[請益] 本段原意理解是否正確

作者: z04   2019-01-02 22:22:37
Funders that have access to any sort of government guarantee -
banks with FDIC-insured deposits, large entities with commercial
paper now backed by the Federal Reserve, and others who are using
imaginative methods (or lobbying skills) to come under the
government's umbrella - have money costs that are minimal.
//「have money costs that are minimal」這句的意思是?
Funder是否指的是出資者,也就是貸方?
獲得政府擔保的貸款人取得資金的成本較低?
貸款人不是扮演提供資金的腳色嗎? 本段無法理解。
Conversely, highly-rated companies, such as Berkshire, are
experiencing borrowing costs that, in relation to Treasury
rates, are at record levels.
//相反的,評價優良的公司,如波克夏,其借款成本相對於政府公債
的利率卻達到了新高紀錄。
Moreover, funds are abundant for the government-guaranteed
borrower but often scarce for others, no matter how creditworthy
they may be.
//對於有政府擔保的借款人資金是充足的,對於其他人則否,
不管他們的信用如何。
請問上述三段的理解有無錯誤? 因為第一段在講貸方,而二、三段
卻是在講借方,文義感覺兜不起來,故發文詢問,謝謝大家。

Links booklink

Contact Us: admin [ a t ] ucptt.com