1,721,099 research outputs found

    Procurement Auctions for Differentiated Goods

    Full text link
    We consider two mechanisms to procure differentiated goods: a request for quote and an English auction with bidding credits. In the request for quote, each seller submits a price and the inherent quality of his good. Then the buyer selects the seller who offers the greatest difference in quality and price. In the English auction with bidding credits, the buyer assigns a bidding credit to each seller conditional upon the quality of the seller’s good. Then the sellers compete in an English auction with the winner receiving the auction price and his bidding credit. Game theoretic models predict the request for quote is socially efficient but the English auction with bidding credits is not. The optimal bidding credit assignment under compensates for quality advantages, creating a market distortion in which the buyer captures surplus at the expense of the seller’s profit and social efficiency. In experiments, the request for quote is less efficient than the English auctions with bidding credits. Moreover, both the buyer and seller receive more surplus in the English auction with bidding credits.

    The performance of reverse auctions versus request for quotes when procuring goods with quality differences

    Full text link
    The use of dynamic auctions is a major component in many enterprises' e-procurement initiatives. In the case where suppliers offer goods and services of inherently different quality the traditional mechanism has been the request for quote. In a request for quote, suppliers submit a sealed bid and the fixed quality of their offering and then the buyer selects the seller who offers the greatest difference between quality and price. The winning seller receives a price equal to his submitted bid. The reverse auction has immerged as the most commonly adopted dynamic auction for this setting. In a reverse auction, suppliers first submit the qualities of their goods and then the suppliers participate in an auction with the same message space as an open outcry English auction (descending because this is a procurement auction.) However, the auction is only used to set each suppliers price. The last price a supplier submits in the auction becomes their actual submitted price. After, the auction the buyer selects the winning seller who offers the greatest difference between quality and actual submitted price. We provide a game theoretic analysis of both mechanisms. We also provide extensive experimental evaluation of the two mechanisms as wellReverse Auction, Request for Quote, procurement

    Procurement Auctions for Differentiated Goods

    Full text link
    We consider two mechanisms to procure differentiated goods: a request for quote and an English auction with bidding credits. In the request for quote, each seller submits a price and the inherent quality of his good. Then the buyer selects the seller who offers the greatest difference in quality and price. In the English auction with bidding credits, the buyer assigns a bidding credit to each seller conditional upon the quality of the seller’s good. Then the sellers compete in an English auction with the winner receiving the auction price and his bidding credit. Game theoretic models predict the request for quote is socially efficient but the English auction with bidding credits is not. The optimal bidding credit assignment under compensates for quality advantages, creating a market distortion in which the buyer captures surplus at the expense of the seller’s profit and social efficiency. In experiments, the request for quote is less efficient than the English auctions with bidding credits. Moreover, both the buyer and seller receive more surplus in the English auction with bidding creditsAuctions, Product Differentiation, Experiment

    Revenue Comparisons for Auctions When Bidders Have Arbitrary Types

    Full text link
    This paper develops a methodology for characterizing expected revenue from auctions in which bidders' types come from an arbitrary distribution. In particular, types may be multidimensional, and there may be mass points in the distribution. One application extends existing revenue equivalence results. Another application shows that first-price auctions yield higher expected revenue than second-price auctions when bidders are risk averse and/or face financial constraints. This revenue ranking also extends to risk-averse bidders with general forms of non-expected utility preferences.

    Customer Return Policies for Experience Goods.

    No full text
    This paper studies the economic rationale for customer return policies by focusing on the 'experience goods' aspect of many products. Return policies allow consumers to defer their purchasing decisions until after they gain some experience with goods. In so doing, they insure consumers against ex post loss, which allows a monopoly seller to charge more than otherwise. It is shown that the seller adopts the return policy when consumers are highly risk averse or retail costs are high. Consumers are strictly better-off under the return policy but there is too little adoption of the policy in equilibrium. Copyright 1996 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Joint Liability and Peer Monitoring under Group Lending

    No full text
    This paper studies an incentive rationale for the use of group lending as a method of financing liquidity-constrained entrepreneurs. The joint liability feature associated with group lending lowers the liquidity risk of default but creates a free-riding problem. In the static setting, the free-riding problem dominates the liquidity risk effect under a plausible condition, thus making group lending unattractive. When the projects are repeated infinitely many times, however, the joint liability feature provides the group members with a credible means of exercising peer sanction, which can make the group lending attractive, relative to individual lending.
    corecore