I'd question the accuracy of those Google figures, and you also...

I'd question the accuracy of those Google figures, and you also have to work out between debt in terms of what Macquarie's owes and liabilities owed to MQG that count as debt on its balance sheet (e.g. home loans).

So think about the concept of debt as the same as if you're a person.

You can't possibly get rich without using leverage. To own a home, you need a loan. To start a business, you need a loan. Even if you pay those loans off, you want to get wealthier and then raise more debt in order to finance your next investment property or buy stocks.

Companies effectively need to do the same. Macquarie needs to perpetually issue debt in order to buy assets, restructure them and sell them for a higher price. This is absolutely no different to BHP - BHP needs to borrow immense amounts to buy mine sites, build the mine, hire expensive labor, and take the product to market and then the ongoing care of the mine. Once the mine is running, BHP then needs to raise more debt to buy more land to explore and create/build more mines. This is both to meet rising demand for commodities and satisfy shareholders' demands for growth.

Woolies can't possibly open new stores in suburbs with booming population growth by using only the cash generated from its business - these are extremely expensive assets and require leverage to bring to fruition.

The government can't possibly fund all social security needs, the army, healthcare etc. through just revenues - there's a perpetual cycle of borrowing involved.

Rarely did a person or company get rich without using leverage - maybe that happened before the 1950s when things were ultra cheap and financing was harder to access but not today.

So the answer to your question is yes but this is not a bad thing at all - it's standard practice.