Speculation in Standard Auctions with Resale

In standard auctions with symmetric, independent private value bidders resale creates a role for a speculator—a bidder who is commonly known to have no use value for the good on sale. For second-price and English auctions the efficient value-bidding equilibrium coexists with a continuum of inefficient equilibria in which the speculator wins the auction and makes positive profits. First-price and Dutch auctions have an essentially unique equilibrium, and whether or not the speculator wins the auction and distorts the final allocation depends on the number of bidders, the value distribution, and the discount factor. Speculators do not make profits in first-price or Dutch auctions

Speculation in Second-Price Auctions with Resale

This paper contributes to the literature on second-price auctions with resale. We add speculators---bidders with value zero---to the standard symmetric independent private values environment. There always exists a continuum of inefficient equilibria that are profitable for a speculator. With no reserve price in the initial auction, speculation can enhance the initial seller's expected revenue. On the other hand, speculation can harm the initial seller even if she chooses an optimal reserve price. Our results are valid for English auctions as well.speculation, second-price auction, resale

Speculation in Standard Auctions with Resale

We analyze the role resale creates for zero-value bidders, called speculators, in standard auctions with symmetric independent private values buyers. English/second-price auctions always have equilibria with active resale markets and positive profits for a speculator. In first- price/Dutch auctions, the unique equilibrium can involve an active resale market, but is never profitable for a speculator. In all standard auctions, allowing resale can increase the initial seller's revenue and lead to an inefficient allocation. First-price and second-price auctions are not revenue equivalent.first-price, second-price, English, Dutch auctions, speculation, resale, efficiency

On cooperation structures resulting from simultaneous proposals

This paper looks at cooperation structures that result from a strategic game where players make simultaneous proposals for cooperation. We identify cooperation structures that maximize the potential of the game, and show how the outcome of potential maximization depends on the players' Shapley values. We do not assume superadditivity and hence, potential-maximizing strategy profiles do not always involve full cooperation. In cases where full cooperation does result from potential maximization it can be inefficient. An example provides intuition.cooperation formation game

On potential maximization as a refinement of Nash equilibrium

We specify an adjustment process that converges to the set of potential-maximizing strategy profiles for 3-player cooperation-formation games or n-player cooperation-formation games based on a superadditive characteristic function. Our analysis provides a justification for potential maximization as a refinement of Nash equilibrium in these settings.adjustment process.

Illiquidity in the interbank payment system following wide-scale disruptions

We show how the interbank payment system can become illiquid following wide-scale disruptions. Two forces are at play in such disruptions—operational problems and changes in participants’ behavior. We model the interbank payment system as an n-player game and utilize the concept of a potential function to describe the process by which one of multiple equilibria emerges after a wide-scale disruption. If the disruption is large enough, hits a key geographic area, or hits a “too-big-to-fail” participant, then the coordination of payment processing can break down, and central bank intervention might be required to reestablish the socially efficient equilibrium. We also explore how the network topology of the underlying payment flow among banks affects the resiliency of coordination. The paper provides a theoretical framework to analyze the effects of events such as the September 11 attacks

Comparing Sunspot Equilibrium and Lottery Equilibrium Allocations: The Finite Case

Sunspot equilibrium and lottery equilibrium are two stochastic solution concepts for nonstochastic economies. Recent work by Garratt, Keister, Qin, and Shell (in press) and Kehoe, Levine, and Prescott (in press) on nonconvex exchange economies has shown that when the randomizing device is continuous, applying the two concepts to the same fundamental economy yields the same set of equilibrium allocations. In the present paper, we examine economies based on a discrete randomizing device. We extend the lottery model so that it can constrain the randomization possibilities available to agents in the same way that the sunspots model can. Every equilibrium allocation of our generalized lottery model has a corresponding sunspot equilibrium allocation. For almost all discrete randomizing devices, the converse is also true. There are exceptions, however: for some randomizing devices, there exist sunspot equilibrium allocations with no lottery equilibrium counterpart.

Potential Maximization and Coalition Government Formation

A model of coalition government formation is presented in which inefficient, non-minimal winning coalitions may form in Nash equilibrium. Predictions for five games are presented and tested experimentally. The experimental data support potential maximization as a refinement of Nash equilibrium. In particular, the data support the prediction that non-minimal winning coalitions occur when the distance between policy positions of the parties is small relative to the value of forming the government. These conditions hold in games 1, 3, 4 and 5, where subjects played their unique potential-maximizing strategies 91, 52, 82 and 84 percent of the time, respectively. In the remaining game (Game 2) experimental data support the prediction of a minimal winning coalition. Players A and B played their unique potential-maximizing strategies 84 and 86 percent of the time, respectively, and the predicted minimal-winning government formed 92 percent of the time (all strategy choices for player C conform with potential maximization in Game 2). In Games 1, 2, 4 and 5 over 98 percent of the observed Nash equilibrium outcomes were those predicted by potential maximization. Other solution concepts including iterated elimination of dominated strategies and strong/coalition proof Nash equilibrium are also tested.Coalition formation, Potential maximization, Nash equilibrium refinements, Experimental study, Minimal winning