Advertisement

Equilibrium Bidding Strategies under the English and the Second-Price Auctions

  • Soo Hong Chew
  • Naoko Nishimura
Chapter

Abstract

When bidders have independent private valuations of a deterministic auctioned object, the revenue equivalence between the English auction and the second-price auction, is known in the auction literature.1 Several papers investigated bidding behavior when there is uncertainty in the value of the auctioned object. Chew (1989) observes that the symmetric Nash equilibrium bid under the second-price auction may not be demand revealing when bidders do not possess expected utility preferences. He further provides condition on bidders whose preferences exhibit the betweenness property to optimally bid less than their reservation values. Karni and Safra (1989) show that the Nash equilibrium bidding behavior under the English auction is demand revealing if and only if bidders’ preferences satisfy betweenness.

Keywords

Nash Equilibrium Indifference Curve Bidding Strategy English Auction Equilibrium Bidding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Billingsley, P. (1968). Convergence of Probability Measures. NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Chew, S. H. (1983). `A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox.“ Econometrica 51, 1065–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chew, S. H. (1989). “Axiomatic Utility Theories with the Betweenness Property.” Annals of Operations Research 19, 273–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chew, S. H. and J. Mao (1995). “A Schur-Concave Characterization of Risk Aversion for Non-Expected Utility Preferences.” Journal of Economic Theory 67, 402–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chew, S. H. and N. Nishimura (1992). “Differentiability, Comparative Statics, and Non-Expected Utility Preferences.” Journal of Economic Theory 56, 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chew, S. H. and N. Nishimura (2001). “Revenue Non-Equivalence between the English and the Second-Price Auctions: Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Tentatively accepted.Google Scholar
  7. Coppinger, V, Smith, V, and J. Titus (1980). “Incentives and Behavior in English, Dutch, and Sealed-Bid Auctions:’ Economic Inquiry 1–22.Google Scholar
  8. Crawford, V. (1990). “Equilibrium without Independence?’ Journal of Economic Theory 50, 127–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Debreu, G. (1964). “Continuity Properties of Paretian Utility.” International Economic Review 5, 285–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dekel, E. (1986). “An Axiomatic Characterization of Choice under Uncertainty.” Journal of Economic Theory 40, 304–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dekel, E., Safra, Z., and U. Segal (1991). “Existence and Dynamic Consistency of Nash Equilibrium with Non-Expected Utility Preferences ” Journal of Economic Theory 55, 229–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamond, P. and J. Stiglitz (1974). “Increase in Risk and in Risk Aversion.” Journal of Economic Theory 3, 308–60.Google Scholar
  13. Fishbum, P. (1983). “Transitive Measurable Utility.” Journal of Economic Theory 31, 297–317.Google Scholar
  14. Glicksberg, I. L. (1952). “A Further Generalization of the Kakutani Fixed Point Theorem, with Application to Nash Equilibrium Points,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 3, 170–4.Google Scholar
  15. Harless, D. W, and C. F. Camerer (1994). “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories.” Econometrica 62, 1251–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kagel, J. H. (1995). “Auctions: A Survey of Experimental Research” In The Handbook of Experimental Economics, edited by J. H. Kagel and A. E. Roth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Karni, E., and Z. Safra (1989). “Dynamic Consistency, Revelations in Auctions, and the Structure of Preferences” Review of Economic Studies 56, 421–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Machina, M. (1982). “Expected Utility Analysis without the Independence Axiom.” Econometrica 50, 277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McAfee, R. P., and J. McMillan (1987). “Auctions and Bidding,” Journal of Economic Literature 25, 699–738.Google Scholar
  20. Neilson, W. (1994). “Second Price Auctions without Expected Utility.” Journal of Economic Theory 62, 136–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vickery, W. (1961). “Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders.” Journal of Finance 16, 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soo Hong Chew
    • 1
  • Naoko Nishimura
    • 2
  1. 1.Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyHong Kong
  2. 2.Shinshu UniversityJapan

Personalised recommendations