Ordinal Cheap Talk in Common Value Auctions
AbstractSellers benefit on average from revealing information about their goods to buyers, but the incentive to exaggerate undermines the credibility of seller statements. When multiple goods are being auctioned, we show that ordinal cheap talk, which reveals a complete or partial ordering of the different goods by value, can be credible. Ordinal statements are not susceptible to exaggeration because they simultaneously reveal favorable information about some goods and unfavorable information about other goods. Any informative ordering increases revenues in accordance with the linkage principle, and the complete ordering is asymptotically revenue-equivalent to full revelation as the number of goods becomes large. These results provide a new explanation in addition to bundling, versioning, and complementarities for how a seller benefits from the sale of multiple goods.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Econometric Society in its series Econometric Society 2004 North American Winter Meetings with number 605.
Date of creation: 11 Aug 2004
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Phone: 1 212 998 3820
Fax: 1 212 995 4487
Web page: http://www.econometricsociety.org/pastmeetings.asp
More information through EDIRC
linkage principle; winner's curse; cheap talk;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - Auctions
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
- L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2004-08-16 (All new papers)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Archishman Chakraborty & Nandini Gupta & Rick Harbaugh, 2006.
"Best foot forward or best for last in a sequential auction?,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
RAND Corporation, vol. 37(1), pages 176-194, 03.
- Archishman Chakraborty & Nandini Gupta & Rick Harbaugh, 2000. "Best Foot Forward or Best for Last in a Sequential Auction?," Claremont Colleges Working Papers 2000-43, Claremont Colleges.
- Archishman Chakraborty & Nandini Gupta & Rick Harbaugh, 2004. "Best Foot Forward or Best for Last in a Sequential Auction?," Working Papers 2004-07, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
- Matthew O. Jackson & Hugo F. Sonnenschein, 2003.
"The Linking of Collective Decisions and Efficiency,"
- Matthew O Jackson & Hugo F Sonnenschein, 2003. "The Linking of Collective Decisions and Efficiency," NajEcon Working Paper Reviews 666156000000000057, www.najecon.org.
- Jackson, Matthew O. & Sonnenschein, Hugo F., 2003. "The Linking of Collective Decisions and Efficiency," Working Papers 1159, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.