Latest news with #NourielRoubini
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
8% GDP growth?
In today's CEO Daily: Diane Brady talks to economist Nouriel Roubini, Carlyle's David Rubenstein, and Kraken's Arjun Sethi. The big story: Tariff deadline looms. The markets: Mixed. Analyst notes from UBS on U.S. fiscal stability, Goldman Sachs on global markets, and Pantheon Macroeconomics on consumer spending. Plus: All the news and watercooler chat from Fortune. Good morning, I'm just back from the Aspen Ideas Festival, where I had an opportunity to speak with many thought-provoking leaders about how they're navigating this climate. I'll share some of those insights later this week. For today, I want to highlight a conversation I had with noted economist Nouriel Roubini; Carlyle Group co-founder and co-chair David Rubenstein; and Arjun Sethi, co-CEO of the crypto exchange Kraken. The topic: What wealth will look like tomorrow. Roubini (known as Dr. Doom for predicting the financial crisis), has more recently become Dr. Boom for his view that a tech-driven renaissance for the U.S. economy will ultimately lead to 8% GDP growth. 'I'm a contrarian,' he said, noting that technological drivers of innovation working in America's favor right may also create job losses that may necessitate a universal basic income. Rubenstein talked about this country's mounting debt and the strength of the dollar, while being bullish on the European defense sector and the longevity economy. 'In the future, we're not going to measure people's wealth by how much money they have.' Rather, he said, wealth will be measured by the length and health of one's life. 'In 10 or 20 years, we will be able to tell you how long you're likely to live,' he said. Sethi talked about the democratization of access to capital and trading through crypto and the continued challenge of regulation in building products and getting things done. 'If you were to go to China and build a robot, it would take less than six months. Whereas it could take two years in the U.S.,' said Sethi, who has the number of seconds in a day tattooed on his forearm. 'I am paying our lawyers more than anyone else.' You can watch our full conversation here. More news CEO Daily via Diane Brady at This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Mint
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Nouriel Roubini: Regime change in Iran could give peace a chance in West Asia
Nouriel Roubini Hostilities between Israel and Iran may be ending after sharp US intervention, but the Iranian regime has been shaken and may fall. Should it be replaced, not just the West, but the whole volatile region might be better off. Iranians have revolted against their regime before and when given the chance, they have always chosen moderate leaders over theocratic zealots. Gift this article Last November, I said that Israel was likely to attack Iran's nuclear and other military facilities, even go so far as to eliminate the 'regime's top military and political leaders." I also argued that 'any US administration would inevitably continue to support [Israel], directly or indirectly." Last November, I said that Israel was likely to attack Iran's nuclear and other military facilities, even go so far as to eliminate the 'regime's top military and political leaders." I also argued that 'any US administration would inevitably continue to support [Israel], directly or indirectly." Regardless of divisions in Tel Aviv about the conduct of war in Gaza, the broad consensus across the Israeli political spectrum— including centre-left critics of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—was that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, seen as an existential threat to Israel. Centrist leaders such as Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid criticized Netanyahu for being soft on Iran. It was only matter of time before Israel struck Iran, which, starting on 7 October 2023, had unleashed Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and Shia militias in Syria and Iraq against Israel. After Tel Aviv decimated these proxies and Iran lost deterrence, Iran's only option was to gain nukes, an unacceptable outcome for Israel and the West broadly. Thus, Israel's attack against Iran. And since some of Iran's hardened nuclear facilities were robust enough to withstand Israeli weapons, it was clear that the US would intervene to destroy those units, despite the anti-interventionist sentiment of US President Donald Trump's political base. Iran counter-attacked Israel with missile barrages [and later fired at a US base in Qatar, causing no serious damage]. [Trump announced a ceasefire thereafter], but the Iranian regime is so weakened that it can barely defend itself, let alone [hurt the US]. Yes, some Shia militias may try to attack well-defended US bases and troops in the region. But, leaving aside the risk of even more forceful US and Israeli attacks, they cannot damage much. Also, the Iranian regime's ability and veiled willingness to block the Strait of Hormuz, mine the Gulf and/or attack the oil facilities and pipelines of its Arab neighbours is limited. The regime is focusing on its survival, but its collapse looks likely in the coming months. True, for now Israel's attack has led even the anti-regime opposition to rally around the flag. Over time, however, a large majority of Iranians who despise a regime that has brought about the country's economic ruin will rise against it and replace it with something else. In 1990, Iran's per capita GDP was almost equal to that of Israel; today, Israel's is nearly 15 times higher. Iran's energy reserves rival Saudi Arabia's, yet it has lost hundreds of billions of dollars in potential energy revenues in [fierce but futile] opposition to the West. Also Read: Israel-Iran conflict: Echoes of history haunt West Asia Today, Iranians face skyrocketing inflation, collapsing real incomes, mass poverty and even hunger not because of US and Western sanctions, but because of their rulers' policies. A country that could have been richer than any Gulf oil state is near bankruptcy, owing to the regime's corruption, incompetence and strategic recklessness. In addition to being a curse to its own people, the Islamic Republic has financed terror groups in West Asia for decades and caused state failure or semi-failure across the region: in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza/Palestine and Iraq. Stabilization and recovery of the region's failing and failed states requires regime change in Iran. The Iranian people could trigger it over the next year. Iranians have revolted against their regime at least a half-dozen times in the last few decades, and, when given the chance, they have always chosen moderate leaders over theocratic zealots. Also Read: Javier Blas: An Israel-Iran war may not rattle the oil market For now, financial markets are correctly betting that the global impact of this recent war is likely to be minimal. Current movements of oil prices, US and global equities, US and global bond yields, and currencies suggest that a major stagflationary shock coming from a disruption of production and energy exports from the Gulf remains only a tail risk, not the baseline scenario. The 1973 Yom Kippur War and Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979 led to a huge spike in oil prices that fuelled the severe stagflations of 1974-75 and 1980-82. This time is likely to be different: the energy input in consumption and production in oil-importing economies is much lower than in the 1970s; the US and other major new non-Opec energy producers have emerged; Saudi Arabia and others are able to tap large excess production capacity and inventories. And in case oil prices rise as US actions create new risks, various macro policies and other tools can be used to reduce the stagflationary impact. A nuclear Iran would have been a threat not just to Israel but all Sunni regimes in the region, as well as the West. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said what many world leaders think but don't want to admit in public: 'Israel is doing the dirty work for all of us." Even China and Russia have shown restraint. Radical forces have destabilized West Asia for decades, with spillover effects on the West. It took Israel to weaken and destroy Iran's proxies. Regime collapse in Iran may boost stability and allow for reconstruction, with diplomatic relations established between Israel and Saudi Arabia. A new government in Israel more open to peace with Palestinians and an eventual two-state solution will then be possible. But the Iranian Hydra needs to be replaced with a rational regime eager [for peace]. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is professor emeritus of economics at New York University's Stern School of Business and author of 'MegaThreats: Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive Them'. Topics You May Be Interested In
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Famed analysts and investors have been putting their names on ETFs. Here's what it takes for a fund to succeed.
ETF launches continue to surge, with some popular market voices putting their names on funds. Starting an ETF involves significant expenses, including SEC filing and listing fees. Funds need strong performance and substantial assets under management to remain viable. A string of widely followed strategists, economists, and investors have launched exchange-traded funds in recent years. There's famed NYU professor Nouriel Roubini — known colloquially as "Dr. Doom" — and his Atlas America Fund (USAF). Then there's Dan Ives — the tech and AI permabull who can often be found on CNBC wearing fluorescent blazers — who has parlayed his bold analyst calls into the Wedbush AI Revolution ETF (IVES). And let's not forget Fundstrat's Tom Lee — former chief equity strategist at JPMorgan — and his Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF (GRNY). They've stepped into a crowded market with thousands of funds competing for investors' money. A record 723 ETFs came to market in 2024 alone. And they're using their own high-profile personal brands to stand out in a crowded marketplace. But starting a fund is an entirely different beast than keeping one afloat for any sustained amount of time. Yes, strong performance is crucial. But running a fund is expensive, and it takes much more than good returns to ensure success. To start, the cost to launch a fund is hefty. Firms are looking at a $50,000-to-$100,000 filing fee with the SEC, according to Zachary Evans, analyst for passive strategies at Morningstar. puts that number between $100,000 and $500,000. Depending on the type of fund, there also may be an initial listing fee with NYSE or Nasdaq. But the bills don't stop there. Listing fees with the exchange come due every year. With Nasdaq, for example, it's a $4,000 annual fee. Then there's a long list of costs associated with running the fund itself, Evans said. Paying the staff who execute the trades. Paying compliance and a risk-management team. Paying sales and advertising teams to market the fund. Paying rent for your office space. And so on. It all adds up, and it means funds need to amass significant assets under management. ETF providers make money through the annual fees, or expense ratios, they charge investors. So the more money they manage, the more money they're bringing in. Performance also plays a role here — if a fund's value rises by 20% in a year, the fees it extracts will be 20% higher. "This can vary quite a bit, but a baseline number we've heard is that it should cost around $200,000 a year to run an ETF," Evans told BI. "More complicated strategies will cost more, simpler strategies will cost less, or if it's from a large firm that has economies of scale, it might cost less as well." He added: "Say an ETF charges 50 basis points with annual expenses of $200,000 a year. You need $40 million AUM in order to break even on that product." For some funds, there's also pressure associated with seed money. When an ETF launches, Evans said it might have some investors who promise to keep their capital locked up in the fund for a set period of time — say two or three years. Once that period ends, if the investors pull their money, it can be an existential threat to a fund if they haven't pulled in enough money from elsewhere. "Once that seed money dries up, in order for them to endure, they need to make sure they have enough investor interest, enough assets to sustain them," Evans said. Fund closures are increasingly common. Evans said a little more than 200 closed in 2023 — a record — and just under 200 closed in 2024. "As more companies are launching their products, more companies are closing down their products — the vast majority of which have really failed to catch on with investors," Evans said. "They've failed to generate either the performance or, in effect, the asset level to support these products." Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Famed analysts and investors have been putting their names on ETFs. Here's what it takes for a fund to succeed.
ETF launches continue to surge, with some popular market voices putting their names on funds. Starting an ETF involves significant expenses, including SEC filing and listing fees. Funds need strong performance and substantial assets under management to remain viable. A string of widely followed strategists, economists, and investors have launched exchange-traded funds in recent years. There's famed NYU professor Nouriel Roubini — known colloquially as "Dr. Doom" — and his Atlas America Fund (USAF). Then there's Dan Ives — the tech and AI permabull who can often be found on CNBC wearing fluorescent blazers — who has parlayed his bold analyst calls into the Wedbush AI Revolution ETF (IVES). And let's not forget Fundstrat's Tom Lee — former chief equity strategist at JPMorgan — and his Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF (GRNY). They've stepped into a crowded market with thousands of funds competing for investors' money. A record 723 ETFs came to market in 2024 alone. And they're using their own high-profile personal brands to stand out in a crowded marketplace. But starting a fund is an entirely different beast than keeping one afloat for any sustained amount of time. Yes, strong performance is crucial. But running a fund is expensive, and it takes much more than good returns to ensure success. To start, the cost to launch a fund is hefty. Firms are looking at a $50,000-to-$100,000 filing fee with the SEC, according to Zachary Evans, analyst for passive strategies at Morningstar. puts that number between $100,000 and $500,000. Depending on the type of fund, there also may be an initial listing fee with NYSE or Nasdaq. But the bills don't stop there. Listing fees with the exchange come due every year. With Nasdaq, for example, it's a $4,000 annual fee. Then there's a long list of costs associated with running the fund itself, Evans said. Paying the staff who execute the trades. Paying compliance and a risk-management team. Paying sales and advertising teams to market the fund. Paying rent for your office space. And so on. It all adds up, and it means funds need to amass significant assets under management. ETF providers make money through the annual fees, or expense ratios, they charge investors. So the more money they manage, the more money they're bringing in. Performance also plays a role here — if a fund's value rises by 20% in a year, the fees it extracts will be 20% higher. "This can vary quite a bit, but a baseline number we've heard is that it should cost around $200,000 a year to run an ETF," Evans told BI. "More complicated strategies will cost more, simpler strategies will cost less, or if it's from a large firm that has economies of scale, it might cost less as well." He added: "Say an ETF charges 50 basis points with annual expenses of $200,000 a year. You need $40 million AUM in order to break even on that product." For some funds, there's also pressure associated with seed money. When an ETF launches, Evans said it might have some investors who promise to keep their capital locked up in the fund for a set period of time — say two or three years. Once that period ends, if the investors pull their money, it can be an existential threat to a fund if they haven't pulled in enough money from elsewhere. "Once that seed money dries up, in order for them to endure, they need to make sure they have enough investor interest, enough assets to sustain them," Evans said. Fund closures are increasingly common. Evans said a little more than 200 closed in 2023 — a record — and just under 200 closed in 2024. "As more companies are launching their products, more companies are closing down their products — the vast majority of which have really failed to catch on with investors," Evans said. "They've failed to generate either the performance or, in effect, the asset level to support these products." Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
13-06-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
Famed analysts and investors have been putting their names on ETFs. Here's what it takes for a fund to succeed.
A string of widely followed strategists, economists, and investors have launched exchange-traded funds in recent years. There's famed NYU professor Nouriel Roubini — known colloquially as " Dr. Doom" — and his Atlas America Fund (USAF). Then there's Dan Ives — the tech and AI permabull who can often be found on CNBC wearing fluorescent blazers — who has parlayed his bold analyst calls into the Wedbush AI Revolution ETF (IVES). And let's not forget Fundstrat's Tom Lee — former chief equity strategist at JPMorgan — and his Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF (GRNY). They've stepped into a crowded market with thousands of funds competing for investors' money. A record 723 ETFs came to market in 2024 alone. And they're using their own high-profile personal brands to stand out in a crowded marketplace. But starting a fund is an entirely different beast than keeping one afloat for any sustained amount of time. Yes, strong performance is crucial. But running a fund is expensive, and it takes much more than good returns to ensure success. To start, the cost to launch a fund is hefty. Firms are looking at a $50,000-to-$100,000 filing fee with the SEC, according to Zachary Evans, analyst for passive strategies at Morningstar. puts that number between $100,000 and $500,000. Depending on the type of fund, there also may be an initial listing fee with NYSE or Nasdaq. But the bills don't stop there. Listing fees with the exchange come due every year. With Nasdaq, for example, it's a $4,000 annual fee. Then there's a long list of costs associated with running the fund itself, Evans said. Paying the staff who execute the trades. Paying compliance and a risk-management team. Paying sales and advertising teams to market the fund. Paying rent for your office space. And so on. It all adds up, and it means funds need to amass significant assets under management. ETF providers make money through the annual fees, or expense ratios, they charge investors. So the more money they manage, the more money they're bringing in. Performance also plays a role here — if a fund's value rises by 20% in a year, the fees it extracts will be 20% higher. "This can vary quite a bit, but a baseline number we've heard is that it should cost around $200,000 a year to run an ETF," Evans told BI. "More complicated strategies will cost more, simpler strategies will cost less, or if it's from a large firm that has economies of scale, it might cost less as well." He added: "Say an ETF charges 50 basis points with annual expenses of $200,000 a year. You need $40 million AUM in order to break even on that product." For some funds, there's also pressure associated with seed money. When an ETF launches, Evans said it might have some investors who promise to keep their capital locked up in the fund for a set period of time — say two or three years. Once that period ends, if the investors pull their money, it can be an existential threat to a fund if they haven't pulled in enough money from elsewhere. "Once that seed money dries up, in order for them to endure, they need to make sure they have enough investor interest, enough assets to sustain them," Evans said. Fund closures are increasingly common. Evans said a little more than 200 closed in 2023 — a record — and just under 200 closed in 2024. "As more companies are launching their products, more companies are closing down their products — the vast majority of which have really failed to catch on with investors," Evans said. "They've failed to generate either the performance or, in effect, the asset level to support these products."
