Nouriel Roubini's Global EconoMonitor

RGE 360

Here’s this week’s RGE 360, our Friday morning look at the week ahead in the global economy and our weekly review of the best recent content from


This weekend, April 24-25:

Monday, April 26:

Tuesday, April 27:

Wednesday, April 28:

Thursday, April 29:

Friday, April 30:



Here is a look at the best of this week’s offerings from and RGE EconoMonitors:

RGE Analysis:

Nouriel Roubini’s Global EconoMonitor

RGE Analyst’s EconoMonitor

Finance & Markets Monitor

Global Macro EconoMonitor

U.S. EconoMonitor

Europe EconoMonitor

Emerging Markets Monitor

Asia EconoMonitor

Latin America EconoMonitor

Peterson Institute for International Economics Monitor


Follow RGE On: Twitter | Facebook | RSS

We encourage and value your feedback.  Please write to us at

6 Responses to “RGE 360”

blindmanApril 24th, 2010 at 4:42 pm” i’ll tell ya exactly what is going to happen. in 5 years the top.1 % of the population will own 99% of the wealth and the 99%of the population will live in abject poverty. greece willlook like saudi arabia.” m.k..or words like that. coming to a theater near you. they willcall it the rule of law and recovery..this is what happens when you let financial terroristsexecute their plans with assistance from your politicalparties. they turn populations into slave work camps.and unknowingly. it’s all so unrecognizable..and seriously, are the republicans in this land reallydenying that financial reform is called for in the interest ofsurvival? they are probably just milking lobbyists for excessivegraft and their fair share of the bailout treasure. who couldblame them for having such acute and astute political instincts and timing..what an intellectual sewer..

blind...April 24th, 2010 at 7:35 pm denninger and m.k…could it be that there are those among usthat are bent on proving the propositionthat fraud itself is responsible for a high standard ofliving in the socio-economic sphere of man?.if so they should make the argument in public..”if you take away fraud.. there is very little left..” m.k..i think… GDP..and empire. and weapons of mass distraction…and destruction.

b.......April 24th, 2010 at 8:08 pm Audacity Of Synthetics, karl denninger..”used toilet paper”.. for the taxpayer. thank you forplaying our systemically important, hehe, game..sleeping with council? that sounds interesting..maybe not..”The “CDOs” that are at issue here were synthetics.That is, they did not own actual bonds, they were comprised of credit-default swaps that Goldman wrote against subprime mortgage bonds.This would have left Goldman exposed (as the writer of the swaps) for the potential losses. Goldman, in turn, bought a CDS from AIG against the “portfolio” in the CDO, thereby laying off the risk on AIG.Goldman is thus now “net neutral” (provided AIG can pay!) and happy as a pig in slop, as they made money on the origination fees for the CDO and in addition get to skim a nice little bit off the servicing.What could possibly go wrong?More than a few things…….But somehow I find it hard to believe that it was made clear to the buyers of these tranches before they plunked down their money that these CDOs came into existence because a wise guy came to the bank and asked for them to create a synthetic CDO with specific characteristics and that they would provide the cash flow to be paid to their investors – but that the essence of their desire in setting this up was that they believed the reference instruments would default and in doing so they would become rich while the tranche buyers would be left with little or nothing!.You can say that the buyers of the CDOs should have done their due diligence. Ok, I’ll grant you that. You can also say that the ratings agencies had no business granting “AAA” ratings on underlying securities with such shaky repayment prospects, and I’ll agree with that too.But this leaves open the question of whether it is fair, just, or even legal to create a synthetic security that at it’s core comes into existence because someone believes that the reference is going to detonate, and then sell off pieces of that security to investors without prominently disclosing the source of the funding of the cash flow, that they proffered the criteria for inclusion in the reference and that the INTENT of their funding was to profit from an EXPECTED detonation of the reference securities.It also leaves open the question of laying off that risk on an insurance company (whether in a regulated subsidiary or not) without similarly disclosing the above to them up front! That is, is it fair, just (or even legal) to buy fire insurance on a property when you have been told that someone expects a fire in that structure based on what they believe is credible analysis (e.g. a look at the wiring plan), without telling the insurance company about what you were told?”.comment: he goes on to coin the term “rape for profit”.i think that is a new one. perhaps predictable in the worldof tangential and derivative synthetic speculation, a newmathematical domain for “humanity” to explore..