scholarly journals The Origin of the Winner's Curse: A Laboratory Study

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Charness ◽  
Dan Levin
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Selection ◽  
Individual Choice ◽  
Winner's Curse ◽  
Choice Problem ◽  
Winner’S Curse ◽  
Theoretical Predictions ◽  
Future Events ◽  
Cursed Equilibrium ◽  
Adverse Selection Problem ◽  
A Company

The Winner's Curse (WC) is a robust and persistent deviation from theoretical predictions established in experimental economics and claimed to exist in field environments. Recent attempts to reconcile such deviation include “cursed equilibrium” and level-k reasoning. We design and implement a simplified version of the Acquiring-a-Company game that transformed the game to an individual-choice problem that still retains the adverse-selection problem. We further simplified the problem so that simple ordinal reasoning could replace both Bayesian updating and contingent thinking. Our results suggest that the WC reflects bounded rationality in that people have difficulties performing contingent reasoning on future events. (JEL D81, D82)

Lockups Revisited

2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Brau ◽  
Val E. Lambson ◽  
Grant McQueen
Keyword(s):  
Moral Hazard ◽  
Adverse Selection ◽  
Initial Public Offerings ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Seasoned Equity Offerings ◽  
Comparative Statics ◽  
Equity Offerings ◽  
Public Offerings ◽  
Theoretical Predictions ◽  
Adverse Selection Problem

AbstractLockups are agreements made by insiders of stock-issuing firms to abstain from selling shares for a specified period of time after the issue. Brav and Gompers (2003) suggest that lockups are a bonding solution to a moral hazard problem and not a signaling solution to an adverse selection problem. We challenge this conclusion theoretically and empirically. In our model, insiders of good firms signal by putting and keeping (locking up) their money where their mouths are. Our model yields two comparative statics: lockups should be shorter when a firm is i) more transparent and/or ii) more risky. Using a sample of 4,013 initial public offerings and 3,279 seasoned equity offerings between 1988 and 1999, we find empirical support for our theoretical predictions.

The Value of Victory - Neural Mechanisms of the Winner's Curse

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wouter van den Bos ◽  
Arjun Talwar ◽  
Samuel McClure
Keyword(s):  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Winner's Curse ◽  
Winner’S Curse

The Real Winner's Curse

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leopoldo Fergusson ◽  
Pablo Querubin ◽  
Nelson A. Ruiz ◽  
Juan F. Vargas
Keyword(s):  
Winner's Curse ◽  
The Real ◽  
Winner’S Curse

scholarly journals An Efficient Ascending-Bid Auction for Multiple Objects

2004 ◽  
Vol 94 (5) ◽  
pp. 1452-1475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence M Ausubel
Keyword(s):  
Privacy Preservation ◽  
Winner's Curse ◽  
Multiple Objects ◽  
Vickrey Auction ◽  
Treasury Bills ◽  
Winner’S Curse ◽  
Sealed Bid ◽  
Interdependent Values ◽  
Private Values ◽  
Current Price

When bidders exhibit multi-unit demands, standard auction methods generally yield inefficient outcomes. This article proposes a new ascending-bid auction for homogeneous goods, such as Treasury bills or telecommunications spectrum. The auctioneer announces a price and bidders respond with quantities. Items are awarded at the current price whenever they are “clinched,” and the price is incremented until the market clears. With private values, this (dynamic) auction yields the same outcome as the (sealed-bid) Vickrey auction, but has advantages of simplicity and privacy preservation. With interdependent values, this auction may retain efficiency, whereas the Vickrey auction suffers from a generalized Winner's Curse.

Anomalies: The Winner's Curse

1988 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H Thaler
Keyword(s):  
Field Studies ◽  
Risk Averse ◽  
Common Phenomenon ◽  
Winner's Curse ◽  
Winner’S Curse ◽  
Empirical Question ◽  
Common Value ◽  
Winning Bidder ◽  
Common Value Auction ◽  
Very High

Next time that you find yourself a little short of cash for lunch, try the following experiment in your class. Take a jar and fill it with coins, noting the total value of the coins. Now auction off the jar to your class (offering to pay the winning bidder in bills to control for penny aversion). Chances are very high that the following results will be obtained: (1) the average bid will be significantly less than the value of the coins (bidders are risk averse); (2) the winning bid will exceed the value of the jar. Therefore, you will have money for lunch, and your students will have learned first-hand about the “winner's curse.” The winner's curse cannot occur if all the bidders are rational, so evidence of a winner's curse in market settings would constitute an anomaly. However, acting rationally in a common value auction can be difficult. Solving for the optimal bid is not trivial. Thus, it is an empirical question whether bidders in various contexts get it right or are cursed. I will present some evidence, both from experimental and field studies, suggesting that the winner's curse may be a common phenomenon.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document