IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20110024.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Keeping out Trojan Horses: Auctions and Bankruptcy in the Laboratory

Author

Listed:
  • Sander Onderstal

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Ailko van der Veen

    (University of Amsterdam)

Abstract

If a government auctions the right to market a good, continuity is likely to be of significant importance. In a laboratory experiment, we compare the effects of bidders' limited liability in the first-price sealed-bid auction and the English auction in a common value setting. Our data strongly reject our theoretical prediction that the English auction leads to less aggressive bids and fewer bankruptcies than the first-price sealed-bid auction. X -cursedness gives a robust explanation of our experimental observations, in contrast to risk aversion and asymmetric equilibria.

Suggested Citation

  • Sander Onderstal & Ailko van der Veen, 2011. "Keeping out Trojan Horses: Auctions and Bankruptcy in the Laboratory," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-024/1, Tinbergen Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20110024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://papers.tinbergen.nl/11024.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Rhodes-Kropf & S. Viswanathan, 2000. "Corporate Reorganizations and Non-Cash Auctions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1807-1854, August.
    2. Aleix Calveras & Juan-Jose Ganuza & Esther Hauk, 2004. "Wild Bids. Gambling for Resurrection in Procurement Contracts," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 41-68, July.
    3. Francesco Decarolis, 2009. "When the highest bidder loses the auction: theory and evidence from public procurement," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 717, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    4. Jeremy Bulow & Ming Huang & Paul Klemperer, 1999. "Toeholds and Takeovers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(3), pages 427-454, June.
    5. Paul Klemperer, 2002. "What Really Matters in Auction Design," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 169-189, Winter.
    6. Sarah Parlane, 2003. "Procurement Contracts under Limited Liability," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 34(1), pages 1-21.
    7. Ehrhart, Karl-Martin & Ott, Marion & Abele, Susanne, 2008. "Auction Fever: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-27, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universit├Ąt Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    8. Saral, Krista Jabs, 2009. "An Analysis of Market-Based and Statutory Limited Liability in Second Price Auctions," MPRA Paper 25143, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Milgrom,Paul, 2004. "Putting Auction Theory to Work," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521536721, January.
    10. Christopher Avery & John H. Kagel, 1997. "Second-Price Auctions with Asymmetric Payoffs: An Experimental Investigation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 573-603, September.
    11. Simon Board, 2007. "Bidding into the Red: A Model of Post-Auction Bankruptcy," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(6), pages 2695-2723, December.
    12. Lind, Barry & Plott, Charles R, 1991. "The Winner's Curse: Experiments with Buyers and with Sellers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 335-346, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Marco Pagnozzi & Krista J. Saral, 2018. "Auctions with Limited Liability through Default or Resale," CSEF Working Papers 494, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Auctions; Bankruptcy; Laboratory Experiment;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices

    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:tin:wpaper:20110024. 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: (Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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 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.

    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.