Entire Surplus Research Articles

Costly Voluntary Disclosure in a Signaling Game

We conduct an experimental analysis of pretrial bargaining, while allowing for the costly disclosure of private information in a signaling game. Under the theory, 100% of plaintiffs with a weak case are predicted to remain silent, while 100% of the plaintiffs with a strong case are predicted to voluntarily disclose their type. In the second half of the experiment, 80% of weak plaintiffs remain silent and 69% of strong plaintiffs reveal their type. In line with theory, weak plaintiffs who reveal their type receive a lower payoff, while strong plaintiffs who reveal their type receive a higher payoff. Plaintiffs with a strong case who reveal their type have a dispute rate which is 50 percentage points lower than strong plaintiffs who remain silent. Because plaintiffs who reveal their type cannot extract the entire surplus from settlement from the defendant, the incentive to engage in voluntary disclosure is weaker empirically, than it is in theory.

An experiment on a core controversy

A longstanding criticism of the core is that it is too sensitive to small changes in player numbers, as in a well known example where one extra seller (resp. buyer) causes the entire surplus to go to the buyer's (seller's) side. We test this example in the lab, using several different trading institutions. We find that successful collusion is relatively infrequent and decreasing over time even with institutions that facilitate collusion and, consistent with core theory, a disproportionate share of the surplus typically goes to the less numerous side. Our study also illuminates the boundaries of competitive equilibrium.

An Empirical Analysis of Litigation with Discovery

We conduct an experimental analysis of discovery in both the signaling and screening games, where in both games an uninformed defendant may engage in costly discovery. Under the theory, the defendant should invoke the costly discovery procedure in the screening game, but not in the signaling game. In the later part of the screening game, discovery is invoked in 73% of all negotiations, which is strongly in the direction implied by theory. However, rather than lower the defendant’s expected cost, discovery is approximately a breakeven proposition. The reasons are that the defendant cannot, as implied by theory, extract the entire surplus from settlement with his offer and because there are excess disputes not predicted by the theory. In the signaling game we find, contra the theory, that discovery is invoked about 61% percent of the time, and this behavior persists into the later rounds of the experiment. While invoking discovery is predicted to reduce his payoff, the effect on the defendant’s cost is not statistically different from zero. The offers the defendant receives after invoking discovery contain surplus not predicted under the theory. There is mixed evidence regarding whether discovery reduces the societal cost of disputes.

Merger Remedies in Oligopoly under a Consumer Welfare Standard

We analyze the welfare effects of structural remedies on merger activity in a Cournot oligopoly if the antitrust agency applies a consumer surplus standard. We derive conditions such that otherwise price-increasing mergers become externality-free by the use of remedial divestitures. In this case, the consumer surplus standard ensures that mergers are only implemented if they increase social welfare. If the merging parties can extract the entire surplus from the asset sale, then the socially optimal buyer will be selected under a consumer standard. (JEL L13, L41, K21)

The Effects of Remedies on Merger Activity in Oligopoly

We analyze the welfare effects of structural remedies on merger activity in a Cournot oligopoly when the antitrust agency applies a consumer surplus standard. We derive conditions such that otherwise price-increasing mergers become externality free by the use of remedial divestitures. In this case, the consumer surplus standard ensures that mergers are only implemented if they raise social welfare. If the merging parties can extract the entire surplus from the asset sale, then the socially optimal buyer will be selected under a consumer standard.

Sequential information disclosure in auctions

We propose a sequential auction mechanism for a single object in which the seller jointly determines the allocation and the disclosure policy. A sequential disclosure rule is shown to implement an ascending price auction in which each losing bidder learns his true valuation, but the winning bidder's information is truncated from below. As the auction ends, the winning bidder only has limited information, namely that his valuation is sufficiently high to win the auction. The sequential mechanism implements the allocation of the handicap auction of Eső and Szentes (2007) but strengthens the participation constraints of the bidders from interim to posterior constraints. Due to the limited disclosure of information, the participation constraints (and incentive constraints) of all the bidders are satisfied with respect to all information revealed by the mechanism. In the special case in which the bidders have no private information initially, the seller can extract the entire surplus.

Recognition for sale

I examine the consequences of letting players compete for bargaining power in a multilateral bargaining game. In each period, the right to propose an offer is sold to the highest bidder, and all players pay their bids. If players vote according to any rule in which no player has veto power, then the first proposer captures the entire surplus. If a full consensus is needed for an offer to be accepted, then the first proposer shares the surplus with at most one other player, and as the period length between offers vanishes, one player may capture virtually the entire surplus. In settings with a stochastic or an endogenous surplus, players are unwilling to efficiently delay agreement or invest in the surplus.

Who Benefits from the Uniformity of Contingent Fee Rates?

Lawyers’ contingent fee (CF) rates are rather uniform, often one-third of the recovery. Arguably, this uniformity is a type of anti-competitive price-fixing, which results in clients paying supra-competitive fees. This paper challenges this argument. It shows that uniform CF rates provide clients with an important advantage, as such rates enable them to make a de facto “take-it-or-leave-it” offer. Consequently, lawyers cannot exploit their private information, and clients retain the transaction’s entire surplus and may hire the best lawyer among those who find it profitable to handle the case. The paper also addresses the effect of uniformity of CF rates when lawyers refer cases to other lawyers. It shows that uniformity facilitates matching of clients and lawyers through the referral system. It also demonstrates that the fact that both direct clients and those obtained through paid-for referrals pay the same CF rate does not attest to cross-subsidization. The clients whose cases are transferred for a referral fee (paid by the handling lawyer) “pay” for the referral service by obtaining a less highly ranked lawyer.

Sequential Information Disclosure in Auctions

We consider the design of an optimal auction in which the seller can determine the allocation and the disclosure rule of the mechanism. Thus, in contrast to the standard analysis of a optimal auctions, the seller can explicitly design the disclosure of the information received by each bidder as his private information. We show that the optimal disclosure rule is a sequential disclosure rule, implemented in an ascending price auction. In the optimal disclosure mechanism, each losing bidder learns his true valuation, but the winning bidder only learns that his valuation is sufficiently high to win the auction. We show that in the optimal auction, the posterior incentive and participation constraints of all the bidders are satisfied. In the special case in which the bidders have no private information initially, the seller can extract the entire surplus.

Search theory, competitive equilibrium, and the Nash bargaining solution

Abstract We investigate a canonical search-theoretic model without entry. Two agents are randomly matched with a long side being rationed. The matched agents face a pair of randomly drawn non-transferable payoffs, and then choose whether or not to form a partnership subject to a small probability of exogenous break down. As this probability and friction vanish, the Nash bargaining solution emerges as the unique undominated strategy equilibrium outcome if the mass of each party is the same. If the size of one party is larger than the other, the short side extracts the entire surplus, a sharp contrast to Rubinstein and Wolinsky (1985) [16] .

Sequential Information Disclosure in Auctions

We consider the design of an optimal auction in which the seller can determine the allocation and the disclosure rule of the mechanism. Thus, in contrast to the standard analysis of a optimal auctions, the seller can explicitly design the disclosure of the information received by each bidder as his private information. We show that the optimal disclosure rule is a sequential disclosure rule, implemented in an ascending price auction. In the optimal disclosure mechanism, each losing bidder learns his true valuation, but the winning bidder only learns that his valuation is sufficiently high to win the auction. We show that in the optimal auction, the posterior incentive and participation constraints of all the bidders are satisfied. In the special case in which the bidders have no private information initially, the seller can extract the entire surplus.

Preemptive bidding in takeover auctions with affiliated values

► Preemptive bidding reallocate profit from the seller to the first bidder and does not affect the social surplus. ► Higher correlation of bidders’ values leads to higher preemption rate but has ambiguous effect on the size of the preemptive bid. ► In affiliated value auctions jump bidding may results in expropriation of the entire seller's profit by the first bidder. ► Value affiliation positively affects profit expropriation but has ambiguous effect on the seller's expected profit. ► A significant increase in the value affiliation reduces the seller's expected profit. This paper extends Fishman's (1988) model of preemptive bidding in takeover auctions to auctions with affiliated values. It shows that preemptive bidding transfers wealth from the seller to the first bidder without affecting the profit of the second bidder and social welfare. It also shows that higher correlation between bidders’ values leads to higher preemption rates but has an ambiguous effect on the size of the opening bid. Finally, it shows that in auctions with affiliated values, even infinitesimal entry costs may lead to a preemptive jump bidding that allows the reallocation of the entire surplus from the seller to the first bidder.

Dynamic Inefficiencies in an Employment-Based Health Insurance System: Theory and Evidence

We investigate the effects of the institutional settings of the U.S. health care system on individuals' life-cycle medical expenditures. We argue that health is a form of human capital that affects labor productivity, and that the employment-based health insurance system may lead to inefficient investment in individuals' health care. The reason is that labor turnover and frictions in the labor market prevent an employer-employee pair from capturing the entire surplus from investment in an employee's health. Thus, the pair underinvests in health capital, and this underinvestment increases medical expenditures during retirement.We provide extensive empirical evidence consistent with the comparative statics predictions of our model using two datasets, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). The magnitude of our estimates suggests a significant degree of inefficiency in health investment in the U.S.

Information Acquisition and Full Surplus Extraction

It is well known that when agents' types are correlated, the mechanism designer can extract the entire surplus. This creates an incentive for agents to acquire information about other agents' types. Robust lotteries (are payment schemes that) support full extraction and partially robust lotteries support efficient implementation in the presence of information acquisition opportunities. Necessary and sufficient conditions for existence of robust and partially robust lotteries are derived. If an agent's information signal spans the set of other agents' types then robust lotteries do not exist. However, by inducing agents to report their signal realizations the mechanism designer may be able to extend the type space so that robust lotteries exist.

Information acquisition and full surplus extraction

It is well known that when agents' types are correlated, the mechanism designer can extract the entire surplus. This creates an incentive for agents to acquire information about other agents' types. Robust lotteries (are payment schemes that) support full extraction and partially robust lotteries support efficient implementation in the presence of information acquisition opportunities. Necessary and sufficient conditions for existence of robust and partially robust lotteries are derived. If an agent's information signal spans other agents' types then robust lotteries do not exist. However, if all agents report their signal realizations then robust lotteries exist in an extended type space.

One Share-One Vote is Unenforceable and Sub-Optimal

In the presence of derivative markets, shareholders can choose their desired mix of cash-flows/votes and vary it through time. We find that the optimal security-voting structure is time varying. Even in the presence of derivatives, most of the time, shareholders optimally choose 1S1V. 1S1V turns out to be the socially as well as privately optimal choice for the majority of the life-cycle of the firm. However, when faced with a control contest shareholders optimally deviate from 1S1V. Shareholders use synthetic stocks to change their per vote exposure to cash flows and force the winning team to pay them its entire surplus. This flexibility to deviate from 1S1V when needed increases the market value of the firm. We show that during the control contest, the difference between the price of the stock and the synthetic stock provides a measure of the private benefits of control.

An Experiment on the Core

Each of n ≥ 1 identical buyers (and m ≥ 1 identical sellers) wants to buy (sell) a single unit of an indivisible good. The core predicts a unique and extreme outcome: the entire surplus is split evenly among the buyers when m > n and among the sellers when m < n; the long side gets nothing. We test this core conjecture in the lab with n + m = 3 or 5 randomly rematched traders and minimal imbalances (m = n ± 1) in three market institutions. In the standard continuous double auction, the surplus indeed goes overwhelmingly towards the short side. The DA-Chat institution allows traders to have cheap talk prior to the double auction, while the DA-Barg institution allows the long siders to negotiate enforceable profit sharing agreements while trading. Despite frequent attempts to collude and occasional large deviations from the core prediction, we find that successful collusion is infrequent in both new institutions. A disproportionate fraction of the successful collusions are accompanied by appeals to fairness.

Leaving money on the table: evidence of underpricing in the Brazilian privatization auctions

The Brazilian privatization program raised about US$100 billion as a result of the sale of state-owned firms and assets over the period 1990 to 2001. Despite official claims that the privatization auctions were successful in revenue raising, statistical evidence suggests that the buyers, not the government, profited from the auctions. Using an event-study methodology and financial market data, I estimated the abnormal returns realized by the winning bidders on the days of the Brazilan privatization auctions. Statistically significant evidence suggests that the acquirers accrued, on average, positive 0.70% abnormal returns on those days. In other words, if the privatization auctions had been able to extract the entire surplus from the buyers, the Brazilian government could have raised another US$ 13 billion. This finding contrasts with two branches of literature related to mergers and acquisitions in the private sector and to the privatization programs in other countries

Time Varying Voting Rights and the Private Benefits of Control

In the presence of derivative markets, shareholders can choose their desired mix of cash-flows/votes and vary it through time. We find that the optimal security-voting structure is time varying. Even in the presence of derivatives, most of the time, shareholders optimally choose 1S1V. 1S1V turns out to be the socially as well as privately optimal choice for the majority of the life-cycle of the firm. However, when faced with a control contest shareholders optimally deviate from 1S1V. Shareholders use synthetic stocks to change their per vote exposure to cash flows and force the winning team to pay them its entire surplus. This flexibility to deviate from 1S1V when needed increases the market value of the firm. We show that during the control contest, the difference between the price of the stock and the synthetic stock provides a measure of the private benefits of control.

Information and Efficiency in Tender Offers

We analyze tender offers where privately informed shareholders are uncertain about the raider's ability to improve firm value. The raider suffers a lemons problem in that, for any price offered, only shareholders who are relatively pessimistic about the value of the firm tender their shares. Consequently, the raider finds it too costly to induce shareholders to tender when their information is positive. In the limit as the number of shareholders gets arbitrarily large, when private benefits are relatively low, the tender offer is unsuccessful if the takeover has the potential to create value. The takeover market is therefore inefficient. In contrast, when private benefits of control are high, the tender offer allocates the firm to any value-increasing raider, but may also allow inefficient takeovers to occur. Unlike the case where all information is symmetric, shareholders cannot always extract the entire surplus from the acquisition.