2006
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00649.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficiency of Large Double Auctions

Abstract: We consider large double auctions with private values. Values need be neither symmetric nor independent. Multiple units may be owned or desired. Participation may be stochastic. We introduce a very mild notion of "a little independence." We prove that all nontrivial equilibria of auctions that satisfy this notion are asymptotically efficient. For any alpha>0, inefficiency disappears at rate (1/n)^(2 alpha). Copyright The Econometric Society 2006.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
79
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 116 publications
(82 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
3
79
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For pure exchange economies, Roberts and Postlewaite (1976) show that agents have diminishing incentives to misrepresent demand functions in the competitive mechanism as the market becomes large. Similarly, in the context of double auctions, Gresik and Satterthwaite (1989), Rustichini, Satterthwaite, and Williams (1994), and Cripps and Swinkels (2006) show that equilibrium behavior converges to truth-telling as the number of traders grows. In the two-sided matching setting, Peranson (1999), Immorlica andMahdian (2005) and Kojima and Pathak (2009) show that the deferred acceptance algorithm proposed by Gale and Shapley (1962) is difficult to manipulate profitably when the number of participants become large.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For pure exchange economies, Roberts and Postlewaite (1976) show that agents have diminishing incentives to misrepresent demand functions in the competitive mechanism as the market becomes large. Similarly, in the context of double auctions, Gresik and Satterthwaite (1989), Rustichini, Satterthwaite, and Williams (1994), and Cripps and Swinkels (2006) show that equilibrium behavior converges to truth-telling as the number of traders grows. In the two-sided matching setting, Peranson (1999), Immorlica andMahdian (2005) and Kojima and Pathak (2009) show that the deferred acceptance algorithm proposed by Gale and Shapley (1962) is difficult to manipulate profitably when the number of participants become large.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The result is that in a large market with supply function competition there is no efficiency loss (in the limit) and the order of magnitude of the deadweight loss is 2 1/ n where n is the number of firms (and the size of the market as well). This is also the rate of convergence to efficiency obtained in a double auction context by Cripps and Swinkels (2006). The welfare analysis in the supply function model contrasts thus with the one in models where there is no endogenous public signal such as the Cournot market in Vives (1988), the beauty contest in Morris and Shin (2002), or the general linear-quadratic set up of Angeletos and Pavan (2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 85%
“…The market matches the asks and bids, just as in the stock market, and allocates resources accordingly. If this market is relatively competitive, then it will also result in efficient allocation of resources, see [18], [19]. Organizations will base their decision on how much infrastructure to self-procure and how much to get from the market based on the equilibrium market price and on the statistics of their demand for computation.…”
Section: Economic Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%