Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:08:42.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solution Properties of Deterministic Auctions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

James L. Barr  and
Timothy L. Shaftel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A market can be imperfectly competitive for a variety of reasons; in the context of an auction or a contract awarding, imperfections may stem from the limited number of bidders involved. Bidders, recognizing that their behavior (or that of others) can affect the market outcome, may adopt strategies that are unlikely to lead to a Pareto efficient allocation. Such inefficiencies can occur in the absence of any collusive behavior on the part of bidders. If barriers to bid entry are removed, and bidders are sufficiently homogeneous, the likelihood increases that bids will reflect full (private) valuations of the auctioned goods. Under these conditions Pareto efficient allocations would be guided by a set of minimum prices: a “sale to the highest bidder” would be transacted at a price approximate to the valuation of the second highest bidder, and contracts would be awarded at the competitive supply price. Even when the number of bidders is restricted, auction procedures can be adopted which will insure efficiency to a degree. This efficiency is achieved by changing the motivations of the available bidders, and by providing incentives for bidders to reveal their full valuations of the objects being auctioned. This paper describes a set of auction procedures which achieve these ends.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1976 , pp. 287 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Bolten, S. “Treasury Bill Auction Procedures: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of Finance (1971).Google Scholar
[2]Brimmer, A. “Price Determination in the United States Bills Market.” Review of Economics and Statistics (May 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Friedman, M. “Price Determination in the United States Treasury Bill Market: A Comment.” Review of Economics and Statistics (August 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Goldstein, H. “The Friedman Proposal for Auctioning Treasury Bills.” Journal of Political Economy (August 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Griesmer, J. H.; Shubik, M.; and Levitan, R. E.. “Towards a Study of Bidding Processes—Games with Unknown Costs.” Naval Logistics Quarterly (1967), pp. 415–433.Google Scholar
[6]Koopmans, T., and Beckmann, M.. “Assignment Problems and the Location of Economic Activities.” Econometrica (January 1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]McDonald, J. G., and Jacquillat, B. C.. “Pricing of Initial Equity Issues: The French Sealed-Bid Auction.” Journal of Business (January 1974).Google Scholar
[8]Mangasarian, O. L.Non-Linear Programming. New York: McGraw Hill (1969).Google Scholar
[9]Smith, V. L. “Experimental Studies of Discrimination Versus Competition in Sealed Bid Auction Markets.” Journal of Business (January 1967).Google Scholar
[10]Smith, V. L. “Bidding Theory and the Treasury Bill Auction—Does Price Discrimination Increase Bill Prices.” Review of Economics and Statistics (1961), pp. 141–146.Google Scholar
[11]Stark, R. M. “Competitive Bidding: A Comprehensive Bibliography.” Journal of Operations Research, pp. 484–490.Google Scholar
[12]Vickrey, W. “Counterspeculation, Auctions and Competitive Sealed Tenders.” Journal of Finance (1961), pp. 8–37.Google Scholar