Are Disadvantaged Bidders Doomed in Ascending Auctions?

A bidder is said to be advantaged if she has a higher expected valuation of the auction prize than her competitor. When the prize has a common-value component, a bidder competing in an ascending auction against an advantaged competitor bids especially cautiously and, hence, the advantaged bidder wins most of the time. However, contrary to what is often argued, a disadvantaged bidder still wins with positive probability, even if his competitor.s advantage is very large and even if the disadvantaged bidder has the lowest actual valuation ex-post. Therefore, the disadvantaged bidder has an incentive to participate in the auction, and the presence of a bidder with a small advantage does not have a dramatic e¤ect on the seller.s revenue.common-value auctions, asymmetric bidders

Resale and Bundling in Auctions

Allowing resale in multi-object auctions increases bidders. incentives to jointly reduce demand, because resale increases low-value bidders’ willingness to pay and reduces high-value bidders’ willingness to pay. Therefore (unlike in single-object auctions), resale may reduce the seller’s revenue in multi-object auctions. However, we show that, under reasonable conditions, allowing resale and bundling the objects on sale are “complement strategies” for the seller – by bundling and allowing resale the seller earns a higher revenue than by selling the objects separately and/or not allowing resale. We also analyze how resale affects a bidder’s incentive to unilaterally reduce demand, and we show why allowing resale may reduce efficiency.multi-object auctions, resale, bundling, demand reduction

Should Speculators Be Welcomed in Auctions?

The possibility of resale after an auction attracts speculators (i.e., bidders who have no use value for the objects on sale). In a multi-object auction, a high-value bidder may strictly prefer to let a speculator win some of the objects and then buy in the resale market, in order to keep the auction price low for the objects she wins in the auction. Therefore, although speculators increase competition in the auction, they also affect high-value bidders.incentives to .reduce demand..We show that the net e¤ect on the seller.s revenue of allowing resale to attract speculators depends on the heterogeneity of bidders.valuations. But the presence of speculators may increase the seller.s revenue only if speculators are eventually outbid. We also analyze the effect on the seller.s revenue of allowing resale in the absence of speculators, and we discuss the strategies that the seller can adopt to increase his revenue.multi-object auctions, speculation, resale, demand reduction

Bids as a Vehicle of (Mis)Information: Collusion in English Auctions with Affiliated Values

During an English auction, bidders' behaviour conveys information on their valuation of the prize. So whenever valuations are not independent, a bidder's strategy depends on the price at which his competitors drop out before he does. A ring of bidders can strategically manipulate the information reported through its members' bids, in order to mislead other bidders into bidding less aggressively and so allow a ring member to bid more aggressively. Collusion increases the probability that a ring bidder wins the auction and reduces the price he pays. The presence of a ring harms other bidders (as well as the seller) and reduces efficiency.auctions, collusion

Vertical Separation with Private Contracts

We consider a manufacturer's incentive to sell through an independent retailer, rather than directly to final consumers, when contracts with retailers cannot be observed by competitors. If retailers conjecture that identical competing manufacturers always offer identical contracts (symmetry beliefs), vertical separation by all manufacturers is an equilibrium, and it results in higher consumers' prices and manufacturers' profits. Even with private contracts, vertically separated manufacturers reduce competition by inducing less aggressive behaviour by retailers in the final market. We characterize a condition for manufacturers' profits to be higher with private than with public contracts. Our results hold both with price and with quantity competition, and do not hinge on retailers' beliefs being perfectly symmetric.Delegation, vertical separation, private contracts, symmetry beliefs

On-Net/Off-Net Price Discrimination and 'Bill-and-Keep' vs. 'Cost-Based' Regulation of Mobile Termination Rates

This paper surveys the recent literature on competition between mobile network operators in the presence of call externalities and network effects. It shows that the regulation of mobile termination rates based on “long-run incremental costs” increases networks’ strategic incentives to inefficiently set high on-net/off-net price differentials, thus harming smaller networks and new entrants. The paper argues in favor of a “bill-and-keep” system for mobile-to-mobile termination, and presents international evidence in support of this conclusion.mobile termination, network effects, call externalities, bill-and-keep

Sorry Winners

Bidders who receive both "common-value'' and "private-value'' signals about the value of an auction prize cannot fully infer their opponents' information from the bidding, so may overestimate the value of the prize and, subsequently, regret winning. With multiple objects, prices in later auctions provide information relevant to earlier ones, and sequential auctions appear more vulnerable to overpayment and inefficiency than simultaneous auctions. However, aggregating across all auctions in a simple model, winners still earn positive profit ex-post. With information inequality among bidders, the seller's revenue is influenced by two competing effects. On the one hand, simultaneous auctions reduce the winner's curse of less informed bidders and allow them to bid more aggressively. On the other hand, sequential auctions induce less informed bidders to bid more aggressively in early auctions to acquire information.

Contracting with Endogenous Entry

We analyze entry in markets where a principal contracts with a privately informed agent. Before learning his production cost, the agent knows his probability of having a low cost --- his ex ante "type" --- and decides whether to pay an entry fee to contract with the principal. There are two cut-off equilibria that determine the possible types of an agent who actually enters the market, and neither equilibrium can be discarded by standard selection criteria. Contrasting with standard intuition, in the equilibrium with the highest cut-off an increase in the entry fee reduces the marginal type of the agent who enters, thus increasing entry and the expected cost of an entrant. This equilibrium is selected by a criterion based on "robustness to equilibrium risk," even though the equilibrium with the lowest cut-off is Pareto dominant for the agent. Public policies that increase entry barriers may be welfare improving

Britain's electricity capacity auctions: lessons from Colombia and New England

The jury is still out on the need for government-organized capacity markets in order to achieve efficient long-run investments in electricity generation. When new capacity markets are introduced, however, it is important that they are well designed and take account of existing experience and previous design failures. Experience in both Colombia and New England provide a stark warning about the dangers of placing descending clock auctions at the center of electricity capacity markets. Among alternative auction design options, a sealed-bid auction is a better choice

On-Net/Off-Net Price Discrimination and 'Bill-and-Keep' vs. 'Cost-Based' Regulation of Mobile Termination Rates

This paper surveys the recent literature on competition between mobile network operators in the presence of call externalities and network effects. It shows that the regulation of mobile termination rates based on “long-run incremental costs” increases networks’ strategic incentives to inefficiently set high on-net/off-net price differentials, thus harming smaller networks and new entrants. The paper argues in favor of a “bill-and-keep” system for mobile-to-mobile termination, and presents international evidence in support of this conclusion