IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/enp/wpaper/eprg1414.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pro-competitive rationing in multi-unit auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Pär Holmberg

    (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Stockholm Electricity Policy Research Group (EPRG), University of Cambridge)

Abstract

In multi-unit auctions, such as auctions of commodities and securities, and financial exchanges, it is necessary to specify rationing rules to break ties between multiple marginal bids. The standard approach in the literature and in practice is to ration marginal bids proportionally. This paper shows how bidding can be made more competitive if the rationing rule instead gives increasing priority to bidders with a small volume of marginal bids at clearing prices closer to the reservation price. In comparison to standard rationing, such a rule can have almost the same effect on the competitiveness of bids as a doubling of the number of bidders.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Pär Holmberg, 2014. "Pro-competitive rationing in multi-unit auctions," Working Papers EPRG 1414, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    • Handle: RePEc:enp:wpaper:eprg1414
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/eprg-wp1414.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward J. Anderson & Pär Holmberg & Andrew B. Philpott, 2013. "Mixed strategies in discriminatory divisible-good auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(1), pages 1-32, March.
    2. Natalia Fabra & Nils‐Henrik Fehr & David Harbord, 2006. "Designing electricity auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(1), pages 23-46, March.
    3. Jakub Kastl, 2011. "Discrete Bids and Empirical Inference in Divisible Good Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(3), pages 974-1014.
    4. Natalia Fabra & Nils-Henrik M. von der Fehr & David Harbord, 2006. "Designing Electricity Auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 37(1), pages 23-46, Spring.
    5. Frank A. Wolak, 2007. "Quantifying the supply-side benefits from forward contracting in wholesale electricity markets," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(7), pages 1179-1209.
    6. Xavier Vives, 2011. "Strategic Supply Function Competition With Private Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(6), pages 1919-1966, November.
    7. E. J. Anderson & A. B. Philpott, 2002. "Using Supply Functions for Offering Generation into an Electricity Market," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 477-489, June.
    8. Robert Wilson, 1979. "Auctions of Shares," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(4), pages 675-689.
    9. Gresik, Thomas A., 2001. "Rationing rules and European Central Bank auctions," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 793-808, November.
    10. Pär Holmberg, 2009. "Supply function equilibria of pay-as-bid auctions," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 154-177, October.
    11. Holmberg, Pär & Newbery, David, 2010. "The supply function equilibrium and its policy implications for wholesale electricity auctions," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 209-226, December.
    12. Edward J. Anderson & Xinmin Hu, 2008. "Finding Supply Function Equilibria with Asymmetric Firms," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(3), pages 697-711, June.
    13. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Peter Cramton & Marek Pycia & Marzena Rostek & Marek Weretka, 2014. "Demand Reduction and Inefficiency in Multi-Unit Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(4), pages 1366-1400.
    14. Simon, Leo K & Zame, William R, 1990. "Discontinuous Games and Endogenous Sharing Rules," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 861-872, July.
    15. Dan Kovenock & Raymond J. Deneckere, 1996. "Bertrand-Edgeworth duopoly with unit cost asymmetry (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(1), pages 1-25.
    16. Bruce N. Lehmann and David M. Modest., 1994. "Trading and Liquidity on the Tokyo Stock Exchange: A Bird's Eye View," Research Program in Finance Working Papers RPF-234, University of California at Berkeley.
    17. Green, Richard J & Newbery, David M, 1992. "Competition in the British Electricity Spot Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 929-953, October.
    18. Holmberg, Pär & Newbery, David & Ralph, Daniel, 2013. "Supply function equilibria: Step functions and continuous representations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1509-1551.
    19. Ali Hortaçsu & David McAdams, 2010. "Mechanism Choice and Strategic Bidding in Divisible Good Auctions: An Empirical Analysis of the Turkish Treasury Auction Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(5), pages 833-865.
    20. Holmberg, Par, 2008. "Unique supply function equilibrium with capacity constraints," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 148-172, January.
    21. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    22. Lawrence M. Ausubel, 2004. "An Efficient Ascending-Bid Auction for Multiple Objects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1452-1475, December.
    23. Ilan Kremer & Kjell G. Nyborg, 2004. "Divisible-Good Auctions: The Role of Allocation Rules," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 147-159, Spring.
    24. Jaime F. Zender & James J.D. Wang, 2002. "Auctioning divisible goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 19(4), pages 673-705.
    25. Ramteen Sioshansi & Shmuel Oren, 2007. "How good are supply function equilibrium models: an empirical analysis of the ERCOT balancing market," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 1-35, February.
    26. Philip J. Reny, 1999. "On the Existence of Pure and Mixed Strategy Nash Equilibria in Discontinuous Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(5), pages 1029-1056, September.
    27. Klemperer, Paul D & Meyer, Margaret A, 1989. "Supply Function Equilibria in Oligopoly under Uncertainty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1243-1277, November.
    28. Ali Hortaçsu & Steven L. Puller, 2008. "Understanding strategic bidding in multi‐unit auctions: a case study of the Texas electricity spot market," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 86-114, March.
    29. Edward Clarke, 1971. "Multipart pricing of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 17-33, September.
    30. Aleksandr Rudkevich & Max Duckworth & Richard Rosen, 1998. "Modeling Electricity Pricing in a Deregulated Generation Industry: The Potential for Oligopoly Pricing in a Poolco," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 19-48.
    31. Kastl, Jakub, 2012. "On the properties of equilibria in private value divisible good auctions with constrained bidding," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 339-352.
    32. Groves, Theodore, 1973. "Incentives in Teams," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 617-631, July.
    33. Lehmann, Bruce N & Modest, David M, 1994. "Trading and Liquidity on the Tokyo Stock Exchange: A Bird's Eye View," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(3), pages 951-984, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aliabadi, Danial Esmaeili & Kaya, Murat & Şahin, Güvenç, 2017. "An agent-based simulation of power generation company behavior in electricity markets under different market-clearing mechanisms," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 191-205.

    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. Anderson, Edward & Holmberg, Pär, 2018. "Price instability in multi-unit auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 318-341.
    2. Holmberg, Pär & Newbery, David & Ralph, Daniel, 2013. "Supply function equilibria: Step functions and continuous representations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1509-1551.
    3. Holmberg, Pär & Newbery, David, 2010. "The supply function equilibrium and its policy implications for wholesale electricity auctions," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 209-226, December.
    4. Pär Holmberg & Andy Philpott, 2014. "Supply function equilibria in transportation networks," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1421, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    5. Anderson, E. & Holmberg, P., 2023. "Multi-unit auctions with uncertain supply and single-unit demand," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2339, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    6. Ollikka, Kimmo & Tukiainen, Janne, 2013. "Central bank liquidity auction mechanism design and the interbank market," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 21/2013, Bank of Finland.
    7. Manzano, Carolina & Vives, Xavier, 2021. "Market power and welfare in asymmetric divisible good auctions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    8. Holmberg, Pär & Philpott, Andrew, 2012. "Supply Function Equilibria in Networks with Transport Constraints," Working Paper Series 945, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 10 Aug 2015.
    9. Kastl, Jakub, 2012. "On the properties of equilibria in private value divisible good auctions with constrained bidding," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 339-352.
    10. Ollikka, Kimmo & Tukiainen, Janne, 2013. "Central bank liquidity auction mechanism design and the interbank market," Research Discussion Papers 21/2013, Bank of Finland.
    11. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_021 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Pär Holmberg, 2009. "Supply function equilibria of pay-as-bid auctions," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 154-177, October.
    13. Burkett, Justin & Woodward, Kyle, 2020. "Uniform price auctions with a last accepted bid pricing rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    14. Bohland, Moritz & Schwenen, Sebastian, 2022. "Renewable support and strategic pricing in electricity markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    15. Holmberg, P. & Philpott, A.B., 2018. "On supply-function equilibria in radial transmission networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(3), pages 985-1000.
    16. Wittwer, Milena, 2020. "Interconnected pay-as-bid auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 506-530.
    17. Holmberg, Pär & Willems, Bert, 2015. "Relaxing competition through speculation: Committing to a negative supply slope," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 236-266.
    18. Shiying Chen & Zhenhuan Dong & Chunming Cao & Changjun Zheng, 2022. "Strategy and design of multi‐unit auction in grouped asymmetric setting," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(8), pages 3435-3453, December.
    19. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2020. "Improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2020-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    20. Brown, David P. & Eckert, Andrew, 2021. "Analyzing firm behavior in restructured electricity markets: Empirical challenges with a residual demand analysis," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    21. Andreas Hefti & Peiyao Shen & Regina Betz, 2019. "Market power and information effects in a multi-unit auction," ECON - Working Papers 320, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Divisible-good auctions; multi-unit auctions; rationing rules; bidding format;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D45 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Rationing; Licensing

    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:enp:wpaper:eprg1414. 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: Ruth Newman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/jicamuk.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.