• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site
Contacts

109028, Moscow
11 Pokrovsky Boulevard,
Room Т-614
Phone: (495) 628-83-68

email: fes@hse.ru 

Administration
First Deputy Dean Sergey Merzlyakov
Deputy Dean for Academic Work Elena Pokatovich
Deputy Dean for Research Dmitry A. Veselov
Deputy Dean for International Affairs Liudmila S. Zasimova
Deputy Dean for Undergraduate Studies Elena Burmistrova
Book
Systemic Financial Risk
In press

Karminsky A. M., Столбов М. И.

Springer Publishing Company, 2024.

Article
The Study of the Strategic Consequences of a Scoring Model Disclosure

Sandomirskaia M., Kryukov G. M.

Automation and Remote Control. 2024. Vol. 85. P. 696-710.

Book chapter
On the RK-prorder on C-cones of RK-minimal ultrafilters

Polyakov N. L.

In bk.: Model Theory and Algebra 2024. 2024. P. 87-93.

Working paper
Scoring and Favoritism in Optimal Procurement Design

Andreyanov P., Krasikov I., Suzdaltsev A.

arxiv.org. Theoretical Economics. Cornell University, 2024

FES and ICEF joint seminar

On May 07, at 13:00, the next joint webinar between FES and ICEF was held, in which Anna Pavlova from the London Business School made a presentation on the topic: "Is There Too Much Benchmarking in Asset Management?"

"Is There Too Much Benchmarking in Asset Management?"

Abstract: We propose a model of asset management in which benchmarking arises endogenously, and analyze the unintended welfare consequences of benchmarking. Fund managers’ portfolios are unobservable and they incur private costs in running them. Conditioning managers’ compensation on a benchmark portfolio’s performance, partially protects them from risk, and thus gives them incentives to generate more alpha. In general equilibrium, these compensation contracts create an externality through their effect on asset prices. Benchmarking inflates asset prices and gives rise to crowded trades, thereby reducing the effectiveness of incentive contracts for others. Contracts chosen by fund investors diverge from socially optimal ones. A social planner, recognizing the crowding, opts for less benchmarking and less incentive provision. We also show that asset-management costs are lower with socially optimal contracts, and the planner’s benchmark-portfolio weights differ from the privately optimal ones.