IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hit/hiasdp/hias-e-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Shill-proof rules in object allocation problems with money

Author

Listed:
  • SHINOZAKI, Hiroki

Abstract

We consider the object allocation problem with money. The seller owns multiple units of an object, and is only interested in her revenue from an allocation. Each buyer receives at most one unit of the object, and has a quasi-linear utility function with private valuations. We study incentives of the seller to increase her revenue by introducing false-name buyers, i.e., shill bidding. An (allocation) rule is shill-proof if the seller never benefits from introducing false-name buyers. A rule is a binary posted prices rule if there is a profile of posted prices such that whenever a buyer receives the object, she pays either her posted price or zero, and her payment is equal to zero when she does not receive the object. We show that if a rule satisfies shillproofness, strategy-proofness, and non-imposition, then it is a binary posted prices rule. This result shows that the cost of preventing the seller from shill bidding is equivalent to the rigidity of the payment of each buyer, which highlights the difficulty in preventing the seller from shill bidding. It extends to a model of non-quasi-linear utility functions with interdependent valuations.

Suggested Citation

  • SHINOZAKI, Hiroki, 2024. "Shill-proof rules in object allocation problems with money," Discussion paper series HIAS-E-137, Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University.
    • Handle: RePEc:hit:hiasdp:hias-e-137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/hermes/ir/re/82184/070_hiasDP-E-137.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lavi, Ron & May, Marina, 2012. "A note on the incompatibility of strategy-proofness and Pareto-optimality in quasi-linear settings with public budgets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 100-103.
    2. Bettina Klaus & Alexandru Nichifor, 2020. "Serial dictatorship mechanisms with reservation prices," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 665-684, October.
    3. Hiroki Saitoh & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2008. "Vickrey allocation rule with income effect," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 35(2), pages 391-401, May.
    4. Itai Sher, 2012. "Optimal shill bidding in the VCG mechanism," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(2), pages 341-387, June.
    5. Bettina Klaus & Alexandru Nichifor, 2021. "Serial dictatorship mechanisms with reservation prices: heterogeneous objects," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(1), pages 145-162, July.
    6. McCannon, Bryan C. & Minuci, Eduardo, 2020. "Shill bidding and trust," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    7. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    8. Kelso, Alexander S, Jr & Crawford, Vincent P, 1982. "Job Matching, Coalition Formation, and Gross Substitutes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1483-1504, November.
    9. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    10. Graham, Daniel A. & Marshall, Robert C. & Richard, Jean-Francois, 1990. "Phantom bidding against heterogeneous bidders," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 13-17, January.
    11. Dobzinski, Shahar & Lavi, Ron & Nisan, Noam, 2012. "Multi-unit auctions with budget limits," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 486-503.
    12. Hiroki Shinozaki, 2022. "Characterizing pairwise strategy-proof rules in object allocation problems with money," ISER Discussion Paper 1187, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    13. Indranil Chakraborty & Georgia Kosmopoulou, 2004. "Auctions with shill bidding," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 24(2), pages 271-287, August.
    14. Muto, Nozomu & Shirata, Yasuhiro, 2017. "Manipulation via endowments in auctions with multiple goods," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 75-84.
    15. Toyotaka Sakai, 2008. "Second price auctions on general preference domains: two characterizations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 37(2), pages 347-356, November.
    16. Hiroki Shinozaki & Tomoya Kazumura & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2020. "Multi-unit Object Allocation Problems with Money for (Non)Decreasing Incremental Valuations: Impossibility and Characterization Theorems," ISER Discussion Paper 1097r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Apr 2022.
    17. Milgrom, Paul R & Weber, Robert J, 1982. "A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1089-1122, September.
    18. Robert B. Wilson, 1969. "Communications to the Editor--Competitive Bidding with Disparate Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(7), pages 446-452, March.
    19. Dan Levin & James Peck, 2023. "Misbehavior in Common Value Auctions: Bidding Rings and Shills," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 171-200, February.
    20. Hafalir, Isa E. & Ravi, R. & Sayedi, Amin, 2012. "A near Pareto optimal auction with budget constraints," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 699-708.
    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. SHINOZAKI, Hiroki, 2023. "Non-obvious manipulability and efficiency in package assignment problems with money for agents with income effects and hard budget constraints," Discussion paper series HIAS-E-136, Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University.
    2. Kazumura, Tomoya & Mishra, Debasis & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2020. "Mechanism design without quasilinearity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(2), May.
    3. Hiroki Shinozaki, 2022. "Characterizing pairwise strategy-proof rules in object allocation problems with money," ISER Discussion Paper 1187, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    4. Komal Malik & Debasis Mishra, 2018. "Pareto efficient combinatorial auctions: dichotomous preferences without quasilinearity," Discussion Papers 18-06, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    5. Lorentziadis, Panos L., 2016. "Optimal bidding in auctions from a game theory perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(2), pages 347-371.
    6. Axel Ockenfels & David Reiley & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2006. "Online Auctions," NBER Working Papers 12785, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Malik, Komal & Mishra, Debasis, 2021. "Pareto efficient combinatorial auctions: Dichotomous preferences without quasilinearity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    8. Tomoya Kazumura & Debasis Mishra & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2017. "Strategy-proof multi-object auction design: Ex-post revenue maximization with no wastage," ISER Discussion Paper 1001, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    9. Ronald M. Harstad & Aleksandar Saša Pekeč, 2008. "Relevance to Practice and Auction Theory: A Memorial Essay for Michael Rothkopf," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 367-380, October.
    10. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2020. "Improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2020-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    11. Tomoya Kazumura & Debasis Mishra & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2017. "Strategy-proof multi-object allocation: Ex-post revenue maximization with no wastage," Working Papers e116, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    12. Tomoya Kazumura & Debasis Mishra & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2017. "Strategy-proof multi-object auction design: Ex-post revenue maximization with no wastage," Discussion Papers 17-03, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    13. Tomoya Kazumura & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2016. "Efficiency and strategy-proofness in object assignment problems with multi-demand preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 633-663, October.
    14. Barbaro, Salvatore & Bracht, Bernd, 2021. "Shilling, Squeezing, Sniping. A further explanation for late bidding in online second-price auctions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    15. Cramton, Peter C, 1995. "Money Out of Thin Air: The Nationwide Narrowband PCS Auction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(2), pages 267-343, Summer.
    16. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Peter Cramton & Marek Pycia & Marzena Rostek & Marek Weretka, 2014. "Demand Reduction and Inefficiency in Multi-Unit Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(4), pages 1366-1400.
    17. Ingebretsen Carlson, Jim & Wu, Tingting, 2022. "Shill bidding and information in eBay auctions: A Laboratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 341-360.
    18. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Flavio Menezes & Matthew J. Ryan, 2006. "Auctions with options to re‐auction," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 2(1), pages 17-39, March.
    19. Atanu R. Sinha & Eric A. Greenleaf, 2000. "The Impact of Discrete Bidding and Bidder Aggressiveness on Sellers' Strategies in Open English Auctions: Reserves and Covert Shilling," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 244-265, May.
    20. Kotowski, Maciej H., 2020. "First-price auctions with budget constraints," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(1), January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Shill-proofness; Shill bidding; Strategy-proofness; Posted prices rule; Binary posted prices rule; Multi-unit auctions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:hit:hiasdp:hias-e-137. 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: Digital Resources Section, Hitotsubashi University Library (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ashitjp.html .

    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.