IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/clt/sswopa/670.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Theories and Tests of (Blind Bidding) in Sealed Bid Auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Forsythe, Robert
  • Isaac, R. Mark
  • Palfrey, Thomas R.

Abstract

In this article we report the results from a series of laboratory markets in which sellers have better information about the quality of an item than any of the potential buyers. Sellers may voluntarily choose to reveal this information or they may instead decide to "blind bid" the item. We find that a sequential equilibrium model where buyers "assume the worst" is a good predictor of behavior in these simple markets. This equilibrium is not instantaneously attained, however, but there is an unravelling process which describes how this equilibrium is approached. At the conclusion of the market, allocations tend to be fully efficient, ex post.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Forsythe, Robert & Isaac, R. Mark & Palfrey, Thomas R., 1987. "Theories and Tests of (Blind Bidding) in Sealed Bid Auctions," Working Papers 670, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  • Handle: RePEc:clt:sswopa:670
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/SSPapers/wp-old.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Erik Eyster & Matthew Rabin, 2005. "Cursed Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(5), pages 1623-1672, September.
    2. Juan D. Carrillo & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2009. "The Compromise Game: Two-Sided Adverse Selection in the Laboratory," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 151-181, February.
    3. Boeheim, Rene & Zulehner, Christine, 1996. "Auctions - A Survey," Economics Series 39, Institute for Advanced Studies.
    4. Ertac, Seda & Koçkesen, Levent & Ozdemir, Duygu, 2016. "The role of verifiability and privacy in the strategic provision of performance feedback: Theory and experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 24-45.
    5. James G. Mulligan & Daniel J. Wedzielewski, 2012. "Government Intervention to Prevent Bankruptcy: the Effect of Blind-Bidding Laws on Movie Theaters," Working Papers 12-03, University of Delaware, Department of Economics.
    6. Benndorf, Volker & Kübler, Dorothea & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2015. "Privacy concerns, voluntary disclosure of information, and unraveling: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 43-59.
    7. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K. & Sankar, Mandira Roy, 2000. "Voluntary disclosure under imperfect competition: experimental evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 81-105, January.
    8. David Porter & Roumen Vragov, 2006. "An experimental examination of demand reduction in multi-unit versions of the Uniform-price, Vickrey, and English auctions," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(6), pages 445-458.
    9. Theodore L. Turocy & Timothy N. Cason, 2015. "Bidding in first-price and second-price interdependent-values auctions: A laboratory experiment," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-23, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    10. Theo Offerman, 2002. "Efficiency in Auctions with Private and Common Values: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 625-643, June.
    11. Isabelle Brocas & Juan Carrillo & Thomas Palfrey, 2012. "Information gatekeepers: theory and experimental evidence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(3), pages 649-676, November.
    12. Seda Ertac & Mert Gumren & Levent Kockesen, 2017. "Strategic Feedback in Teams: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 1714, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    13. Ginger Zhe Jin & Michael Luca & Daniel Martin, 2015. "Is No News (Perceived as) Bad News? An Experimental Investigation of Information Disclosure," NBER Working Papers 21099, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:clt:sswopa:670. 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: (Victoria Mason). General contact details of provider: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/ss .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.