IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cbt/econwp/10-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Fixed Price Offer Mechanism in Trade Me Online Auctions

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The Fixed Price Offer (FPO) mechanism in Trade Me auctions allows sellers to make a take-it-or-leave-it offer at the conclusion of an unsuccessful auction. We investigate the effects of the FPO option on strategies and outcomes in independent-value auctions. The FPO option induces some bidders with a value above the seller’s reserve to wait for an FPO instead of bidding. Overall, the FPO option increases the probability of sale but reduces expected seller revenue compared to a standard auction. The impact of the FPO option is reduced when the number of bidders increases.

Suggested Citation

  • Seamus Hogan & Hamish Kidd & Laura Meriluoto & Andrew Smith, 2010. "The Fixed Price Offer Mechanism in Trade Me Online Auctions," Working Papers in Economics 10/51, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    • Handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:10/51
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.canterbury.ac.nz/cbt/econwp/1051.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amir, R., 1996. "Cournot oligopoly and theory of supermodular games," LIDAM Reprints CORE 1228, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    2. Amir, Rabah, 1996. "Cournot Oligopoly and the Theory of Supermodular Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 132-148, August.
    3. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    4. repec:mea:ivswpa:489 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christian Ewerhart, 2020. "Ordinal potentials in smooth games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(4), pages 1069-1100, November.
    2. Echenique, Federico, 2004. "A characterization of strategic complementarities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 325-347, February.
    3. Desgranges, Gabriel & Gauthier, Stéphane, 2016. "Rationalizability and efficiency in an asymmetric Cournot oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 163-176.
    4. Amir, Rabah & Bloch, Francis, 2009. "Comparative statics in a simple class of strategic market games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 7-24, January.
    5. Rabah Amir & Niels Nannerup, 2005. "Asymmetric Regulation of Identical Polluters in Oligopoly Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(1), pages 35-48, January.
    6. Uttiya Paul & Tarun Sabarwal, 2023. "Directional monotone comparative statics in function spaces," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 11(1), pages 153-169, April.
    7. Emmanuel Petrakis & Minas Vlassis, 1999. "The strategic role of minimum sectorial wages in oligopoly: a case for the Spanish labour market," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 23(3), pages 331-350, September.
    8. Gama, Adriana & Rietzke, David, 2019. "Monotone comparative statics in games with non-monotonic best-replies: Contests and Cournot oligopoly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 823-841.
    9. Plan, Asaf, 2023. "Symmetry in n-player games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    10. Dubey, Pradeep & Haimanko, Ori & Zapechelnyuk, Andriy, 2006. "Strategic complements and substitutes, and potential games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 77-94, January.
    11. Roy, Sunanda & Sabarwal, Tarun, 2012. "Characterizing stability properties in games with strategic substitutes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 337-353.
    12. repec:kan:wpaper:201412 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Matt Van Essen, 2013. "Regulating the Anticommons: Insights from Public‐Expenditure Theory," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(2), pages 523-539, October.
    14. Anne-Christine Barthel & Eric Hoffmann, 2020. "Characterizing monotone games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(4), pages 1045-1068, November.
    15. Lambertini, Luca & Mantovani, Andrea, 2009. "Process and product innovation by a multiproduct monopolist: A dynamic approach," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 508-518, July.
    16. Rabah Amir & Filomena Garcia & Malgorzata Knauff, 2006. "Endogenous Heterogeneity in Strategic Models: Symmetry-breaking via Strategic Substitutes and Nonconcavities," Working Papers Department of Economics 2006/29, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    17. Rabah Amir, 2005. "Supermodularity and Complementarity in Economics: An Elementary Survey," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(3), pages 636-660, January.
    18. Amir, Rabah & Wooders, John, 2000. "One-Way Spillovers, Endogenous Innovator/Imitator Roles, and Research Joint Ventures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-25, April.
    19. Antonio Tesoriere, 2015. "Competing R&D joint ventures in Cournot oligopoly with spillovers," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 231-256, July.
    20. Xavier Vives, 2008. "Innovation And Competitive Pressure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 419-469, December.
    21. Duersch, Peter & Oechssler, Jörg & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2012. "Unbeatable imitation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 88-96.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fixed price offer; private value auction; on-line auction; optimal reserve price; second chance offer;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:10/51. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Albert Yee (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decannz.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.