[throwup238]

> Technically, from an economic perspective, it's debt.

Isn’t the important difference that it doesn’t trigger bankruptcy on default? Economically it might not be that different but it has some significance legally because the courts have some fast tracks that trigger bankruptcies (IANAL but that’s my layman’s understanding).

If they “default” in this case it will lead to lawsuits that they will almost certainly lose but in the mean time they kick the can down the road hoping to recover on general economic headwinds like lower interest rates. IMO the risks are obviously correlated here but I’m betting short term incentives drove this mess.

[harry8]

if you can't meet your obligations as and when they fall due, you're insolvent. Contractual specification from there.

[mdnahas]

Economist here. There are 3 parties and I’d focus on the investor’s perspective. The investor gives money to the intermediary company that signs a contract with the using company. If the contract fails, the intermediary still has the asset and can still make money. It can still payback the investor.

If the investor was given a bond, it is possible they aren’t paid back in full. And that’s where I would worry. The Great Recession was so bad because bond rating agencies marked bad bonds as investment-grade. That is, bonds you could rely on. When “sure future money” isn’t sure, the system glitches.

[throwup238]

Paying someone a week late (or not at all) on net 30 terms does not trigger insolvency proceedings. The type of obligation matters.