We study collusion in repeated first-price auctions under the condition of minimal information release by the auctioneer. In each auction a bidder only learns whether or not he won the object. Bidders do not observe other bidders’ bids, who participates or who wins in case they are not the winner. We show that for large enough discount factors collusion can nevertheless be supported in the infinitely repeated game. While there is a unique Nash equilibrium in public strategies, in which bidders bid competitively in every period, there are simple Nash equilibria in private strategies that support bid rotation. Equilibria that either improve on bid rotation or satisfy the requirement of Bayesian perfection, but not both, are only slightly more complex. Our main result is the construction of perfect Bayesian equilibria that improve on bid rotation. These equilibria require complicated inferences off the equilibrium path. A deviator may not know who has observed his deviation and consequently may have an incentive to use strategic experimentation to learn about the bidding behavior of his rivals.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Privates Monitoring in Auktionen) Der Beitrag untersucht, inwieweit Bieter Kollusion, bzw. stillschweigende Abkommen, in wiederholten Erstpreisauktionen aufrecht erhalten können, in welchen der Auktionator alle Informationen zurückhält. Nach jeder Auktion lernt ein Bieter nur, ob er das Objekt gewonnen hat oder nicht. Ein Bieter kann weder die Gebote der anderen Bieter beobachten, noch kann er beobachten, welche Bieter an der Auktion teilgenommen haben und wer gewonnen hat - solange er nicht selbst das Objekt erhält. Wir zeigen, dass in dem unendlich wiederholten Spiel für hinreichend geduldige Bieter Kollusion möglich ist. Es existiert zwar ein eindeutiges Gleichgewicht in öffentlichen Strategien, in welchem die Bieter in jeder Periode kompetitiv bieten, aber es gibt einfache Nash-Gleichgewichte in privaten Strategien, die Bieterrotation durchsetzen. Wir zeigen auch, dass Bieterrotation das Ergebnis eines perfekt bayesianischen Gleichgewichtes sein kann. Nash-Gleichgewichte, die höhere erwartete Gewinne als Bieterrotation erzielen, sind nur ein wenig komplexer. Das Hauptergebnis ist die Konstruktion von (essentiell) perfekt bayesianischen Gleichgewichten, welche höhere Gewinne als Bieterrotation erzielen. Nach Abweichungen vom Gleichgewichtspfad, müssen die Bieter in diesen Gleichgewichten komplizierte Rückschlüsse auf das Verhalten Ihrer Wettbewerber ziehen. So weiß ein Bieter nach bestimmten Abweichungen nicht, ob diese von seinen Mitspielern beobachtet wurden, und hat ein Interesse daran, durch strategisches experimentieren das Bietverhalten seiner Rivalen kennenzulernen.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG) in its series CIG Working Papers with number
SP II 2003-14.
Length: 44 pages Date of creation: Sep 2003 Date of revision: Publication status: Forthcoming in the Journal of Economic Theory. Handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:spii2003-14
Find related papers by JEL classification: C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - Auctions
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Susan Athey & Kyle Bagwell & Chris Sanchirico, 1998.
"Collusion and Price Rigidity,"
Working papers
98-23, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
Other versions:
Mirman, Leonard J & Samuelson, Larry & Urbano, Amparo, 1993.
"Monopoly Experimentation,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 34(3), pages 549-63, August.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Mirman, L.J. & Samuelson, L. & Urbano, A., 1989.
"Monopoly Experimentation,"
Papers
8-89-7, Pennsylvania State - Department of Economics.
Amparo Urbano & Larry Samuelson & Leonard J. Mirman, 1990.
"Monopoly Experimentation,"
Working Papers. Serie AD
1990-04, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
[Downloadable!]
McAfee, R Preston & McMillan, John, 1992.
"Bidding Rings,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 579-99, June.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
McAfee, R. Preston & McMillan, John., 1990.
"Bidding Rings,"
Working Papers
726, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
[Downloadable!]
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
Did you know? You can create a compilation of all publications of a group of people, say alumni of a program, your students or memers of an association.