IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Private Monitoring in Auctions

Listed author(s):
  • Andreas Blume
  • Paul Heidhues

We study collusion in repeated first-price auctions under the condition of minimal information release by the auctioneer. In each auction a bidder only learns whether or not he won the object. Bidders do not observe other bidders’ bids, who participates or who wins in case they are not the winner. We show that for large enough discount factors collusion can nevertheless be supported in the infinitely repeated game. While there is a unique Nash equilibrium in public strategies, in which bidders bid competitively in every period, there are simple Nash equilibria in private strategies that support bid rotation. Equilibria that either improve on bid rotation or satisfy the requirement of Bayesian perfection, but not both, are only slightly more complex. Our main result is the construction of perfect Bayesian equilibria that improve on bid rotation. These equilibria require complicated inferences off the equilibrium path. A deviator may not know who has observed his deviation and consequently may have an incentive to use strategic experimentation to learn about the bidding behavior of his rivals. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Privates Monitoring in Auktionen) Der Beitrag untersucht, inwieweit Bieter Kollusion, bzw. stillschweigende Abkommen, in wiederholten Erstpreisauktionen aufrecht erhalten können, in welchen der Auktionator alle Informationen zurückhält. Nach jeder Auktion lernt ein Bieter nur, ob er das Objekt gewonnen hat oder nicht. Ein Bieter kann weder die Gebote der anderen Bieter beobachten, noch kann er beobachten, welche Bieter an der Auktion teilgenommen haben und wer gewonnen hat - solange er nicht selbst das Objekt erhält. Wir zeigen, dass in dem unendlich wiederholten Spiel für hinreichend geduldige Bieter Kollusion möglich ist. Es existiert zwar ein eindeutiges Gleichgewicht in öffentlichen Strategien, in welchem die Bieter in jeder Periode kompetitiv bieten, aber es gibt einfache Nash-Gleichgewichte in privaten Strategien, die Bieterrotation durchsetzen. Wir zeigen auch, dass Bieterrotation das Ergebnis eines perfekt bayesianischen Gleichgewichtes sein kann. Nash-Gleichgewichte, die höhere erwartete Gewinne als Bieterrotation erzielen, sind nur ein wenig komplexer. Das Hauptergebnis ist die Konstruktion von (essentiell) perfekt bayesianischen Gleichgewichten, welche höhere Gewinne als Bieterrotation erzielen. Nach Abweichungen vom Gleichgewichtspfad, müssen die Bieter in diesen Gleichgewichten komplizierte Rückschlüsse auf das Verhalten Ihrer Wettbewerber ziehen. So weiß ein Bieter nach bestimmten Abweichungen nicht, ob diese von seinen Mitspielern beobachtet wurden, und hat ein Interesse daran, durch strategisches experimentieren das Bietverhalten seiner Rivalen kennenzulernen.

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.

File URL: http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2003/ii03-14.pdf
File Function: Full text (original version)
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG) in its series CIG Working Papers with number SP II 2003-14.

as
in new window

Length: 44 pages
Date of creation: Sep 2003
Publication status: Forthcoming in the Journal of Economic Theory .
Handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:spii2003-14
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin, Germany

Phone: (++49)(30) 25491-441
Fax: (++49)(30) 25491-442
Web page: http://www.wzb.eu/mp/wiw/default.en.htm
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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.:

as
in new window


  1. David Kreps & Robert Wilson, 1998. "Sequential Equilibria," Levine's Working Paper Archive 237, David K. Levine.
  2. Aghion, P. & Bolton, P. & Harris, C. & Jullien, B., 1990. "Optimal Learning By Experimentation," DELTA Working Papers 90-10, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
  3. Kyle Bagwell, 2004. "Collusion and Price Rigidity," Theory workshop papers 658612000000000081, UCLA Department of Economics.
  4. Masaki Aoyagi, 2002. "Efficient Collusion in Repeated Auctions with Communication," ISER Discussion Paper 0566, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
  5. Susan Athey & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "Optimal Collusion with Private Information," Working papers 99-17, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  6. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Eric Maskin, 1994. "The Folk Theorem with Imperfect Public Information," Levine's Working Paper Archive 2058, David K. Levine.
  7. Rothschild, Michael, 1974. "A two-armed bandit theory of market pricing," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 185-202, October.
  8. Marshall, R.C. & Richard J.F., 1995. "Bider Collusion at Forest Service Timber Sales," Papers 7-95-3, Pennsylvania State - Department of Economics.
  9. Fudenberg, Drew & Maskin, Eric, 1986. "The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(3), pages 533-554, May.
  10. Sekiguchi, Tadashi, 1997. "Efficiency in Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma with Private Monitoring," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 345-361, October.
  11. Michihiro Kandori & Ichiro Obara, 2003. "Efficiency in Repeated Games Revisited: The Role of Private Strategies," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-255, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
  12. Hendricks, Kenneth & Porter, Robert H, 1988. "An Empirical Study of an Auction with Asymmetric Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(5), pages 865-883, December.
  13. Matthew O. Jackson & Leo K. Simon & Jeroen M. Swinkels & William R. Zame, 2002. "Communication and Equilibrium in Discontinuous Games of Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1711-1740, September.
  14. Blume, Andreas & Heidhues, Paul, 2004. "All equilibria of the Vickrey auction," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 170-177, January.
  15. Roy Radner & Roger Myerson & Eric Maskin, 1986. "An Example of a Repeated Partnership Game with Discounting and with Uniformly Inefficient Equilibria," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 59-69.
  16. McAfee, R. Preston & McMillan, John., 1990. "Bidding Rings," Working Papers 726, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  17. Glenn Ellison, 1994. "Cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma with Anonymous Random Matching," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 61(3), pages 567-588.
  18. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gneezy, Uri, 2002. "Information disclosure in auctions: an experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 431-444, August.
  19. Amparo Urbano Salvador & Larry Samuelson & Leonard J. Mirman, 1990. "Monopoly experimentation," Working Papers. Serie AD 1990-04, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    • Mirman, Leonard J & Samuelson, Larry & Urbano, Amparo, 1993. "Monopoly Experimentation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 34(3), pages 549-563, August.
  20. Abreu, Dilip & Pearce, David & Stacchetti, Ennio, 1990. "Toward a Theory of Discounted Repeated Games with Imperfect Monitoring," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(5), pages 1041-1063, September.
  21. McLennan, Andrew, 1984. "Price dispersion and incomplete learning in the long run," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 331-347, September.
  22. Skrzypacz, Andrzej & Hopenhayn, Hugo, 2004. "Tacit collusion in repeated auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 153-169, January.
  23. V. Bhaskar & Ichiro Obara, 2000. "Belief-Based Equilibria in the Repeated Prisoners' Dilemma with Private Monitoring," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1330, Econometric Society.
  24. Athey, S., 1997. "Sigle Crossing Properties and the Existence of Pure Strategy Equilibria in Games of Incomplete Information," Working papers 97-11, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  25. Lebrun, Bernard, 1997. "First Price Auctions in the Asymmetric N Bidder Case," Cahiers de recherche 9715, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
  26. Mailath George J. & Matthews Steven A. & Sekiguchi Tadashi, 2002. "Private Strategies in Finitely Repeated Games with Imperfect Public Monitoring," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-23, June.
  27. Aoyagi, Masaki, 2003. "Bid rotation and collusion in repeated auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 79-105, September.
  28. Andreas Blume & Paul Heidhues, 2008. "Modeling Tacit Collusion in Auctions," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 164(1), pages 163-184, March.
  29. Ben-Porath, E. & Kahneman, M., 1993. "Communication in Repeated Games with Private Monitoring," Papers 15-93, Tel Aviv - the Sackler Institute of Economic Studies.
  30. Ely, Jeffrey C. & Valimaki, Juuso, 2002. "A Robust Folk Theorem for the Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 84-105, January.
  31. Porter, Robert H & Zona, J Douglas, 1993. "Detection of Bid Rigging in Procurement Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(3), pages 518-538, June.
  32. Martin Pesendorfer, 2000. "A Study of Collusion in First-Price Auctions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 67(3), pages 381-411.
  33. Che,Y.-K. & Kim,J., 2004. "Collusion-proof implementation of optimal mechanisms," Working papers 4, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
  34. Michihiro Kandori, 1992. "Social Norms and Community Enforcement," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 59(1), pages 63-80.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:spii2003-14. 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: (Jennifer Rontganger)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.