IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rje/randje/v35y20043p583-598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ignorance Promotes Competition: An Auction Model of Endogenous Private Valuations

Author

Listed:
  • Juan-José Ganuza

    (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)

Abstract

I study a situation in which an auctioneer wishes to sell an object to one of N risk-neutral bidders with heterogeneous preferences. The auctioneer does not know bidders' preferences but has private information about the characteristics of the object, and must decide how much information to reveal prior to the auction. I show that the auctioneer has incentives to release less information than would be efficient and that the amount of information released increases with the level of competition (as measured by the number of bidders). Furthermore, in a perfectly competitive market the auctioneer would provide the efficient level of information.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan-José Ganuza, 2004. "Ignorance Promotes Competition: An Auction Model of Endogenous Private Valuations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(3), pages 583-598, Autumn.
    • Handle: RePEc:rje:randje:v:35:y:2004:3:p:583-598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ganuza, Juan-José & Penalva, Jose, 2019. "Information disclosure in optimal auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 460-479.
    2. Hernando-Veciana, Ángel & Tröge, Michael, 2011. "The insider's curse," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 339-350, March.
    3. Cristián Troncoso-Valverde, 2018. "Releasing information in private-value second-price auctions," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(3), pages 781-817, May.
    4. Ian Jewitt & Daniel Z. Li, 2017. "Cheap Talk Advertising in Auctions: Horizontally vs Vertically Differentiated Products," Working Papers 2017_03, Durham University Business School.
    5. Alessandro Bonatti & Dirk Bergemann, 2012. "Markets for Data," 2012 Meeting Papers 538, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    6. Dirk Bergemann & Benjamin Brooks & Stephen Morris, 2021. "Optimal Information Disclosure in Auctions," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2318, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    7. Bo Cowgill & Cosmina Dorobantu, 2018. "Competition and Specificity in Market Design: Evidence from Geotargeted Advertising," Working Papers 18-09, NET Institute, revised Sep 2018.
    8. Bergemann, Dirk & Heumann, Tibor & Morris, Stephen, 2021. "Selling Impressions: Efficiency vs. Competition," CEPR Discussion Papers 16402, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. LI Daniel Zhiyun, 2012. "Seller Cheap Talk in Almost Common Value Auction," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-31, March.
    10. Jingfeng Lu & Hongkun Ma & Zhe Wang, 2018. "Ranking Disclosure Policies In All‐Pay Auctions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1464-1485, July.
    11. Daniel Z. Li, 2013. "Revealing Product Information to Bidders with Differentiated Preferences," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(3), pages 2235-2244.
    12. Lu, Jingfeng & Ma, Hongkun & Wang, Zhewei, 2023. "Information sharing decisions in all-pay auctions with correlated types," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Hao Li & Xianwen Shi, 2017. "Discriminatory Information Disclosure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(11), pages 3363-3385, November.
    14. Anna D’Annunzio & Antonio Russo, 2024. "Intermediaries in the Online Advertising Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 33-53, January.
    15. Anne-Katrin Roesler & Balázs Szentes, 2017. "Buyer-Optimal Learning and Monopoly Pricing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(7), pages 2072-2080, July.
    16. Jonathan B. Berk & Jules H. Van Binsbergen, 2022. "Regulation of Charlatans in High‐Skill Professions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 77(2), pages 1219-1258, April.
    17. Nikandrova, Arina & Pancs, Romans, 2017. "Conjugate information disclosure in an auction with learning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 174-212.
    18. Luís Cabral & Cristian Dezső, 2008. "Technology Adoption with Multiple Alternative Designs and the Option to Wait," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(2), pages 413-441, June.
    19. Peitz, Martin & Reisinger, Markus, 2014. "The Economics of Internet Media," Working Papers 14-23, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    20. Juan-José Ganuza & José S. Penalva, 2005. "On Information and Competition in Private Value Auctions," Working Papers 158, Barcelona School of Economics.
    21. Alexandre de Corniere & Romain De Nijs, 2013. "Online Advertising and Privacy," Economics Series Working Papers 650, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    22. Daniel Z. Li, 2016. "Disclosure or not, When There are Three Bidders?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 349-354.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rje:randje:v:35:y:2004:3:p:583-598. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.rje.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.