Search

Analysis of standard auction rules when bidders are risk averse is usually carried out under the assumption that the seller is able to set an optimal reserve. The role of entry fees has been generally overlooked in that analysis. We consider bidders with constant absolute risk aversion and show that reserve price is an essential tool in the second price auction while entry fee is essential in the first price auction. Furthermore, setting a reserve price and entry fee combination optimally may change some of the rankings of the standard auctions that hold under optimal reserves. (JEL D44), I. INTRODUCTION Rent extraction from 'higher type' buyers in the monopoly seller's problem often involves lesser allocation for 'lower types,' and in some situations, screening out low-type buyers below a [...]

Abstract In this paper we ask a basic question that is interesting for auctioneers and regulators when multiple units are on sale. Should multiple identical units be sold simultaneously through a single-shot auction or sequentially? We consider the risk effect of such a decision on bidders and show that in the independent private values setting the answer unambiguously depends on the pricing rule. A bidder's payoff uncertainty increases when the sale is sequenced under a pay-as-bid rule, but decreases under the Vickrey rule. We find that as a result the sequential auction is less desirable from revenue and ex post efficiency points of view under the pay-as-bid rule, and more desirable under the Vickrey rule, when the reserves in all auctions are set revenue-optimally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: A seller sells dissimilar objects while taking the auction rule as given. Should the seller sell the objects separately or as a bundle? Generally, when the number of bidders is small bundling helps to stimulate the competition and raise revenue. In this paper, we show that if entry is costly enough the process of endogenous participation generates sufficient competition to make bundling unnecessary in auctions. Thus whether a bundle auction generates a higher or a lower revenue ultimately depends first on the level of the entry costs and then, possibly, on the number of potential bidders. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The paper studies the effects of bundling on the bidding strategies and seller revenues in auctions when the bidders have common values for the objects. Bundling of objects before the auction reduces the problem of the winner's curse, and the bidders bid more aggressively. This does not mean that a bundled auction is always better for the seller's revenue. Indeed, there is another effect that makes the bundled auction preferable (from the seller's standpoint) if and only if the number of bidders is small. While this is the only effect present in an independent-private-values model, it does not vanish when bidders have pure common values for the objects. The paper concludes that a bundled auction is unambiguously better for the seller than separate auctions when the number of bidders is small. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Different pricing rules in multiunit auctions provide different incentives for a bidder to corner the auction and thus require different levels of effort from the seller to deter cornering. We consider three different types of auctions: the pay-your-bid or "discriminatory" auction commonly used by the US Treasury, the lowest-winning-bid uniform-price auction used in the current Treasury experiment, and the highest-losing-bid uniform-price auction considered by Vickrey almost four decades ago. We show that the pay-your-bid auction provides the greatest incentive to corner the market, that the experimental Treasury auction provides less incentive, and that the highest-losing-bid uniform-price auction provides the least. Arguably, the less the incentive to corner the market, the easier it will be for sellers to deter cornering, and the greater their expected revenue (net of the cost to deter cornering) will be in otherwise expected-revenue-equivalent auctions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]