I used to think a fixed borrowing rate meant I had basically controlled the risk of my position.

But thats not really how I see it anymore.

With $TMX, the borrowing cost can stay predictable through the agreed period. I know what that side of the position may cost me instead of worrying about rates constantly changing.

For me, thats valuable.

But predictable borrowing cost and predictable collateral are two very different things.

My collateral can still move hard against me. If its value drops enough, a fixed rate doesnt suddenly protect my position from collateral risk.

I think this distinction gets missed alot.

What interests me about @TermMax is that fixed-rate borrowing can remove one uncertainty from the equation without pretending every other risk has disappeared.

$TMX doesn't make market volatility stop.

So when I look at $TMX, I don't read “fixed” as “safe.”

I read it as one variable is known.

That makes planning easier for me, but it also reminds me that collateral management is still my responsibility.

$TMX gives predictability on one side of the position while the other side can remain exposed to market movement.

And thats the part I wouldn't ignore just because my rate is fixed.

For me, the lesson from @TermMax is simple:

Fixed borrowing can make my cost predictable. It can never make collateral risk stand still.

$TMX #TermMax #ChinaJulyOutputRetailInvestmentAllMiss #CMESeptemberHikeOddsFallTo30.6% #IsraelStrikesLebanonKillsHezbollahCommander #SECReviewsSix3xLeveragedCommodityETFs
$GPS

$HEMI

$COTI

your borrowing cost stays fixed but collateral keeps moving, which risk would you personally watch more closely?