2007
DOI: 10.1111/j.0741-6261.2007.00127.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bidding to lose? Auctions with resale

Abstract: A losing bidder can still purchase the prize from the winner after the auction. We show why a strong bidder may prefer to drop out of the auction before the price has reached her valuation and acquire the prize in the aftermarket: a strong bidder may be in a better bargaining position in the aftermarket if her rival won at a relatively low price. So it can be common knowledge that, in equilibrium, a weak bidder will win the auction and, even without uncertainty about relative valuations, resale will take place… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
27
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
27
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Price deviation is measured as the di¤erence between what was obtained in the auction with resale given various bargaining structures and the expected revenue, V (2) , obtainable in a standard English auction without resale. 16 As bargaining power is shifted away from the reseller, revenue drops for the initial seller but not in a consistent manner as the 50/50 treatment generates a stronger price deviation than the Final Buyer Advantage treatment. Across all treatments, bidders are demand reducing and e¤ectively splitting revenue that would have been earned by the initial auction seller in the resale market.…”
Section: E¢ Ciency and Revenue (Standard Resale)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Price deviation is measured as the di¤erence between what was obtained in the auction with resale given various bargaining structures and the expected revenue, V (2) , obtainable in a standard English auction without resale. 16 As bargaining power is shifted away from the reseller, revenue drops for the initial seller but not in a consistent manner as the 50/50 treatment generates a stronger price deviation than the Final Buyer Advantage treatment. Across all treatments, bidders are demand reducing and e¤ectively splitting revenue that would have been earned by the initial auction seller in the resale market.…”
Section: E¢ Ciency and Revenue (Standard Resale)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The literature on auctions with resale provides six main reasons for resale: (i) New information regarding the values of objects arrives after the auctions (see Haile (1999Haile ( , 2000Haile ( , 2001Haile ( , 2003 and Gupta and Lebrun (1999)), (ii) new buyers arrive after the auction is over (Haile (1999)), (iii) asymmetry in the auction may lead to inefficient allocation (Zheng (2002); Hafalir and Krishna (2008)), (iv) presence of speculators in the auction (Garratt and Tröger (2006);Pagnozzi (2007Pagnozzi ( , 2009Pagnozzi ( , 2010), (v) coordination on collusive outcome (Garratt, Tröger, and Zheng (2009)), and (vi) misperception of resale markets (Georganas (2011)). Our setup is closest to the third type because a multi-object auction setting with complementarities provides a natural asymmetry in terms of demand of bidders and therefore may lead to inefficient allocation under different formats.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper, we follow Gupta and Lebrun (1999) and Pagnozzi (2007) to assume that after the initial auction stage, bidders' valuations become commonly known and the resale stage is conducted in a standard Nash bargaining game.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%