Auctions with Opportunistic Experts
In this paper we revisit the first price and the second price sealed-bid auctions, but, unlike the standard model, we assume that bidding is conducted by an expert on behalf of the client, and that the client does not completely trust the expert's qualifications. In particular, if the client does not win the auction, but could have won it by submitting a bid below her valuation or won but feels she could have paid less for the object, the client asks the expert to justify the strategy. The objective of this paper is to incorporate the concern for the justifiability into the expert's objective function. We show that under some assumptions about the justification process the requirement of justifiability increases the optimal bid in the first price sealed-bid auction, while bidding the client's true value remains the optimal strategy in the second price auction sealed-bid auction. Hence, the first price auction may raise more revenue than the second price auction and thus it will be preferred by the seller. Both auctions allocate the good to the client with the highest valuation. However, the second price sealed-bid auction is more efficient, since the experts do not incur costs from the failure to justify their strategies.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 7 (2007)
Issue (Month): 1 (November)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com |
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bejte|
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.:
- Ran Spiegler, 2002.
"Equilibrium in Justifiable Strategies: A Model of Reason-based Choice in Extensive-form Games,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 691-706.
- Spiegler, Ran, 2002. "Equilibrium in Justifiable Strategies: A Model of Reason-Based Choice in Extensive-Form Games," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 691-706, July.
- Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680, March.
- Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Schmitz, Patrick W, 2004.
"Reserve Prices in Auctions as Reference Points,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
4264, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bejtec:v:7:y:2007:i:1:n:40. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.