|Philippe Aghion||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Franklin Allen||Imperial College London||Agree||8||
In the absence of inside information, on average a diversified strategy should do better unless the person has good judgment.
|Pol Antras||Harvard||Strongly Agree||9||
Unless the investor is a risk lover
|Richard Baldwin||The Graduate Institute Geneva||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Timothy J. Besley||LSE||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Olivier Blanchard||Peterson Institute||Strongly Agree||9||
This is a no brainer. The only qualification is that the diversified portfolio may not be exactly the market portfolio.
This is the prediction of our basic "no free lunch principle". All my savings are in index tracker, so i am living this view!
|Richard William Blundell||University College London||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Agnès Bénassy-Quéré||Paris School of Economics||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Elena Carletti||Bocconi||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Jean-Pierre Danthine||Paris School of Economics||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Paul De Grauwe||LSE||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Jan Eeckhout||University College London||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Ernst Fehr||Universität Zurich||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Xavier Freixas||Universitat Pompeu Fabra||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln||Goethe-Universität Frankfurt||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Jordi Galí||Universitat Pompeu Fabra||Agree||8||
I agree with the statement as "doing better" is interpreted to mean enjoying a higher average return for any given level of risk.
|Luis Garicano||LSE||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Francesco Giavazzi||Bocconi||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Rachel Griffith||University of Manchester||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Veronica Guerrieri||Chicago Booth||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Luigi Guiso||Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance||Strongly Agree||8||
for a typical investor I strongly believe a passive, cheap index is better than a passive portfolio of a few stocks
|Martin Hellwig||Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods||Agree||10||
The empirical evidence is overwhelming.
|Patrick Honohan||Trinity College Dublin||Strongly Agree||10||
"Do better"understood to capture risk as well as expected return, of course.
|Henrik Kleven||LSE||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Jan Pieter Krahnen||Goethe University Frankfurt||Strongly Agree||8||
A quant hedge fund may extract extra return by big data strategies, but an average guy, like myself, will likely fail with stock-picking.
|Per Krusell||Stockholm University||Strongly Agree||9||
I don't know of any convincing systematic evidence to the contrary.
|Botond Kőszegi||Central European University||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Eliana La Ferrara||Bocconi||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Christian Leuz||Chicago Booth||Strongly Agree||9||
Lots of evidence. Few people consistently earn risk-adj. ret > index ret. And even then, much might be compensation for time & effort.
-see background information here
|Costas Meghir||Yale||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Peter Neary||Oxford||Strongly Agree||8||
A small industry exists to help naive investors beat the market. It should be subject to mandatory health warnings.
|Kevin O'Rourke||Oxford||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Marco Pagano||Università di Napoli Federico II||Strongly Agree||10||
|Lubos Pastor||Chicago Booth||Strongly Agree||10||
I interpret "do better" in terms of a better risk-return tradeoff. Why take unnecessary idiosyncratic risk.
|Torsten Persson||Stockholm University||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Christopher Pissarides||LSE||Strongly Agree||10||
Even if you get it right some of the time eventually you will get it wrong
|Richard Portes||London Business School||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Canice Prendergast||Chicago Booth||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Lucrezia Reichlin||London Business School||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Rafael Repullo||CEMFI||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Hélène Rey||London Business School||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Antoinette Schoar||MIT||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|John Van Reenen||MIT||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
Assuming a degree of risk aversion. However some investors might rationally want some exposure to assets not available passively.
|Hans-Joachim Voth||University of Zurich||Strongly Agree||9||
Just look at the long-term Warren Buffett bet against managed funds -- whenever there is outperformance, fees eat them up
-see background information here
|Beatrice Weder di Mauro||Gutenberg University Mainz and INSEAD||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Karl Whelan||University College Dublin||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Charles Wyplosz||The Graduate Institute Geneva||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Fabrizio Zilibotti||Universität Zurich||Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
This panel explores the views of European economists on vital public policy issues. It does this by polling them on important policy questions, by including a way for them to explain their answers briefly if they wish, and by disseminating these responses directly to the public in a simple format.
To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the main areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include older and younger scholars. As with the IGM’s US panel, the experts are all outstanding researchers in their fields. The panel includes recipients of top national and international prizes in economics, fellows of the Econometric society and the European Economic Association, members of distinguished national and international policymaking bodies in Europe, recipients of significant grants for economic research, highly accomplished affiliates and program directors of the Centre for Economic Policy Research and the National Bureau of Economic Research, and past and current editors of leading academic journals in the profession. This approach not only provides a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters in Europe and beyond.
Questions for the European IGM Economic Experts Panel are emailed individually to all members of the panel. They are phrased as statements with which one can agree or disagree. The experts are also asked how confident they are in their knowledge of the issue associated with the question (10 being highest). Each panelist responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering. They may also include brief comments with their responses, or provide links to relevant sources.
It is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist knows a lot about a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's knowledge that he or she does not feel well placed to judge. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".
Panelists suggest many of the questions themselves. Members of the public are also welcome to suggest questions (see link below). Although IGM faculty members are responsible for deciding the final version of each question, we send a draft of the question to the panel in advance and invite them to point out problems with the wording if they see any. This process helps us to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.
The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and will be analyzed for an article to appear in a peer-reviewed journal.