IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2311.06780.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Strategyproof Mechanism for Ownership Restructuring in Privately Owned Assets

Author

Listed:
  • Gal Danino
  • Moran Koren
  • Omer Madmon

Abstract

It is unclear how to restructure ownership when an asset is privately held, and there is uncertainty about the owners' subjective valuations. When ownership is divided equally between two owners, a commonly used mechanism is called a BMBY mechanism. This mechanism works as follows: each owner can initiate a BMBY by naming her price. Once an owner declares a price, the other chooses to sell his holdings or buy the shares of the initiator at the given price. This mechanism is simple and tractable; however, it does not elicit actual owner valuations, does not guarantee an efficient allocation, and, most importantly, is limited to an equal partnership of two owners. In this paper, we extend this rationale to a multi-owner setting. Our proposed mechanism elicits owner valuations truthfully. Additionally, our proposed mechanism exhibits several desirable traits: it is easy to implement, budget balanced, robust to collusion (weakly group strategyproof), individually rational, and ex-post efficient.

Suggested Citation

  • Gal Danino & Moran Koren & Omer Madmon, 2023. "A Strategyproof Mechanism for Ownership Restructuring in Privately Owned Assets," Papers 2311.06780, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2311.06780
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.06780
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Myerson, Roger B. & Satterthwaite, Mark A., 1983. "Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 265-281, April.
    2. Simon Loertscher & Leslie M. Marx, 2023. "Bilateral Trade with Multiunit Demand and Supply," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1146-1165, February.
    3. McAfee, R. Preston, 1992. "A dominant strategy double auction," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 434-450, April.
    4. Eduardo M. Azevedo & Jacob D. Leshno, 2016. "A Supply and Demand Framework for Two-Sided Matching Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(5), pages 1235-1268.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scott Fay & Robert Zeithammer, 2017. "Bidding for Bidders? How the Format for Soliciting Supplier Participation in NYOP Auctions Impacts Channel Profit," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4324-4344, December.
    2. Tafreshian, Amirmahdi & Masoud, Neda, 2022. "A truthful subsidy scheme for a peer-to-peer ridesharing market with incomplete information," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 130-161.
    3. Loertscher, Simon & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2021. "A dominant strategy, double clock auction with estimation-based tatonnement," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    4. Dütting, Paul & Talgam-Cohen, Inbal & Roughgarden, Tim, 2017. "Modularity and greed in double auctions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 83199, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Kiho Yoon, 2021. "Robust double auction mechanisms," Papers 2102.00669, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    6. Satterthwaite, Mark A. & Williams, Steven R. & Zachariadis, Konstantinos E., 2014. "Optimality versus practicality in market design: A comparison of two double auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 248-263.
    7. Jesse A. Schwartz & Quan Wen, 2008. "A Revelation Principle for Dominant Strategy Implementation," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0819, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    8. Loertscher, Simon & Marx, Leslie M., 2020. "A dominant-strategy asset market mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-15.
    9. Soumendu Sarkar, 2022. "Optimal mechanism for land acquisition," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(1), pages 87-116, March.
    10. Kong, Xiang T.R. & Kang, Kai & Zhong, Ray Y. & Luo, Hao & Xu, Su Xiu, 2021. "Cyber physical system-enabled on-demand logistics trading," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    11. Cheng, Meng & Xu, Su Xiu & Huang, George Q., 2016. "Truthful multi-unit multi-attribute double auctions for perishable supply chain trading," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 21-37.
    12. Yoon, Kiho, 2008. "The participatory Vickrey-Clarke-Groves mechanism," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(3-4), pages 324-336, February.
    13. Drexl, Moritz & Kleiner, Andreas, 2015. "Optimal private good allocation: The case for a balanced budget," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 169-181.
    14. Babaioff, Moshe & Nisan, Noam & Pavlov, Elan, 2009. "Mechanisms for a spatially distributed market," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 660-684, July.
    15. Zhiling Guo & Gary J. Koehler & Andrew B. Whinston, 2012. "A Computational Analysis of Bundle Trading Markets Design for Distributed Resource Allocation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-1), pages 823-843, September.
    16. Tobias Widmer & Paul Karaenke & Vijayan Sugumaran, 2021. "Two‐sided service markets: Effects of quality differentiation on market efficiency," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(3), pages 588-604, April.
    17. Nielsen, Kurt, 2005. "Auctioning Payment Entitlements," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24566, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Blumrosen, Liad & Dobzinski, Shahar, 2021. "(Almost) efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 369-383.
    19. Jesse A. Schwartz & Quan Wen, 2018. "Robust trading mechanisms with budget surplus and partial trade," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 6(2), pages 201-208, October.
    20. Moshe Babaioff & Kira Goldner & Yannai A. Gonczarowski, 2019. "Bulow-Klemperer-Style Results for Welfare Maximization in Two-Sided Markets," Papers 1903.06696, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2019.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2311.06780. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.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.