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。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 113.61.129.59
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1546438960.A.4F9.html