NAME 233
(d) If there is no collusion and every dealer bids his actual valuation for
every used car, what is the probability on any given day that Arnie gets
a car for a lower price than the value he places on it? (Hint: This will
happen only if the car is worth $Hto Arnie and $Lto the other dealers.)
1/8. Suppose that we measure a car dealer’s profit by the difference
between what a car is worth to him and what he pays for it. On a
(e) The expected total profit of all participants in the market is the sum
of the expected profits of the three car dealers and the expected revenue
realized by Repo. Used cars are sold by a sealed-bid, second-price auction
and the dealers do not collude. What is the sum of the expected profits of
18.11 (3) This problem (and the two that follow) concerns collusion
among bidders in sealed-bid auctions. Many writers have found evidence
that collusive bidding occurs. The common name for a group that prac-
tices collusive bidding is a “bidding ring.”*
Arnie, Barney, and Carny of the previous problem happened to meet
at a church social and got to talking about the high prices they were
paying for used cars and the low profits they were making. Carny com-
plained, “About half the time the used cars go for $H, and when that
happens, none of us makes any money.” Arnie got a thoughtful look and
then whispered, “Why don’t we agree to always bid $Lin Repo’s used-car
auctions?” Barney said, “I’m not so sure that’s a good idea. If we all bid
$L, then we will save some money, but the trouble is, when we all bid the
same, we are just as likely to get the car if we have a low value as we are
to get it if we have a high value. When we bid what we think its worth,
then it always goes to one of the people who value it most.”
(a) If Arnie, Barney, and Carny agree to always bid $L,thenonanygiven
day, what is the probability that Barney gets the car for $Lwhen it is
actually worth $Hto him? 1/6. What is Barney’s expected profit per
(b) Do the three dealers make higher expected profits with this collusive
* Our discussion draws extensively on the paper, “Collusive Bidder Be-
havior at Single-Object, Second-Price, and English Auctions” by Daniel
Graham and Robert Marshall in the Journal of Political Economy, 1987.