What does it mean for issuing corporations to “crank out expensive shares when markets are frothy … and issue debt when markets are cheap”?
crank out expensive shares when markets are frothy Corporations go public (sell their shares for the first time) in market conditions that have a lot of liquidity (a lot of people buying shares) and when they have to make the fewest concessions to appease an investing public. When people are greedy and looking to make money without using too much due diligence. Think Netscape's IPO in 1995 or Snapchat's IPO in 2017. They also issue more shares after already being public in similar circumstances. Think Tesla's 1 billion dollar dilution in 2017. Dilution results in the 1 share owning less of the company. So in a less euphoric investing environment, share prices go down in response to dilution. See Viggle's stock for an example, if you can find a chart. issue debt Non-financial companies create bonds and sell bonds. Why is that surprising to you? Cash is cash. This is called corporate bonds or corporate debt. You can buy Apple bonds right now if you want from the same brokers that let you buy stocks. mutual fund investor Bernstein is making a cynical assessment of the markets which carries a lot of truth. Dumping shares on your mom's 401k is a running gag amongst some financial professionals. Basically mutual fund investors are typically the least well researched or most gullible market participants to sell to, influenced by brand name more than company fundamentals, who will balk at the concept of reading a prospectus. Financial professionals and CFOs have more information than their investors and can gain extended advantages because of this. Just take the emotions out of it and make objective assessments.
The first statement is talking about a sudden sharp increase in volume (double or more of average volume) with a sudden increase in price. In other words, there has been a last rush to buy the stock exhausting all the current bulls (buyers), so the bears (sellers) take over, at least temporarily. Whilst the second statement is talking about a gradual increase in volume as the price up trends (thus the use of a volume oscillator). In other words (in an uptrend), the bulls (buyers) are gradually increasing in numbers sending the price higher, and new buyers keep entering the market. (The opposite is the case for a down-trend). "You ask two questions - First - the market value can drop for two reasons (that I know), the company itself may have issues, and investors don't trust they'll be paid, or a general rise in interest rates. In the latter case, there's little to worry about, but for the former, well, that's your decision, you say ""the company is in trouble"" yet you believe they'll pay. Tough call. Second - yes, when a bond matures, the money appears in your account." Fundamentally, it's no different than normal.  A risky entity must entice investors with higher interest rates than less risky entities.  We're just in such a low interest rate environment that the rate spread now dips below zero and very low risk entities can issue debt with a negative coupon. Though I agree that this makes no sense and the world's gone mad. The market moves faster than ratings agencies.  Everyday the market is trying to figure out the true value of Assets - Liabilities and thus its overall equity value.  The financial crisis illustrated this perfectly when Bear Sterns got stuck in a liquidity trap.  It's MBS(CDO) was still highly rated, likewise its overall credit rating was sound, however in reality the value of assets were much higher due to coming default, credit providers realized assets Bear had posted as collateral were falling in value quickly.  This started the death spiral, or feedback loop in which it isn't clear if the tail wagged the dog or the dog wagged the tail, but as equity value fell Bear could no longer get access to credit markets to fund daily operations, once it got margin called and couldn't pay, it was all over.  When it was sold to JPM, they basically stole the entire company at a fire sale price, everyone knew they were getting a deal, as reflected in the post buyout price jump of JPM stock.    So in a technical sense you are right, they have nothing to do with each other.  But in a practical sense as we see equity value collapse we are approaching bankruptcy, and thus default, and credit ratings should represent likelihood of default so the two should have a positive correlation to one another, assuming equity value is the 'true value'. A stock is an ownership interest in a company.  There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company.  Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company.  A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest.  You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond.  The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary.  If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount.  Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value.   Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return.  However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised. When he says shitty, he means less likely to actually pay back the money.   If I have a company that's not doing well enough, and I have already issued $100,000 in bonds onto this market, and I want to pay back all my bond-holders, maybe I convince a near-bankrupt company to give me $100,000 of bonds in their company for $50,000 in goods. I then repay my bondholders with the $100,000 in shitty bonds.  Or maybe I give them $300,000 in goods and they give me $600,000 in their shitty bonds (since thier company is about to fall apart and they know I'll give them a kickback down the line). Then I pay back my 100k bonds with the new shitty bonds, and I go buy $500k worth of raw material for my company and pay for them using almost-bankrupt-company's shitty bonds .   Then I have no debt, $500k worth of raw material, the people I used to owe money to (AND my suppliers) now hold a total of $600k in shitty bonds, and then my friend's almost-bankrupt-company DOES go bankrupt.... and my suppliers and old lenders realize the paper I just gave them is worthless. I am not a structured products expert, just relaying what's in the article, but I'd imagine it includes a larger equity tranche in the structured product, thereby giving more cushion against losses to the actual debt investors in the tranches above it in the payment water fall. Yeah it was a mix between the issuing agencies and the credit agencies. If the credit agencies didnt rate them as AAA then the financial institutions would just go to the other agency. So there was a conflict of interest in rating them higher. There was mismanagement on both sides of the fence and when the CDOs started to default it created a forced selling environment where people HAD to sell their CDOs/stocks at a steep discount to get enough liquidity to pay their own mortgages. Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company.  Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future).  From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off.  That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend).  And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important.  A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners.  But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value. "When people (even people in the media) say: ""The stock market is up because of X"" or ""The stock market is down because of Y"", they are often engaging in what Nicolas Taleb calls the narrative falacy. They see the market has moved in one direction or another, they open their newspaper, pick a headline that provides a plausible reason for the market to move, and say: ""Oh, that is why the stock market is down"". Very rarely do statements like this actually come from research, asking people why they bought or sold that day. Sometimes they may be right, but it is usually just story telling. In terms of old fashioned logic this is called the ""post hoc, ergo proper hoc"" fallacy. Now all the points people have raised about the US deficit may be valid, and there are plenty of reasons for worrying about the future of the world economy, but they were all known before the S&P report, which didn't really provide the markets with much new information. Note also that the actual bond market didn't move much after hearing the same report, in fact the price of 10 year US Treasury bonds actually rose a tiny bit. Take these simple statements about what makes the market go up or down on any given day with several fistfuls of salt." To issue corporate grade bonds the approval process very nearly matches that for issuing corporate equity. You must register with the sec, and then generally there is a initial debt offering similar to an IPO. (I say similar in terms of the process itself, but the actual sale of bonds is nothing like that for equities). It would be rare for a partnership to be that large as to issue debt in the form of bonds (although there are some that are pretty big), but I suppose it is possible as long as they want to file with the sec.   Beyond that a business could privately place bonds with a large investor but there is still registration requirements with the sec.  All that being said, it is also pretty rare for public bonds to be issued by a company that doesn't already have public equity. And the amounts we are talking about here are huge. The most common trade in corporate debt is a round lot of 100,000. So this isn't something a small corporation would have access to or have a need for. Generally financing for a smaller business comes from a bank. Ultra-low rates can spur an unhealthy boon in M&amp;A deals/Corporate takeovers as management (defensively) and raiders (offensively) lever up cheaply to acquire companies. This can be problematic down the line when takeovers/large investments (that were funded with cheap debt) dont pan out and interest rates rise, and with it the cost of servicing that debt. The most obvious example would be a situation where a Company is growth constrained, but cash flow positive. It may have enough cash flow to service $10 million of debt, but it needs to build a new facility that will cost $20 million. There is the option to raise debt and equity or just raise equity and move quicker to getting that facility up and running.   There are also situations where debt is used to replace equity (i.e. dividend recapitalization or leveraged share redemption). "With debts exceeding assets by a billion dollars, this activity likely comes from penny stock speculators and ""pump and dump"" schemers. There is no rational expectation that the stock is even worth multiple pennies when the company is that far upside-down on its debts. Even if the debts could be restructured in a chapter 11, the equity shares would likely lose all of their value in the bankruptcy proceedings. Shareholders are at the bottom of the totem-pole when debts are being adjusted by the courts." One reason a lot of bond ETFs like Financials are because of how financial companies work.  They usually have amazing cash flows due to deposits and fees and therefore have little risk associated with paying their debts in the short term. The rest of VCSH contains companies with low default risk and good cash flow generation as well: This is of course the objective of VCSH: Banks themselves issue a lot of bonds to raise cash to lend for other purposes.  Banks are intermediary and help make funds liquid for investors and spenders.  Hope that helped answer your question.  If not comment below and I'll try to adjust the answer to be more complete.