Lecture 5. Xavier Gabaix. March 4, 2004

Similar documents
ECON 459 Game Theory. Lecture Notes Auctions. Luca Anderlini Spring 2017

Econ 8602, Fall 2017 Homework 2

Information Processing and Limited Liability

MS&E 246: Lecture 5 Efficiency and fairness. Ramesh Johari

Course Handouts - Introduction ECON 8704 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS. Jan Werner. University of Minnesota

14.13 Economics and Psychology (Lecture 5)

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE STOCHASTIC HYDROLOGY. Lecture -5 Course Instructor : Prof. P. P. MUJUMDAR Department of Civil Engg., IISc.

Asymmetric Information: Walrasian Equilibria, and Rational Expectations Equilibria

Chapter 10: Mixed strategies Nash equilibria, reaction curves and the equality of payoffs theorem

Online Shopping Intermediaries: The Strategic Design of Search Environments

Information Processing and Limited Liability

ECO410H: Practice Questions 2 SOLUTIONS

Problem Set 3: Suggested Solutions

Conditional Density Method in the Computation of the Delta with Application to Power Market

ISSN BWPEF Uninformative Equilibrium in Uniform Price Auctions. Arup Daripa Birkbeck, University of London.

14.13 Economics and Psychology (Lecture 19)

d. Find a competitive equilibrium for this economy. Is the allocation Pareto efficient? Are there any other competitive equilibrium allocations?

Comprehensive Exam. August 19, 2013

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY Department of Economics. Ph. D. Comprehensive Examination: Macroeconomics Fall, 2010

Roy Model of Self-Selection: General Case

Competition and Consumer Confusion

(1 p)(1 ε)+pε p(1 ε)+(1 p)ε. ε ((1 p)(1 ε) + pε). This is indeed the case since 1 ε > ε (in turn, since ε < 1/2). QED

EFFICIENT MARKETS HYPOTHESIS

KIER DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES

M.I.T Fall Practice Problems

Introduction. The Model Setup F.O.Cs Firms Decision. Constant Money Growth. Impulse Response Functions

Notes on Auctions. Theorem 1 In a second price sealed bid auction bidding your valuation is always a weakly dominant strategy.

Econ 101A Final exam Mo 18 May, 2009.

Adverse Selection: The Market for Lemons

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY Department of Economics. Ph. D. Preliminary Examination: Macroeconomics Fall, 2009

March 30, Why do economists (and increasingly, engineers and computer scientists) study auctions?

Version A. Problem 1. Let X be the continuous random variable defined by the following pdf: 1 x/2 when 0 x 2, f(x) = 0 otherwise.

On Existence of Equilibria. Bayesian Allocation-Mechanisms

Auctions: Types and Equilibriums

Consumption and Asset Pricing

Dr. Maddah ENMG 625 Financial Eng g II 10/16/06

Answers to Microeconomics Prelim of August 24, In practice, firms often price their products by marking up a fixed percentage over (average)

Problem Set 3: Suggested Solutions

Lecture 1: Normal Form Games: Refinements and Correlated Equilibrium

Large Multi-Unit Auctions with a Large Bidder

CHOICE THEORY, UTILITY FUNCTIONS AND RISK AVERSION

Basic Data Analysis. Stephen Turnbull Business Administration and Public Policy Lecture 4: May 2, Abstract

Dispersed Information, Monetary Policy and Central Bank Communication

Money and Search - The Kiyotaki-Wright Model

Chapter 3. Dynamic discrete games and auctions: an introduction

Microeconomic Foundations of Incomplete Price Adjustment

Value of Flexibility in Managing R&D Projects Revisited

Finite Memory and Imperfect Monitoring

Static Games and Cournot. Competition

Dual Currency Circulation and Monetary Policy

Lecture Stat 302 Introduction to Probability - Slides 15

continuous rv Note for a legitimate pdf, we have f (x) 0 and f (x)dx = 1. For a continuous rv, P(X = c) = c f (x)dx = 0, hence

Financial Econometrics Jeffrey R. Russell. Midterm 2014 Suggested Solutions. TA: B. B. Deng

Multiproduct-Firm Oligopoly: An Aggregative Games Approach

Reputation and Signaling in Asset Sales: Internet Appendix

Transport Costs and North-South Trade

Business Strategy in Oligopoly Markets

A new model of mergers and innovation

Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: August 7, 2017

Online Appendix for Variable Rare Disasters: An Exactly Solved Framework for Ten Puzzles in Macro-Finance. Theory Complements

Natural Expectations and Home Equity Extraction

Microeconomics Qualifying Exam

Suggested Solutions to Assignment 7 (OPTIONAL)

Lecture Notes 6. Assume F belongs to a family of distributions, (e.g. F is Normal), indexed by some parameter θ.

Outline Brownian Process Continuity of Sample Paths Differentiability of Sample Paths Simulating Sample Paths Hitting times and Maximum

Public Information and Effi cient Capital Investments: Implications for the Cost of Capital and Firm Values

A Theory of Asset Prices based on Heterogeneous Information and Limits to Arbitrage

Theoretical Tools of Public Finance. 131 Undergraduate Public Economics Emmanuel Saez UC Berkeley

Financial Economics Field Exam August 2011

Online Supplement: Price Commitments with Strategic Consumers: Why it can be Optimal to Discount More Frequently...Than Optimal

Elements of Economic Analysis II Lecture XI: Oligopoly: Cournot and Bertrand Competition

How (not) to measure Competition

Lecture 3: Information in Sequential Screening

Increasing Returns and Economic Geography

Web Appendix: Proofs and extensions.

Lecture 12: New Economic Geography

1 Dynamic programming

Applied Statistics I

Solution to Tutorial 1

Financial Risk Management

Solution to Tutorial /2013 Semester I MA4264 Game Theory

Lecture 2: Stochastic Discount Factor

Unit 6: Government policy in competitive markets II Distribution & incidence

Evaluating Strategic Forecasters. Rahul Deb with Mallesh Pai (Rice) and Maher Said (NYU Stern) Becker Friedman Theory Conference III July 22, 2017

Distortions and Government Policies as Determinants of Trade, unotes6. Motivation:

LECTURE NOTES 3 ARIEL M. VIALE

Auction. Li Zhao, SJTU. Spring, Li Zhao Auction 1 / 35

Assortative Matching with Large Firms

6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 10: Introduction to Game Theory 2

Homework 3: Asset Pricing

Two hours. To be supplied by the Examinations Office: Mathematical Formula Tables and Statistical Tables THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

Monte Carlo Methods for Uncertainty Quantification

The Paradox of Asset Pricing. Introductory Remarks

Practice Problems 1: Moral Hazard

The Normal Distribution

12 The Bootstrap and why it works

University of Toronto Department of Economics ECO 204 Summer 2013 Ajaz Hussain TEST 2 SOLUTIONS GOOD LUCK!

PhD Qualifier Examination

Choice under Uncertainty

Risk Reduction Potential

Transcription:

14.127 Lecture 5 Xavier Gabaix March 4, 2004

0.1 Welfare and noise. A compliment Two firms produce roughly identical goods Demand of firm 1 is where ε 1, ε 2 are iid N (0, 1). D 1 = P (q p 1 + σε 1 > q p 2 + σε 2 ) Thus D 1 = P (p 2 p 1 > σ (ε 1 ε 2 )) = P ( p 2 p 1 > σ 2η ( ) ( ) p2 = P p2 p 1 σ p 1 > η = Φ 2 σ 2 where η is N (0, 1) and Φ = 1 Φ, with Φ cdf of N (0, 1) )

Unlike in ε 0 case, here the demand is not dramatically elastic Slope of demand at the symmetric equilibrium p 1 = p 2 ( ) ( ) p 2 σ p p2 p 1 1 D 1 1 = Φ = φ p 2 σ 2 σ 1 p1 2 1 = φ (0) σ 2 and modified elasticity 1 1 η = D 1 = φ (0) = D 1 p 1 σ 2 because D 1 = 2 1. π σ When σ 0 then η. Even though the true elasticity is the measured elasticity is lower η < η true.

Open question: how to correct that bias?

0.2 How to measure the quantity of noise σ? Give people n mutual funds and ask them to pick their preferred and next preferred fund. Assume that all those funds have the same value q A = q B People do max q i p i + σε i = s i Call A the best fund, B the second best fund, s A s B all other funds. Increase p A by p. At some point the consumer is indifferent between A and B. q A p A + σε A p = q B p B + σε B

If p A = p B then p = σ (ε A ε B ) or p = σ ( ε (1:n) ε (2:n) ) Proposition. For large n p = B n σ where B n is the parameter of Gumbel attraction, B n = 1 ( 1 )) nf ( F n

0.3 Could the fees be due to search costs? Ali Hortacsu and Chad Syverson, QJE 2004, forthcoming. Suppose you have x = $200, 000 and you keep it for 10 years. You pay 1.5%/year and thus lose 200, 000 1.5% = 3, 000 a year. Competing explanation people don t know that two index mutual fund are the same thing.

0.4 Open questions What are the regulatory implications of consumer confusion? Where does confusion σε i comes from? For instance, provide a cognitive model that gives a microfoundation for this noise Find a model that predicts the level of the confusion σ? e.g., in the mutual fund market, give a model that predicts the reasonable order of magnitude. Find a model that predicts how σ varies with experience? How do firms increase/create confusion σ?

Empirically, how could we distinguish whether profits come from true product differentiation, search costs, or confusion noise? Devise a novel empirical strategy to measure an effect related to the material of lectures 3 to 5.

0.5 Competition and confusion Proposition. Firms have an incentive to increase the confusion. The effect is stronger, the stronger is competition. Example cell phone pricing. Symmetry of firms is important here. If there is a firm that is much better than others, then it wants to have very low σ to signal this.

Proof. Consider n identical firms and symmetric equilibria. D 1 = P (q p 1 + σ 1 ε 1 + V (σ 1 ) > max q p i + σ i ε i + V (σ i )) = P (q p 1 + σ 1 ε 1 + V (σ 1 ) > max q p + σ ε i V (σ )) where V (σ i ) is the utility of complexity σ i (equated with confusion). Denote M n 1 = max i=2,...,n ε i. In equilibrium D 1 = P (p p 1 + σ 1 ε 1 + V (σ 1 ) V (σ ) > σ M n 1 ) = P ( ) ε 1 > σ M n 1 p p 1 + V (σ 1 ) V (σ ) = EF (c) σ 1 σ 1 At the equilibrium, p 1 = p, σ 1 = σ, and by symmetry D 1 = 1. n

Let us check it to develop flexibility with tricks of the trade. First note that P (M n 1 < x) = P (( i) ε i < x) = F (x) n 1 Density g n 1 (x) = G (x) = (n 1) F n 2 (x) f (x). n 1 Now ) 1 D 1 = E ( 1 F (M n 1 ) = E (F (M n 1 )) = F (x) g n 1 (x) dx Thus D 1 = 1 n. = F (x) (n 1) F n 2 (x) f (x) dx = (n 1) F n 1 (x) f (x [ F n (x) ] + 1 = (n 1) = n 1 = 1 n n n

) Heuristic remark. E ( F (M n 1 ) = n 1. Hence M n = A n + B n η, where A n >> B n are Gumbel attraction constants. Thus M n A n. So, M n F ( ) 1 n A n

( ( ( ) The profit π 1 = max p1,σ 1 EF σ1 M n 1 p p 1 + V (σ 1 ) V (σ ) From FOC and envelope theorem Note that σ 1 D 1 = E f (c n ) σ d 0 = dσ1 π 1 = (p 1 c 1 ) σ 1 D 1 σ 1 (p 1 c 1 ) σ M n 1 (p p 1 + V (σ 1 ) V (σ )) + σ2 1 σ2 1 In equilibrium, c n = M n 1, hence ( ( 0 = D 1 = E f (M n 1 ) M n 1 V (σ 1 ) )) σ1 σ σ ( ( = E f (M n 1 ) M n 1 ) + E σ f (M n 1 ) V (σ 1 ) ) σ

Hence V (σ 1 ) = E (f (M n 1) M n 1 ) Ef (M n 1 ) d n Consider some simple cases Uniform distribution d n = 1 2 n Gumbel d n = ln n + A Gaussian d n ln n In those cases, V (σ 1 ) < 0. Thus we have excess complexity.

What happens as competition grows while n? Take the utility of noise to be V (σ) = 1 1 2χ ( σ σ ). 2 Then V (σ) 1 χ = (σ σ ) = d n, and consequently σ = σ + χd n Hence, if competition grows, the problem gets exarcerbated.

0.5.1 Open question. The market for advice works very badly. Why? The fund manager wants to sell their own funds. Advisor charges you 1% per year for advice: he gives you stories each month that suggest some kind of trade. Otherwise, he could lose client.

1 Marketing Introduction Why high prices of add ons and low prices of printers or cars? Often the high add ons fees are paid by the poor not rich who might be argued have low marginal value of money, e.g. use of credit card to facilitate transactions. Many goods have shrouded attributes that some people don t anticipate when deciding on a purchase.

Consider buying a printer. Some consumers only look at printer prices. They don t look up the cost of cartridges. Shrouded add ons will have large mark ups. Even in competitive markets. Even when demand is price elastic. Even when advertising is free.

2 Shrouded attributes Consider a bank that sells two kinds of services. For price p a consumer can open an account. If consumer violates minimum she pays fee p. WLOG assume that the true cost to the bank is zero. Consumer benefits V from violating the minimum.

Consumer alternatively may reduce expenditure to generate liquidity V. Do not violate minimum Violate minimum Spend normally 0 V p Spend less V e > 0 V e p

2.1 Sophisticated consumer Sophisticates anticipate the fee p. They choose to spend less, with payoff V e...or to violate the minimum, with payoff V p

2.2 Naive consumer Naive consumers do not fully anticipate the fee p. Naive consumers may completely overlook the aftermarket or they may mistakenly believe that p < e. Naive consumers will not spend at a reduced rate. Naive consumer must choose between foregoing payoff V or paying fee p.

2.3 Summary of the model Sophisticates will buy the add on iff V p V e. Naives will buy the add on iff V p 0. D(x i ) is the probability that a consumer opens an account at bank i. For sophisticated consumer D i = P = P ( q p i + max (V e, V p i ) + σε i > q p + max (V e, V p ) (σε + x > σ max ε j i j =i

Let α fraction of rational (sophisticated) consumers, 1 α fraction of irrational (naive) consumers Profit earned from rational consumers π = α ( ) p + p1 p e D ( p + max (V e, V p) + p max (V e, V p ) Profit earned on irrational consumers (1 α) ( p + p1 p V ) D ( p + p )

e (0) Proposition. Call α = 1 V and µ = D. D (0) If α < α,equilibrium prices are p = (1 α) V + µ p = V and only naive agents consume the add on. If α α, prices are p = e + µ p = e and all agents consume the add on.

Corollary. If α < α, then the equilibrium profits equal π = αpd (0) + (1 α) (p + p) D (0) = (p + (1 α) p) D (0) = µd (0) = µ n Firms set high mark ups in the add on market. If there aren t many sophisticates, the add on mark ups will be inefficiently high: p = V > e.

High mark ups for the add on are offset by low or negative mark ups on the base good. To see this, assume market is competitive, so µ 0. Loss leader base good: p (1 α) V < 0. Examples: printers, hotels, banks, credit card teaser, mortgage teaser, cell phone, etc...

The shrouded market becomes the profit center because at least some consumers don t anticipate the shrouded add on market and won t respond to a price cut in the shrouded market. Interpretations bounded rationality, people don t see small print. overconfidence people believe they will not fail prey to small print penalties.