Skip to main content
Log in

Risky procurement with an insider bidder

  • Published:
Experimental Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Procurement auctions carry substantial risk when the value of the project is highly uncertain and known only to insiders. This paper reports the results from a series of experiments comparing the performance of three auction formats in such complex and risky settings. In the experiment, every bidder knows the private value for the project but only a single insider bidder knows the common-value part. In addition to the standard second-price and English auctions we test the “qualifying auction,” a two-stage format commonly used in the sale of complex and risky assets. The qualifying auction has a fully “revealing” equilibrium that implements the revenue-maximizing outcome but it also has an uninformative “babbling” equilibrium in which bidders place arbitrarily high bids in the first stage. In the experiments, the latter equilibrium has more drawing power, which causes the qualifying auction to perform worse than the English auction and only slightly better than a sealed-bid second-price auction. Compared to the two other formats, the English auction is roughly 40% more efficient, yields 50% more revenues, avoids windfall profits for the insider, while protecting uninformed bidders from losses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boone, J., & Goeree, J. K. (2009). Optimal privatization using qualifying auctions. Economic Journal, 119, 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulow, J., & Klemperer, P. (2002). Prices and the winner’s curse. RAND Journal of Economics, 33(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernando-Veciana, A. (2004). Successful uninformed bidding. Games and Economic Behavior, 48, 29–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernando-Veciana, A., & Tröge, M. (2004). The insider’s curse, (Working paper). University of Alicante.

  • Kagel, J. H. (1995). Auctions: a survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagel, J. H., & Levin, D. (2002). Common value auctions and the winner’s curse. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagel, J. H., Pevnitskaya, S., & Ye, L. (2008, forthcoming). Indicative bidding: an experimental analysis. Games and Economic Behavior.

  • Murray, I. (2004). Tunnel vision that led to mindless English optimism. Marketing Week, May 13, pp. 82.

  • The Economist (2004). Business: under water; the channel tunnel. February 14.

  • Welch, Frémont (1998). The case-by-case approach to privatization: techniques and examples. World Bank.

  • Ye, L. (2007). Indicative bidding and a theory of two-stage auctions. Games and Economic Behavior, 58(1), 181–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob K. Goeree.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boone, J., Chen, R., Goeree, J.K. et al. Risky procurement with an insider bidder. Exp Econ 12, 417–436 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-009-9221-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-009-9221-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation