Advocacy and Dynamic Delegation

An advocate for a special interest provides information to an uninformed planner for her to consider in making a sequence of important decisions. Although the advocate may have valuable information for the planner, it is is also known that the advocate is biased and will distort his advice if necessary to influence the planner's decision. Each time she repeats the problem, however, the planner learns about the accuracy of the advocate's recommendation, mitigating some of the advocate's incentive to act in a self-serving manner. We propose a theory of dynamic delegation to explain why planners do sometimes rely on information provided by advocates in making decisions. The interaction takes place in two phases, a communication phase, followed by a sequence of decisions and learning by the planner. We ∑first establish that the capability to delegate dynamically is a necessary condition for influential communication in this setting, and characterize the optimal dynamic delegation policy. Next, we show that a planner may prefer to consult an an advocate rather than a neutral adviser. Finally, we demonstrate how an advocate gains influence with a decision maker by making his preferences for actions unpredictable. Our results have implications for a variety of real world interactions including regulation, organization, and whistleblowing.Delegation, Advocates, Cheap Talk

A Theory of Advocates: Trading Advice for Inuence

An advocate for a special interest provides information to an uninformed planner for her to consider in making a sequence of important decisions. Although the advocate may have valuable information for the planner, it is is also known that the advocate is biased and will distort her advice if necessary to ináuence the plannerís decision. Each time she repeats the problem, however, the planner learns about the accuracy of the advocateís recommendation, mitigating some of the advocateís incentive to act in a self-serving manner. We propose a theory of advocacy to explain why planners do sometimes rely on information provided by advocates in making decisions. The interaction takes place in two stages, a cheap talk recommendation from the advocate, followed by decisions and learning by the planner. The theory predicts conditions under which an advocateís advice will be ignored and when it will ináuence a plannerís decision, when planners will prefer the advice of an advocate to the advice of a neutral adviser and, Önally, how an advocate gains ináuence with a decision maker by making his preferences for action unpredictable. Applications of our theory are used to explain why regulated enterprises are sometimes delegated authority to determine how they are monitored and why some consumers of Önancial services give Önancial advisors who beneÖt from their business such great latitude in managing their investments and Önances.Advocates, Advocacy, Learning, Cheap Talk, Dynamic Contract

Evolving influence: Mitigating extreme conflicts of interest in advisory relationships

An advocate for a special interest provides advice to a planner, who subsequently makes a sequence of decisions. The advocate is interested only in advancing his cause and will distort his advice to manipulate the planner's choices. Each time she acts the planner observes the result, providing a signal that corroborates or contradicts the advocate's recommendation. Without commitment, no influential communication takes place. With commitment, the planner can exploit the information that is revealed over time to mitigate the advocate's incentive to lie. We derive the optimal mechanism for eliciting advice, characterizing the evolution of the advocate's influence. We also consider costly information acquisition, the use of transfers, and a noisy private signal. •We study evolution of influence in an advice game with extreme interest conflict.•The optimal mechanism provides incentives via compromise and cross-checking.•Distortions associated with compromise are positive and fixed.•Distortions associated with cross-checking can be large but vanish in the long term

Markets versus Mechanisms

We establish limitations to the usage of direct revelation mechanisms (DRMs) by corporations seeking decision-relevant information in economies with securities markets. In this environment, posting a DRM increases the informed agent’s outside option: if the agent rejects the DRM, he convinces the market he is uninformed, and he can aggressively trade with low price impact, thereby generating large (off-equilibrium) trading gains. This endogenous outside option may make using a DRM to screen uninformed agents impossible. When screening is possible, solely relying on the market for information is optimal if the increase in outside option is sufficiently large

Selloffs, bailouts, and feedback: Can asset markets inform policy?

We introduce a new market microstructure model to study a setting in which an authority (e.g. a firm manager or government policymaker) learns about the likelihood of a bad state by observing activity in the asset market, before deciding whether to undertake a costly intervention to improve the state. Intervention erodes the value of an investor's private information by weakening the link between the initial state and the asset payoff. Informed investors are reluctant to make large, informative trades in the bad state, undermining the market's informativeness and the welfare gains generated by the possibility of a corrective intervention. Fundamentally, the authority faces a tradeoff between eliciting information from the asset market and using the information so obtained. The authority can generate a Pareto improvement if she commits to intervene less often when the market suggests that intervention is most beneficial and more often when the market suggests that intervention is unwarranted. She thus may benefit from imperfections in the intervention process or from delegating the decision to intervene to a biased agent