Underpricing and Market Power in Uniform Price Auctions
Open Access
- 15 October 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in The Review of Financial Studies
- Vol. 17 (3) , 849-877
- https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhg051
Abstract
In uniform auctions, buyers choose demand schedules as strategies and pay the same “market clearing” price for units awarded. Despite the widespread use of these auctions, the extant theory shows that they are susceptible to arbitrarily large underpricing. We make a realistic modification to the theory by letting prices, quantities, and bids be discrete. We show that underpricing can be made arbitrarily small by choosing a sufficiently small price tick size and a sufficiently large quantity multiple. We also show how one might improve revenues by modifying the allocation rule. A trivial change in the design can have a dramatic impact on prices. Our conclusions are robust to bidders being capacity constrained. Finally, we examine supply uncertainty robust equilibria.Keywords
All Related Versions
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Divisible-Good Auctions: The Role of Allocation RulesThe RAND Journal of Economics, 2004
- Underpricing in Discriminatory and Uniform-Price Treasury AuctionsSSRN Electronic Journal, 2003
- Rationing rules and European Central Bank auctionsJournal of International Money and Finance, 2001
- Auctions of divisible goods with endogenous supplyEconomics Letters, 2001
- Auction Theory: A Guide to the LiteratureJournal of Economic Surveys, 1999
- Collusion in Uniform-Price Auctions: Experimental Evidence and Implications for Treasury AuctionsThe Review of Financial Studies, 1996
- Auctions of Divisible Goods: On the Rationale for the Treasury ExperimentThe Review of Financial Studies, 1993
- Evidence on Bidding Strategies and the Information in Treasury Bill AuctionsJournal of Political Economy, 1991
- Supply Function Equilibria in Oligopoly under UncertaintyEconometrica, 1989
- Informed Speculation with Imperfect CompetitionThe Review of Economic Studies, 1989