)  minus interest-bearing debt.  This is then divided by EBIT (Earnings before interest and tax) to get the ratio. One drawback of this ratio though is that it can't be used for financials since their balance sheet pretty much consists of debt and the Enterprise Value therefore doesn't tell us very much. Also, like the P/E ratio it is dependent on fresh numbers. A balance sheet is just a glimpse of the companys financial situation on ONE DAY, and this could (and probably will, although not drastically for bigger companies) change to the next day. "&gt; Not all Bachelor's are the same, DeVry...  Of course! A degree in ""gender studies"" is worthless, while a degree in ""computer science"" worth more. But, with so many ""computer science"" degrees, even that degree does not give you much headway... without experience.  It's very simple what happens today, compared to the past.  Today, the idea is to keep kids in schools, for as long as possible (because BAs are worthless and you need Masters), charge them tons of money, pass them so they continue to pay, get them into debt and then pay them less, because so many people have the degrees. Even require BA degree for jobs that don't need it.  In the past, if you finished high school, it was an accomplishment. If you got accepted to college, it was an accomplishment. If you survived the first year in college or got your bachelor degree, it was a major accomplishment.  **If you did not know, those accomplishments in the past gave you substantial(!!!) benefits compared to others.**  It was much cheaper in the past and much better education. They did not care about money, and will kick you out of college for any fail.  So, in the past to be a teller in the bank, you did not need to finish high school, but just be good with basic algebra.  **Today, you need a BA degree and get a lousy salary to be teller in a bank. Do you understand what happened here?**  Also, in the past, a person with lower socioeconomic background, if they finish high school or got a BA, it would (for sure) really change their lives and they become middle or high class.  Today, a person with poor socioeconomic background, even if they got their [worthless] BA degree, they are worst off because they do not have any competitive advantage over other people as all of them have degrees too... you are worst off, because you are in debt to get the degree and the ""education"" you got is bad." Your company wants to raise $25,000,000 for a new project, but flotation costs are incurred by issuing securities (underwriting, legal fees, etc) First you must determine how much of the $25,000,000 is going to be debt and equity. The company's target D/E ratio is 50% (or .50). For every $0.50 of debt raised they want to raise $1.00 in equity. $1.00 + $0.50 = $1.50 $0.50/$1.50 = 1/3 debt, that leaves the equity portion being 2/3. $25,000,000 * (1/3) = $8,333,333.33 (DEBT)  and $25,000,000 * (2/3) = $16,666,666.67 (EQUITY) Using the Weighted Average Cost then you would do something like this: = (1/3) * .04 + 2/3 * .12 = .09333333 =$25,000,000/(1-.093333) = $27,573,529.40 It's not so much the rate of the debt as it is the total cost of the debt relative to the gain you expect to see from using it to purchase something of value. I've known people who were quite happy to pay 12% on personal loans used to buy investment properties for flipping.  They're happy to pay that because conventional loans from banks require too much documentation and out-of-pocket expense.  For some investors, 12% without all of the documentation burden is money well spent. So if I'm the investor, and the interest on this 12% loan is $5,000 and I can flip a property for $20,000 after all of the other expenses, then the 12% loan was an enabler to netting $15,000 profit. "I'd like to see a credible source for ""the highest"", but it's certainly fairly high. Household debt could be broadly categorized as debt for housing and debt for consumption. Housing prices seem very high compared to equivalent rental income.  This is generating a great deal of debt.  Keynes(?) said that ""if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.""  Just when it will stop, and whether it will stop suddenly or gradually is a matter of great interest.  Obviously there are huge vested interests, including the large fraction of the population who already own property and do not wish to see it fall.  Nobody really knows; my guess would be on a very-long-term plateau in nominal prices and decline in real prices. The Australian stock market is unlike the US: since it's a small country, a lot of the big companies are export-driven, either by directly exporting physical goods (miners, agriculture) or by FDI (property trusts, banks).  So a local recession will hurt the stock market, but not across the board.  A decline in the value of the Australian dollar would be very good news for some of these companies. Debt for consumption I think is the smaller fraction.  Arguably it's driven by a wealth effect of Australia having had a reasonably good crisis with low unemployment and increasing international purchasing power.  If this tops out, you'd expect to see reduced earnings for consumer discretionary companies." I don't know about this particular person, however I have an example about my friend. Born in a very rich family he went to Harvard and the worked 2 years for Goldman. Now, I should mention, he is a rather bright fellow, and a great human being as well, but when asked about his studies and work experience in Goldman he described it as not very challenging. You could think of points 1 and 3 combined to be similar to buying shares and selling calls on a part of those shares. $50k is the net of the shares and calls sale (ie without point 3, the investor would pay more for the same stake). Look up convertible debt, and why it's used. It's basically used so that both parties get 'the best of both world's' from equity and debt financing.   Who is he selling his share to in point 2 back to the business or to outside investors?