IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tiu/tiutil/679149b1-cd8e-4728-9a44-379cbc349fdc.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimal Privatization Using Qualifying Auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Boone, J.

    (Tilburg University, TILEC)

  • Goeree, J.K.

Abstract

This paper explores the use of auctions for privatizing public assets. In our model, a single ?insider? bidder (e.g. incumbent management of a government-owned firm) possesses information about the asset?s risky value. In addition, bidders are privately informed about their costs of exploiting the asset. Due to the insider?s presence, uninformed bidders face a strong winner?s curse in standard auctions with devastating consequences for revenues. We show that the optimal mechanism discriminates against the informationally advantaged bidder to ensure truthful information revelation. The optimal mechanism can be implemented via a simple two-stage ?qualifying auction.? In the first stage of the qualifying auction, non-binding bids are submitted to determine who enters the second stage, which consists of a standard second-price auction augmented with a reserve price.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Boone, J. & Goeree, J.K., 2005. "Optimal Privatization Using Qualifying Auctions," Discussion Paper 2005-021, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:tiu:tiutil:679149b1-cd8e-4728-9a44-379cbc349fdc
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/776070/2005-021.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger B. Myerson, 1978. "Optimal Auction Design," Discussion Papers 362, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    2. 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.
    3. Paul Klemperer, 2002. "What Really Matters in Auction Design," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 169-189, Winter.
    4. Bulow, Jeremy & Roberts, John, 1989. "The Simple Economics of Optimal Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1060-1090, October.
    5. Hernando-Veciana, Angel, 2004. "Successful uninformed bidding," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 29-53, July.
    6. Welch, D. & Fremond, O., 1998. "The Case-by-Case Approach to Privatization. Techniques and Examples," Papers 403, World Bank - Technical Papers.
    7. Kagel, John & Pevnitskaya, Svetlana & Ye, Lixin, 2008. "Indicative bidding: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 697-721, March.
    8. Larson, Nathan, 2009. "Private value perturbations and informational advantage in common value auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 430-460, March.
    9. Nii Tackie, 2002. "The Impact of Selected Factors on Domain Consensus Between the International Monetary Fund (The World Bank) and Developing Countries," Journal of African Development, African Finance and Economic Association (AFEA), vol. 5(1), pages 36-51.
    10. Hernando-Veciana, Ángel & Tröge, Michael, 2011. "The insider's curse," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 339-350, March.
    11. Ye, Lixin, 2007. "Indicative bidding and a theory of two-stage auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 181-207, January.
    12. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    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. Bergemann, Dirk & Wambach, Achim, 2015. "Sequential information disclosure in auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PB), pages 1074-1095.
    2. Galit Ashkenazi-Golan & Yevgeny Tsodikovich & Yannick Viossat, 2023. "I want to tell you? Maximizing revenue in first-price two-stage auctions," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1329-1362, November.
    3. Jan Boone & Roy Chen & Jacob Goeree & Angelo Polydoro, 2009. "Risky procurement with an insider bidder," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(4), pages 417-436, December.
    4. Niklas Klarnskou & Philippos Louis & Wouter Passtoors, 2024. "Feedback and Competition in Procurement e-Auctions," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 04-2024, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    5. Hernando-Veciana, Ángel, 2009. "Information acquisition in auctions: Sealed bids vs. open bids," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 372-405, March.
    6. Kagel, John & Pevnitskaya, Svetlana & Ye, Lixin, 2008. "Indicative bidding: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 697-721, March.
    7. Hai Wang & Weidong Zhang & Jingjing Wang, 2007. "Auctioning the state owned enterprise in China: the trade-off between maximizing revenue and minimizing unemployment," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 267-280, September.
    8. Sander Onderstal & Yang Yang, 2020. "Cheap-talk Communication in Procurement Auctions: Theory and Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-013/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Ashkenazi-Golan, Galit & Tsodikovich, Yevgeny & Viossat, Yannick, 2023. "I want to tell you? Maximizing revenue in first-price two-stage auctions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118706, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Hernando-Veciana, Angel & Michelucci, Fabio, 2018. "Inefficient rushes in auctions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(1), January.
    11. Bruno Wichmann & Peter Boxall & Scott Wilson & Orsolya Pergery, 2017. "Auctioning Risky Conservation Contracts," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1111-1144, December.

    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. Jan Boone & Jacob K. Goeree, 2009. "Optimal Privatisation Using Qualifying Auctions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 277-297, January.
    2. Hernando-Veciana, Ángel, 2009. "Information acquisition in auctions: Sealed bids vs. open bids," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 372-405, March.
    3. Hongjun Zhong, 2002. "postbid market interaction and auction choice," Microeconomics 0210002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Jeremy Bulow & Paul Klemperer, 2009. "Why Do Sellers (Usually) Prefer Auctions?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1544-1575, September.
    5. Marja Appelman & S. Onderstal & Joeri Gorter & Mark Lijesen & Richard Venniker, 2003. "Equal rules or equal opportunities? Demystifying level playing field," CPB Document 34, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    6. Vivek Bhattacharya & James W. Roberts & Andrew Sweeting, 2014. "Regulating bidder participation in auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(4), pages 675-704, December.
    7. Paul Povel & Rajdeep Singh, 2003. "Bidder Asymmetry in Takeover Contests: The Role of Deal Protection Devices," Finance 0311011, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Bernard Caillaud & Jacques Robert, 2003. "Implementing the Optimal Auction," CIRANO Working Papers 2003s-31, CIRANO.
    9. Loyola, Gino, 2012. "Optimal and efficient takeover contests with toeholds," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 203-216.
    10. Daley, Brendan & Schwarz, Michael & Sonin, Konstantin, 2012. "Efficient investment in a dynamic auction environment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 104-119.
    11. Philip A. Haile & Elie Tamer, 2003. "Inference with an Incomplete Model of English Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(1), pages 1-51, February.
    12. Quintero Jaramillo, Jose E., 2004. "Liquidity constraints and credit subsidies in auctions," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb040604, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    13. Jeremy Bulow & Paul Klemperer, 2007. "When are Auctions Best?," Economics Papers 2007-W03, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    14. Giuseppe Lopomo, 2004. "Optimality and Robustness of the English Auction," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000391, UCLA Department of Economics.
    15. Sander Onderstal & Yang Yang, 2020. "Cheap-talk Communication in Procurement Auctions: Theory and Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-013/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Niklas Klarnskou & Philippos Louis & Wouter Passtoors, 2024. "Feedback and Competition in Procurement e-Auctions," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 04-2024, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    17. Jehiel, Philippe & Meyer-ter-Vehn, Moritz & Moldovanu, Benny, 2007. "Mixed bundling auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 494-512, May.
    18. Alexandre ZIEGLER, 2002. "When are Retail Stores Preferable to Auctions ?," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 02.03, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    19. Renée Birgit Adams & Francesca Cornelli & Leonardo Felli, 2012. "How to Sell a (Bankrupt) Company," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 197-226, June.
    20. Englmaier, Florian & Guillén, Pablo & Llorente, Loreto & Onderstal, Sander & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2009. "The chopstick auction: A study of the exposure problem in multi-unit auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 286-291, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprise and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out

    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:tiu:tiutil:679149b1-cd8e-4728-9a44-379cbc349fdc. 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: Richard Broekman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/research/institutes-and-research-groups/center-ar/ .

    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.