Partnerships and Double Auctions with Interdependent Valuations

In a symmetric independent private values setting a sealed-bid double auction dissolves a partnership efficiently. This well known result remains valid in a model with interdependent valuations. However, if common values components are large agents might prefer not to participate in a double auction. Therefore a simple extention of the rules of double-auctions is suggested that ensures participation. Even though these modified double auctions are not incentive efficient, they still realize gains from trade and can be implemented without knowledge about the specifications of the model.

Party platforms in electoral competition with heterogeneous constituencies

This paper shows how political parties differentiate to reduce electoral competition. Two parties choose platforms in a unidimensional policy space, and then candidates from these parties compete for votes in a continuum of constituencies with different median voters. Departing from their parties' platforms is costly enough that candidates do not take the median voter's preferred position in every constituency. Because the candidate whose party is located closer to the median voter gets a higher expected payoff, parties acting in their candidates' best interests differentiate---when one party locates right of center, the other prefers to locate strictly left of center to carve out a "home turf,'' constituencies that can be won with little to no deviation from the platform of the candidate's party. Hence, competition that pulls candidates together pushes parties apart. Decreasing "campaign costs'' increases party differentiation as the leftist party must move further from the rightist party to carve out its home turf, as does increasing heterogeneity across constituencies.Political parties, median voter, Hotelling competition

Priority Auctions and Queue Disciplines that Depend on Processing Time

Lecture on the first SFB/TR 15 meeting, Gummersbach, July, 18 - 20, 2004We analyze the allocation of priority in queues via simple bidding mechanisms. In our model, the stochastically arriving customers are privately informed about their own processing time. They make bids upon arrival at a queue whose length is unobservable. We consider two bidding schemes that differ in the definition of bids (these may reflect either total payments or payments per unit of time) and in the timing of payments (before, or after service). In both schemes, a customer obtains priority over all customers (waiting in the queue or arriving while he is waiting) who make lower bids. Our main results show how the convexity/concavity of the function expressing the costs of delay determines the queue-discipline (i.e., SPT, LPT) arising in a bidding equilibrium.

Priority Auctions and Queue Disciplines that Depend on Processing Time

Lecture on the first SFB/TR 15 meeting, Gummersbach, July, 18 - 20, 2004We analyze the allocation of priority in queues via simple bidding mechanisms. In our model, the stochastically arriving customers are privately informed about their own processing time. They make bids upon arrival at a queue whose length is unobservable. We consider two bidding schemes that differ in the definition of bids (these may reflect either total payments or payments per unit of time) and in the timing of payments (before, or after service). In both schemes, a customer obtains priority over all customers (waiting in the queue or arriving while he is waiting) who make lower bids. Our main results show how the convexity/concavity of the function expressing the costs of delay determines the queue-discipline (i.e., SPT, LPT) arising in a bidding equilibrium

Party Platforms in Electoral Competition with many constituencies

This paper uses the Hotelling-Downs spatial model of electoral competition between candidates to explore competition between political parties. Two parties choose platforms in a unidimensional policy space, and then in a continuum of constituencies with different median voters candidates from the two parties compete in first-past-the-post elections. Departing from party platform is costly enough that candidates do not take the median voters preferred position in each constituency. In equilibrium, parties acting in their candidates best interests differentiate when one party locates right of center, the other prefers to locate strictly left of center to carve out a home turf,  consituencies that can be won with little to no deviation from party platform. Hence, Downsian competition that pulls candidates together pushes parties apart. Decreasing campaign costs  increases party differentiation as the leftist party must move further from the rightist party to carve out its home turf. For a range of costs, parties take more extreme positions than their most extreme candidates. For small costs, parties are too extreme to maximize voter welfare, whereas for large costs they are not extreme enough.electoral competition, spatial competition, Hotelling-Downs model

Partnerships and double auctions with interdependent valuations

In a symmetric independent private values setting a sealed-bid double auction dissolves a partnership efficiently. This well known result remains valid in a model with interdependent valuations. However, if common values components are large agents might prefer not to participate in a double auction. Therefore a simple extention of the rules of double-auctions is suggested that ensures participation. Even though these modified double auctions are not incentive efficient, they still realize gains from trade and can be implemented without knowledge about the specifications of the model

Efficient partnership dissolution under buy-sell clauses

When a partnership comes to an end, partners have to determine the terms of the dissolution. A well known way to do so is by enforcing a buy-sell clause. Under its rules one party offers a price for the partnership and the other party chooses whether to sell her share or buy her partner´s share at this price. It is well known that in a model with private valuations this dissolution rule may generate inefficient allocations. However, we show that if partners negotiate for the advantage of being chooser, then buy-sell clauses result in an ex-post efficient outcome. We argue that this endogenous selection of the proposer is consistent with how buysell clauses are drafted in practice. For an example with interdependent valuations, we further show that the buy-sell clause can perform better than an auction.

Efficient partnership dissolution under buy-sell clauses

When a partnership comes to an end, partners have to determine the terms of the dissolution. A well known way to do so is by enforcing a buy-sell clause. Under its rules one party offers a price for the partnership and the other party chooses whether to sell her share or buy her partner´s share at this price. It is well known that in a model with private valuations this dissolution rule may generate inefficient allocations. However, we show that if partners negotiate for the advantage of being chooser, then buy-sell clauses result in an ex-post efficient outcome. We argue that this endogenous selection of the proposer is consistent with how buysell clauses are drafted in practice. For an example with interdependent valuations, we further show that the buy-sell clause can perform better than an auction

Partnerships, Lemons and Efficient Trade

We analyze the possibility of efficient trade with informationally interdependent valuations and with a dispersed ownership. A crucial role is played by the sign of the derivatives that measure how valuation functions depend on others’ signals. If valuations are increasing functions of other agents’ signals, it is more difficult to achieve efficient trade with interdependent values than with private values (where the respective derivatives are zero.) In contrast, if valuations are decreasing functions of other agents’ signals, it is easier to achieve efficient trade with interdependent values. Our results unify and generalize the insights of Cramton et al. [1987], Myerson and Satterthwaite [1983], and Akerlof [1970].

Efficient partnership dissolution under buy/sell clauses

When a partnership comes to an end partners have to determine the terms of the dissolution. A well known way to do so is by enforcing a buy/sell option. Under its rules one partner has to offer a price for the partnership and the other agent can choose whether she wants to sell her share or buy her partners share at this price. It is well known that in a model with private valuations this dissolution rule may generate inefficient allocations. However, we here show that if partners negotiate for the advantage of being chooser, then this buy/ sell provision results in an ex-post efficient outcome. This result helps to explain why such provisions are so widely introduced in partnership contracts.partnership dissolution, divide and choose mechanism, cake-cutting mechanism, buy/sell clause