DOCSLIB.ORG

Tacit Collusion in Repeated Unit Commitment Auctions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tacit Collusion in Repeated Unit Commitment Auctions Tacit Collusion in Repeated Unit Commitment Auctions Joseph E. Duggan Jr.∗ April 30, 2019 Extended Abstract In this preliminary work, I have begun to explore tacit collusion in infinitely repeated unit commitment auctions. In particular, whether the centrally committed market design characteristic of wholesale electricity markets in the United States more or less easily faciliates collusion than the self-committed market designs common to Western Europe and Australia. This work will represent a step towards better understanding the interplay between wholesale electricity market designs and the sustainability of collusion, a question of both theoretical market design relevance as well as practical regulatory import. Under both market designs, firms compete in a uniform price auction mechanism that is run by a third-party market operator. However, these market designs differ in how the generating firms submit their offers and the manner in which commitment and dispatch decisions are made. Under the centrally-committed market design, generating firms submit complex offers that contain information regarding the non-convexities of their operating costs. For example, a bid may contain information about marginal cost as well as the fixed start-up cost of activating a generator. On the basis of these submitted bids, the market operator determines commitment (the binary decision of whether or not a generator is activated) and dispatch (how much a generating firm is called to produce) to serve demand at lowest cost on the basis of the submitted bids. Given that the market price of energy may not be enough to cover fixed operating costs, under the centrally-committed market design there exists a make-whole provision guaranteeing that generating firms that are called to produce will break even on the basis of their submitted offers. Importantly, there is no guarantee that firms are bidding their costs truthfully. Under the self-committed market design, generating firms submit a simple offer representing the lowest price at which it is willing to supply the entirety of its capacity. There are no make-whole provisions in the self-committed market design, so generating firms must internalize the non-convexities of their operating costs in their simple price offers. To my knowledge, this work will be the first attempt to directly compare the sustainability of ∗Department of Economics and Finance, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, Ohio, 45469, United States of America: [email protected] 1 collusion across these two market designs in an infinitely repeated game setting. Preliminary work suggests that the self-committed market design may more easily facilitate tacit collusion in the infinitely repeated game setting. It has been shown that uniform price auctions may more readily facilitate collusion than discriminatory price auctions (Fabra (2003)). In a uniform price auction, the market price of energy is determined by the highest accepted (the marginal) bid. This implies that a collusive price can be maintained by firms with inframarginal bids submitting offers low enough that they could not be profitably undercut by the marginal firm. This is made possible by the fact that the low bids are payoff irrelevant given that the market price is determined solely by the marginal bid. This type of pricing scheme is not feasible in the discriminatory auction, where each firm with an accepted bid is paid its own unique offer. Sioshansi and Nicholson (2011) were the first to formally model the bidding and incentive properties of generating firms competing in centrally-committed versus self-committed wholesale electricity markets. In a symmetric duopoly setting, they derived Nash equilibrium bidding behavior and expected costs across the two market designs. In their duopoly setting, they also found that the two market designs are expected cost equivalent. However, Duggan and Sioshansi (2018) determined that this cost equivalence result fails to hold in the more general setting of an oligopoly with three or more firms. Indeed, self-committed markets are found to be potentially more costly in a general oligopoly setting. This forms a primary motivation for the preliminary work of this extended abstract. Both Sioshansi and Nicholson (2011) and Duggan and Sioshansi (2018) model the auction environments as single-shot games. Examining these market designs in an infinitely repeated context will help illuminate whether one design more easily facilitates collusive behavior. There is an extensive literature on unit commitment auctions and the relative merits and demerits of centrally-committed versus self-committed electricity markets. Padhy (2004) provides a comprehensive survey on the formulation and solution of unit commitment models. Hogan (1994) and Ruff (1994) advocate centrally-committed markets over self-committed markets on the basis that the more complex offers give the market operator more information for making efficient commitment and dispatch decisions. However, there is no guarantee that the generating firms bid truthfully. Elmaghraby and Oren (1999) discuss the merits of self-committed markets given the incentive issues of the centrally-committed design. While this remains a work in progress, an infinitely repeated auction model of centrally versus self committed wholesale electricity markets will be studied. Analyzing an infinitely repeated game framework and looking at one-shot deviation gains, I will examine if one design is superior to the other in terms of facilitating tacit collusion. By enriching the duopoly model of Sioshansi and Nicholson (2011) which was further generalized to an oligopoly setting by Duggan and Sioshansi (2018), I am hoping to determine whether a self-committed market design may more easily facilitate collusion than a centrally-committed market design. Preliminary analyses suggests that this is indeed the case. More concrete results will be obtained in time for the International Conference on Game Theory in July. This study will provide two main contributions. By studying how market designs for wholesale electricity may hinder or facilitate collusion, it will contribute to the literature on procurement auctions, applied game theory, and market design. This study will also have practical relevance for regulators and public policy analysts in that it will aid our understanding of how collusive outcomes may be sustained and how they may be deterred 2 in the context of repeated unit commitment auctions. Given the debates surrounding how market designs may need to be rethought in light of the introduction of renewable generation, this study may represent a step towards better informed electricity market design decisions. Keywords: Electricity Markets, Market Design, Unit Commitment, Auctions, Repeated Games JEL Classification: C72, D43, D44, D47, L13, Q4 References [1] Ahlqvist, Victor, Par Holmberg, and Thomas Tangers. \Central-versus Self-Dispatch in Electricity Markets." (2018). Available at: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/research- files/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe1902.pdf [2] Benjamin, Richard M., Tacit Collusion in Real-Time U.S. Electricity Auctions (October 4, 2011). USAEE Working Paper No. 11-085. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1938757 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1938757 [3] Elmaghraby, W., Oren, S. S., October 1999. Efficiency of Multi-Unit Electricity Auctions. The Energy Journal 20, 89-115. [4] Fabra, N., 2003. Tacit collusion in repeated auctions: uniform versus discriminatory. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 51(3), pp.271-293. [5] Hobbs, B. F., Rothkopf, M. H., ONeill, R. P., Chao, H.-P. (Eds.), 2001. The Next Generation of Electric Power Unit Commit- ment Models. Kluwer, Norwell, Massachusetts. [6] Hogan, W. W., 1994. An Efficient Bilateral Market Needs a Pool. Testimony Before the California Public Utilities Commission. [7] O'Neill, R. P., Sotkiewicz, P. M., Hobbs, B. F., Rothkopf, M. H., Stewart, W. R., 1 July 2005. Efficient market-clearing prices in markets with nonconvexities. European Journal of Operational Research 164, 269-285. [8] Oren, S. S., Ross, A. M., October 2005. Can we prevent the gaming of ramp constraints? Decision Support Systems 40, 461-471. [9] Padhy, N.P., 2004. Unit commitment-a bibliographical survey. IEEE Transactions on power systems, 19(2), pp.1196-1205. [10] Ruff, L. E., June 1994. Stop Wheeling and Start Dealing: Resolving the Transmission Dilemma. The Electricity Journal 7, 24-43. [11] Sioshansi, R., Nicholson, E., August 2011. Towards Equilibrium Offers in Unit Commit- ment Auctions with Nonconvex Costs. Journal of Regulatory Economics 40, 41-61. 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Loss Aversion and Sunk Cost Sensitivity in All-Pay Auctions for Charity: Experimental Evidence∗
    Loss Aversion and Sunk Cost Sensitivity in All-pay Auctions for Charity: Experimental Evidence∗ Joshua Fostery Economics Department University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh August 30, 2017 Abstract All-pay auctions have demonstrated an extraordinary ability at raising money for charity. One mechanism in particular is the war of attrition, which frequently generates revenue well beyond what is theoretically predicted with rational bidders. However, what motivates the behavioral response in bidders remains unclear. By imposing charity auction incentives in the laboratory, this paper uses controlled experiments to consider the effects of loss aversion and sunk cost sensitivity on bidders’ willingness to contribute. The results indicate that revenues in incremental bidding mechanisms, such as the war of attrition, rely heavily on bidders who are sunk cost sensitive. It is shown this behavioral response can be easily curbed with a commitment device which drastically lowers contributions below theoretical predictions. A separate behavioral response due to loss aversion is found in the sealed-bid first-price all-pay auction, which reduces bidders’ willingness to contribute. These findings help explain the inconsistencies in revenues from previous all-pay auction studies and indicate a mechanism preference based on the distribution of these behavioral characteristics. Keywords: Auctions, Market Design, Charitable Giving JEL Classification: C92, D03, D44, D64 ∗I would like to thank Cary Deck, Amy Farmer, Jeffrey Carpenter, Salar Jahedi, Li Hao, and seminar participants at the University of Arkansas, ESA World Meetings, ESA North America Meetings, and the SEA Annual Meetings for their helpful comments at various stages of the development of this project. yContact the author at [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Robust Market Design: Information and Computation
    ROBUST MARKET DESIGN: INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Inbal Talgam-Cohen December 2015 Abstract A fundamental problem in economics is how to allocate precious and scarce resources, such as radio spectrum or the attention of online consumers, to the benefit of society. The vibrant research area of market design, recognized by the 2012 Nobel Prize in economics, aims to develop an engineering science of allocation mechanisms based on sound theoretical foundations. Two central assumptions are at the heart of much of the classic theory on resource allocation: the common knowledge and substitutability assumptions. Relaxing these is a prerequisite for many real-life applications, but involves significant informational and computational challenges. The starting point of this dissertation is that the computational paradigm offers an ideal toolbox for overcoming these challenges in order to achieve a robust and applicable theory of market design. We use tools and techniques from combinatorial optimization, randomized algo- rithms and computational complexity to make contributions on both the informa- tional and computational fronts: 1. We design simple mechanisms for maximizing seller revenue that do not rely on common knowledge of buyers' willingness to pay. First we show that across many different markets { including notoriously challenging ones in which the goods are heterogeneous { the optimal revenue benchmark can be surpassed or approximated by adding buyers or limiting supplies, and then applying the standard Vickrey (second-price) mechanism. We also show how, by removing the common knowledge assumption, the classic theory of revenue maximiza- tion expands to encompass the realistic but complex case in which buyers are interdependent in their willingness to pay.
    [Show full text]
  • Should First-Price Auctions Be Transparent?∗
    Should First-Price Auctions be Transparent?∗ Dirk Bergemann† Johannes H¨orner‡ April 7, 2017 Abstract We investigate the role of market transparency in repeated first-price auctions. We consider a setting with independent private and persistent values. We analyze three distinct disclosure regimes regarding the bid and award history. In the minimal disclosure regime each bidder only learns privately whether he won or lost the auction. In equilibrium the allocation is efficient and the minimal disclosure regime does not give rise to pooling equilibria. In contrast, in disclosure settings where either all or only the winner’s bids are public, an inefficient pooling equilibrium with low revenues exists. ∗We gratefully acknowledge financial support from NSF SES 0851200 and ICES 1215808. We thank the co- editor, Phil Reny, and two anonymous referees, for helpful comments and suggestions. We are grateful to seminar participants at the NBER Market Design Meeting, University of Mannheim, University of Munich and the University of Pennsylvania for their constructive comments. Lastly, thanks to Yi Chen for excellent research assistance. †Department of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, [email protected] ‡Department of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, [email protected] 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation Information revelation policies vary widely across auction formats. In the U.S. procurement context, as a consequence of the “Freedom of Information Act,” the public sector is generally subject to strict transparency requirements that require full disclosure of the identity of the bidders and the terms of each bid. In auctions of mineral rights to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Design of a Multi-Unit Double Auction E-Market
    Design of a Multi-unit Double Auction E-Market Pu Huang Center for Automated Learning and Discovery School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 [email protected] Alan Scheller-Wolf Graduate School of Industrial Administration Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 [email protected] Katia Sycara The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 [email protected] ¡ This paper has been accepted for publication in Computational Intelligence. 1 Abstract We envision a future economy where e-markets will play an essential role as exchange hubs for commodities and services. Future e-markets should be designed to be robust to manipu- lation, flexible, and sufficiently efficient in facilitating exchanges. One of the most important aspects of designing an e-market is market mechanism design. A market mechanism defines the organization, information exchange process, trading procedure and clearance rules of a market. If we view an e-market as a multi-agent system, the market mechanism also defines the structure and rules of the environment in which agents (buyers and sellers) play the market game. We design an e-market mechanism that is strategy-proof with respect to reservation price, weakly budget-balanced and individually rational. Our mechanism also makes sellers unlikely to under-report the supply volume to drive up the market price. In addition, by bound- ing our market’s efficiency loss, we provide fairly unrestrictive sufficient conditions for the efficiency of our mechanism to converge in a strong sense when (1) the number of agents who successfully trade is large, or (2) the number of agents, trading and not, is large.
    [Show full text]
  • Experiments in Market Design This (Still-Missing-A-Few-Parts, Put Readable Through P61) Draft: January 2012
    Experiments in Market Design This (still-missing-a-few-parts, put readable through p61) draft: January 2012 Design: Noun: the arrangement of elements or details Verb: to create or construct 1. Introduction The phrase ―market design‖ has come to include the design not only of marketplaces but also of other economic environments, institutions and allocation rules. And it includes not only the design of new institutions ("design" as a verb) but also renewed attention to how the design of economic institutions ("design" as a noun) influences their performance. It is both one of the oldest and one of the newest areas of experimental economics. It is one of the oldest because every economic experiment involves the design of an economic environment, and many experiments compare the effects of different designs. And it is one of the newest because only since the 1990‘s have economists become regularly involved in the detailed design of marketplaces and other economic institutions in ways that have led from the initial conception all the way to the adoption and implementation of practical new designs (and to the beginnings of a new scientific literature of market design). This new usefulness of market design has brought new uses for experiments. To see that market design has always played a role in experimental economics, note that when Chamberlain (1948) sought to investigate competitive equilibrium, he designed not only the kind of marketplace (pairwise negotiation) that he wished to investigate; he also developed the technique that has since been widely used to induce particular supply and demand conditions, by giving each buyer and seller the prices and quantities at which they could in effect sell to or buy from the experimenter to fulfill any trades they made.1 1 Thus e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Auctions Work: the Winning Ideas Behind This Year's Nobel Prize
    Making auctions work: the winning ideas behind this year’s Nobel Prize in economics October 13, 2020 10.20am AEDT Author John Hawkins Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra More than ever before, auctions shape the economy. Sites such as eBay have made them an everyday transaction. The placement of every Google ad is priced by an instantaneous mini-auction. Governments use them to allocate radio spectrum and to run emissions trading schemes. The 2020 Nobel Prize in economics has been awarded to two Americans, Paul Milgrom and Robert Wilson, for their work in analysing auctions and how to make them more efficient. The two professors are close collaborators. They both work at Stanford University in California and also live on the same street. The economics prize is not one of the original categories endowed from Alfred Nobel’s will. Its formal name is the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel. The winners are selected by the same Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences that awards the prizes for physics and chemistry. Milgrom and Wilson work in various areas of economics (notably game theory) but are best known for their work in market design. Milgrom was awarded his PhD from Stanford in 1978, where he was one of Wilson’s students. The American Economics Association has described Milgrom as the world’s leading auction designer. His work has been cited more than 100,000 times. The winner’s curse The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has emphasised that Milgrom and Wilson have won the award for both their theoretical work and its practical application in auctions.
    [Show full text]
  • Tacit Collusion in Oligopolies and Regulated Industries That Underlie This Thesis
    TACIT COLLUSION IN OLIGOPOLIES AND REGULATED INDUSTRIES Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Wirtschaftswissenschaften (Dr. rer. pol.) von der Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften am Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) genehmigte DISSERTATION von Niklas Horstmann B. Sc. Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 20. Mai 2016 Referent: Prof. Dr. Jan Krämer Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Karl-Martin Ehrhart Karlsruhe, 2016 Acknowledgements I am deeply grateful to my advisor Prof. Dr. Jan Krämer who always knew when to encourage and when to challenge me. He has not only been my mentor but also has become a dear friend. I am also indebted to Prof. Dr. Christof Weinhardt for the opportunity to pursue my scientific ambitions. My sincere thanks go to my co-advisor Prof. Dr. Karl-Martin Ehrhart for inspiring comments as well as to Prof. Dr. Kay Mitusch and Prof. Dr. Martin Ruckes for serving on the board of examiners. My sincere appreciation goes to all my colleagues. In particular, I thank Marc Adam for satirical references, Christoph Flath for informative exchanges on politics, Felix Fritz for working weekend chats, Johannes Gärttner for entertaining conversations, Anuja Hari- haran for exciting insights into Indian culture, Philip Köhler for his infectious cheerful- ness, Tobias Kranz for passionate debates, Ewa Lux for making my time at the institute even more memorable and for proofreading this thesis, Marius Müller for diverting discussions, Claudia Niemeyer for her joviality, Thomas Setzer for his dry sense of hu- mor, Daniel Schnurr for close and long-term collaboration, Alexander Schuller for his cooperative nature, Philipp Ströhle for brief glimpses into other research areas, Timm Teubner for constructive feedback, and Lukas Wiewiorra for helpful advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Pilot Auction Facility for Methane and Climate Change Mitigation: Relevant Environmental Auctions
    PILOT AUCTION FACILITY FOR METHANE AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION: RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL AUCTIONS Lawrence M. Ausubel, Peter Cramton, Christina Aperjis and Daniel N. Hauser 14 July 2014 Pilot Auction Facility for Methane and Climate Change Mitigation Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Carbon Auctions ...................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 UK Emission Trading Scheme Auction ............................................................................ 2 2.2 Carbon Markets .............................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Auction Format ............................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Experimental Work ......................................................................................................... 4 2.5 Auction Results ............................................................................................................... 5 2.6 Carbon Trading ................................................................................................................ 7 2.7 Lessons Learned .............................................................................................................. 7 3. Other Auctions ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Auction Market Design: Recent Innovations
    Auction Market Design: Recent Innovations Paul Milgrom August 2018 Introduction Introductory economics courses begin to teach about markets by focusing on trades of a single homogeneous good in which the identities of the buyer and seller do not matter; prices equilibrate supply and demand; and a “law of one price” applies. Real markets are rarely so simple and require market design effort to deal with cases in which the identities of trading partners matter; prices play little or no role in market clearing; or prices vary greatly among similar transactions. There are many examples. In the marriage market, men and women care deeply about the identity of their dating or marriage partners, even when there are no dowries or bride­prices involved. Markets for matching children to schools or kidney donors to kidney patients make no use of money or prices to guide the allocation. Markets for advertising on Internet search pages use auctions to determine a separate price for each ad impression. A prominent feature of many markets is that fine distinctions are made among similar­seeming goods. The most relevant ad to show an Internet user varies not only user­by­user, but even over short periods of time for a single user. The most relevant ad to show to a user varies over time, depending on whether the user is currently shopping to replace a broken kitchen appliance, refinance a mortgage, or plan a vacation. In many electrical power markets, power is distinguished by the time and location at which energy is to be made available, with shorter time intervals and smaller geographic areas becoming increasingly common.
    [Show full text]
  • Design of Ancillary Service Markets1
    Design of Ancillary Service Markets1 Shmuel S. Oren, University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720 [email protected] In New England, according to the New England ISO Abstract market report for June 1999 "During June and July the ISO We examine the design of bid selection protocols and identified design flaws in the operating reserve markets of settlement rules in ancillary service markets. Such markets Ten Minute Spinning Reserve (TMSR), Ten Minute Non- are typically operated by an independent system operator Spinning Reserve (TMNSR), and Thirty Minute Operating (ISO) for competitive procurement of reserves that are Reserve (TMOR). The operating reserve design flaws needed to ensure the secure operation of a competitive resulted in markets that are not workably competitive." The electric power system. Reserve types are characterized in report identifies price reversals as the primary symptom of terms of response time and they are downward substitutable (faster responding reserves can replace slower ones). We the design flaws. It States: "In a competitive market, higher explore how this substitutability is accounted for in quality goods should command higher prices. In the alternative market protocols and we analyze the efficiency, operating reserves markets prices did not appear to be distributional aspects and incentive compatibility of such reflective of costs and lesser quality reserves received higher protocols. prices. For example, Thirty Minute Operating Reserve (“TMOR”) is less useful than Ten Minute Non-Spinning
    [Show full text]
  • An Invitation to Market Design
    An Invitation to Market Design Scott Duke Kominers Alexander Teytelboym Vincent P. Crawford Working Paper 18-019 An Invitation to Market Design Scott Duke Kominers Harvard Business School Alexander Teytelboym University of Oxford Vincent P. Crawford University of Oxford Working Paper 18-019 Copyright © 2017 by Scott Duke Kominers, Alexander Teytelboym, and Vincent P. Crawford Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. An Invitation to Market Design∗ Scott Duke Kominers† Alexander Teytelboym‡ Vincent P. Crawford§ September 4, 2017 Abstract Market design seeks to translate economic theory and analysis into practical solutions to real-world problems. By redesigning both the rules that guide market transactions and the infrastructure that enables those transactions to take place, market designers can address a broad range of market failures. In this paper, we illustrate the process and power of market design through three examples: the design of medical residency matching programs; a scrip system to allocate food donations to food banks; and the recent “Incentive Auction” that reallocated wireless spectrum from television broadcasters to telecoms. Our lead examples show how effective market design can encourage participation, reduce gaming, and aggregate information, in order to improve liquidity, efficiency, and equity in markets. We also discuss a number of fruitful applications of market design in other areas of economic and public policy. Keywords: matching, auctions, trading, scrip, liquidity, efficiency, equity, allocation rules, marketplaces, market design JEL Classification: D47, C78, D44, D82, D02, D51, D71, D61, D62, D63 ∗We are deeply grateful to Thomas R.
    [Show full text]
  • ECO 426 (Market Design) - Lecture 7
    ECO 426 (Market Design) - Lecture 7 Ettore Damiano November 16, 2015 Ettore Damiano ECO 426 (Market Design) - Lecture 7 700 MHz Spectrum Auction Started: January 14, 2014 Ended: February 19, 2014 Rounds of bidding: 108 Licenses allocated: 98 Total Revenue: CAD 5.27bn Ettore Damiano ECO 426 (Market Design) - Lecture 7 Google AdWords online advertising service that places advertising copy at the top or bottom of, or beside, the list of results Google displays for a particular search query. An auction determines the order of the ads and the payment to Google (per click or per impression) Google advertising revenue: USD 42.5bn in 2012 Ettore Damiano ECO 426 (Market Design) - Lecture 7 Auctions Examples of common auctions Bus routes (London, England) Fine wines Art and collectibles Treasury bills Natural resources (timber, oil, radio spectrum) CO2 emission permits Procurement contracts: construction, defense . Auctions are used to buy/sell goods that are hard to price (e.g. the willingness to buy/sell for varies across individuals and is not observed (private information)) The rules of the auction affect the outcome, for example revenue to the seller, or allocation efficiency Auction design: choose the auction format that best achieve the designer’s objective Ettore Damiano ECO 426 (Market Design) - Lecture 7 Selling a single object Key ideas: Seller does not know how much potential buyers are willing to pay for the object Potential buyers know what they would pay but are not telling (private information) Auction serves as a “price discovery” mechanism Look at different auction formats Ettore Damiano ECO 426 (Market Design) - Lecture 7 Independent private values - two bidders example Potential buyers Two bidders, 1 and 2 Each bidder i = 1, 2 values the object vi (i.e.
    [Show full text]