Why Auctions Are Hard
Auctions seem simple: people bid, the highest bidder wins. What’s there to study?
Everything, it turns out. An auction is a situation where nobody knows the right price. The seller doesn’t know how much buyers are willing to pay. Buyers don’t know how much the item is truly worth — or how much other buyers are willing to pay. The auction format itself — who bids when, what information is revealed, how the winner pays — shapes the outcome in profound ways.
Get the design wrong, and sellers leave money on the table. Bidders overpay and regret it. Resources go to the wrong people. Get the design right, and auctions become one of the most powerful tools for allocating scarce resources efficiently.
Paul Milgrom and Robert Wilson didn’t just study auctions — they reinvented them. Their theoretical breakthroughs explained why bidders behave the way they do, and their practical inventions created entirely new auction formats that governments now use to allocate billions of dollars’ worth of public resources.
Wilson: The Winner’s Curse and Common Values
Before Wilson’s work in the 1960s and 1970s, auction theory focused on private values — situations where each bidder knows exactly how much the item is worth to them personally. You’re bidding on a painting you love; your value depends on your taste, not anyone else’s.
But many important auctions involve common values — the item is worth roughly the same to everyone, but nobody knows exactly what that value is. Consider:
- Oil drilling rights: The oil under the ground is worth the same to any company that extracts it. But nobody knows exactly how much oil is there
- Treasury bonds: A government bond pays the same interest to whoever holds it. But its future market value is uncertain
- Radio spectrum: A frequency band has a market value that depends on how many customers will use it — unknown to all bidders
Wilson developed the first rigorous theory of common-value auctions and identified the winner’s curse: the tendency for the winning bidder to overpay.
The logic of the curse:
- You’re bidding on oil drilling rights along with nine other companies. Each company has its own geological estimate of how much oil is underground
- The estimates are scattered around the true value — some too high, some too low
- The company with the highest estimate wins the auction. But the highest estimate is almost certainly an overestimate. The winner is the company that was most wrong — in the optimistic direction
- Rational bidders who understand this will shade their bids downward — bidding less than their estimate to avoid the curse
- But how much to shade? Wilson’s theory provided the answer, showing exactly how rational bidders should adjust for the number of competitors, the degree of uncertainty, and the auction format
Wilson showed that the winner’s curse is worse when:
- There are more bidders (more chances for someone to have an extreme overestimate)
- Uncertainty is greater (estimates are more dispersed)
- Some bidders have better information than others (the informed bidder wins when the item is worth more; the uninformed bidder wins when it’s worth less — a devastating asymmetry)
Milgrom: A Unified Theory of Auctions
Milgrom’s breakthrough was recognizing that most real auctions involve both common and private values simultaneously.
Consider a telecom company bidding for radio spectrum:
- Common value: The spectrum’s market value depends on population density, technology trends, and consumer demand — roughly the same for all bidders
- Private value: The spectrum’s value to this specific company depends on its existing network, technology, and business strategy — different for each bidder
Milgrom built a general framework that encompassed both pure private values and pure common values as special cases, with most real auctions falling somewhere in between.
Key results:
- The linkage principle: Auctions that reveal more information during the bidding process generate higher revenue for the seller. Why? Because information reduces the winner’s curse, allowing bidders to bid more aggressively. An open ascending auction (where you can see others’ bids) outperforms a sealed-bid auction because each round of bidding reveals information about others’ estimates
- English auctions beat Dutch auctions: In an English auction (price rises until one bidder remains), bidders learn about others’ valuations as competitors drop out. In a Dutch auction (price falls until someone bids), no information is revealed. For common-value items, English auctions produce higher revenue
- Revenue ranking of auction formats: Milgrom showed that the four standard auction formats — English, Dutch, first-price sealed-bid, and second-price sealed-bid — generate different revenues depending on the mix of common and private values. This gave sellers a principled basis for choosing the right format
- Information asymmetry matters enormously: When one bidder has better information (an “insider”), other bidders bid cautiously, and the seller’s revenue drops. The solution: make the insider’s information public, or use an auction format that reveals more information during bidding
The Spectrum Auction: Theory Becomes Practice
In the early 1990s, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission faced a practical crisis. Mobile phone use was exploding, and the FCC needed to allocate radio spectrum to telecom companies. Previous methods — administrative hearings and lotteries — were slow, arbitrary, and left billions of dollars on the table.
Congress mandated that the FCC use auctions. But no existing auction format could handle the problem:
- Thousands of licenses across different geographic regions needed to be sold simultaneously
- Licenses are complementary: A license for New York is worth more to a company that also has New Jersey, because customers cross state lines. Bidders need to assemble packages of licenses — but they don’t know if they’ll win the neighboring licenses they need
- The exposure problem: If you bid high for New York expecting to also get New Jersey, but lose New Jersey, you’re stuck overpaying for New York alone. This risk discourages bidding
- Diverse bidders: Large national carriers and small regional operators have very different needs and resources
Milgrom and Wilson designed the Simultaneous Multiple Round Auction (SMRA):
- All licenses offered simultaneously: Instead of selling licenses one at a time (which makes it impossible to assemble packages), all licenses are on the table at once
- Multiple rounds of bidding: Prices start low and rise gradually. After each round, all bids are revealed. This gives bidders information about others’ valuations — exploiting the linkage principle
- Activity rules: Bidders must be actively bidding in each round — no sitting on the sidelines waiting. This keeps the auction moving and prevents strategic delay
- Withdrawal penalties: Bidders can withdraw a bid, but must pay a penalty. This prevents manipulation while allowing some flexibility
The first SMRA auction in 1994 sold 10 licenses over 47 rounds, raising 100 billion.
Later innovations by Milgrom:
- Combinatorial Clock Auction: Allows bidders to bid on packages of licenses directly, rather than assembling packages through individual bids. This solves the exposure problem but requires significant computational power
- Incentive Auction (2016): A two-sided auction that first buys spectrum from TV broadcasters (reverse auction) and then sells it to wireless companies (forward auction). This repurposed 70 MHz of spectrum for mobile broadband, raising $19.8 billion — the largest spectrum auction ever
Why Auction Design Matters
The spectrum auction is the most visible application, but auction theory has transformed how society allocates resources far beyond radio frequencies:
- Electricity markets: Power generators bid to supply electricity, and the auction format determines both efficiency and prices for consumers
- Carbon emissions: Cap-and-trade systems use auctions to allocate pollution permits — the design determines whether emissions reductions happen at least cost
- Government procurement: When governments buy everything from office supplies to military equipment, auction design determines whether taxpayers get good value
- Online advertising: Every Google search triggers an auction among advertisers for the ad slots on the results page — billions of these auctions happen daily
- Treasury securities: Governments sell bonds through auctions; the format affects the interest rate taxpayers pay on national debt
The SMRA format has been adopted by 97 countries for spectrum allocation, with approximately 15,000 licenses awarded through 420 auctions worldwide.
Their 2020 Nobel Prize was awarded “for improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats.” As the Academy noted: “The new auction formats are a beautiful example of how basic research can subsequently generate inventions that benefit society.”
Explain It to a Child
Imagine you and your friends find a jar full of coins, but you can’t open it to count them. Everyone guesses how many coins are inside, and whoever guesses the highest gets to buy the jar for that price. Here’s the problem: the person who guesses highest is probably guessing too high — they’ll pay more than the jar is worth. That’s the “winner’s curse,” and Wilson figured out how smart bidders can avoid it. Now imagine something harder: the government wants to sell phone companies the right to send signals in different areas — like selling invisible patches of sky. A phone company wants a patch over New York AND New Jersey together (because phone calls cross borders), but if they only get one, it’s not worth as much. Milgrom and Wilson invented a new kind of auction where all the patches are sold at the same time, with many rounds of bidding, so companies can see what others are doing and adjust. Their auction raised billions of dollars and is now used all around the world.
为什么拍卖很难
拍卖看似简单:人们出价,出价最高者获胜。有什么好研究的?
事实证明,一切都值得研究。拍卖是一种没有人知道正确价格的情境。卖方不知道买方愿意付多少。买方不知道物品真正值多少——也不知道其他买方愿意付多少。拍卖形式本身——谁在什么时候出价、揭示什么信息、赢家如何支付——以深刻的方式塑造结果。
设计错误,卖家损失收入。出价者多付后悔。资源分配给错误的人。设计正确,拍卖成为有效分配稀缺资源的最强大工具之一。
米尔格罗姆和威尔逊不仅研究拍卖——他们重新发明了拍卖。他们的理论突破解释了出价者为何如此行为,他们的实际发明创造了全新的拍卖形式,各国政府现在用它来分配价值数十亿美元的公共资源。
威尔逊:赢家的诅咒与共同价值
在威尔逊1960年代和1970年代的工作之前,拍卖理论关注私人价值——每个出价者确切知道物品对自己个人值多少的情况。你在竞拍一幅你喜爱的画;你的价值取决于你的品味,而非别人的。
但许多重要的拍卖涉及共同价值——物品对每个人大致值同样多,但没有人确切知道那个价值。考虑:
- 石油开采权:地下的石油对任何开采公司价值相同。但没有人确切知道有多少石油
- 国债:政府债券对任何持有者支付相同的利息。但其未来市场价值是不确定的
- 无线电频谱:一个频段的市场价值取决于将有多少客户使用它——所有出价者都不知道
威尔逊发展了第一个严格的共同价值拍卖理论,并识别了赢家的诅咒:中标者多付的倾向。
诅咒的逻辑:
- 你和其他九家公司竞拍石油开采权。每家公司都有自己的地质估计,估计地下有多少石油
- 估计值散布在真实价值周围——有些偏高,有些偏低
- 估计最高的公司赢得拍卖。但最高估计几乎肯定是高估。赢家是最错的公司——在乐观方向上
- 理解这一点的理性出价者会向下调整出价——出价低于其估计以避免诅咒
- 但调整多少?威尔逊的理论提供了答案,精确展示理性出价者应如何根据竞争者数量、不确定程度和拍卖形式进行调整
威尔逊证明赢家的诅咒在以下情况更严重:
- 出价者更多(有人极端高估的机会更多)
- 不确定性更大(估计更分散)
- 一些出价者比其他人有更好的信息(知情出价者在物品价值更高时获胜;不知情出价者在价值更低时获胜——一种毁灭性的不对称)
米尔格罗姆:统一的拍卖理论
米尔格罗姆的突破在于认识到大多数真实拍卖同时涉及共同价值和私人价值。
考虑一家电信公司竞拍无线电频谱:
- 共同价值:频谱的市场价值取决于人口密度、技术趋势和消费者需求——对所有出价者大致相同
- 私人价值:频谱对这家特定公司的价值取决于其现有网络、技术和商业策略——每个出价者不同
米尔格罗姆建立了一个一般性框架,将纯私人价值和纯共同价值作为特殊情况包含在内,大多数真实拍卖介于两者之间。
关键成果:
- 关联原则:在竞拍过程中揭示更多信息的拍卖为卖方产生更高收入。为什么?因为信息减少了赢家的诅咒,允许出价者更积极地出价。公开升价拍卖(你能看到他人出价)优于密封投标拍卖,因为每轮出价揭示了他人估计的信息
- 英式拍卖优于荷兰式拍卖:在英式拍卖中(价格上升直到只剩一个出价者),出价者随着竞争者退出而了解他人的估值。在荷兰式拍卖中(价格下降直到有人出价),不揭示任何信息。对于共同价值物品,英式拍卖产生更高收入
- 拍卖形式的收入排名:米尔格罗姆证明四种标准拍卖形式——英式、荷兰式、第一价格密封投标和第二价格密封投标——根据共同价值和私人价值的组合产生不同收入。这为卖方选择正确形式提供了有原则的基础
- 信息不对称极其重要:当一个出价者有更好的信息(“内部人”)时,其他出价者谨慎出价,卖方收入下降。解决方案:公开内部人的信息,或使用在竞拍过程中揭示更多信息的拍卖形式
频谱拍卖:理论变为实践
1990年代初,美国联邦通信委员会面临一个实际危机。手机使用量爆炸性增长,FCC需要将无线电频谱分配给电信公司。以前的方法——行政听证和抽签——缓慢、随意,让数十亿美元白白浪费。
国会要求FCC使用拍卖。但没有现成的拍卖形式能处理这个问题:
- 需要同时出售不同地理区域的数千个许可证
- 许可证是互补的:纽约的许可证对同时拥有新泽西的公司更有价值,因为客户会跨州。出价者需要组建许可证组合——但他们不知道是否会赢得所需的相邻许可证
- 暴露问题:如果你为纽约出高价期望也能得到新泽西,但输掉了新泽西,你就为单独的纽约多付了钱。这种风险抑制了出价
- 多样化的出价者:大型全国运营商和小型区域运营商有非常不同的需求和资源
米尔格罗姆和威尔逊设计了同步多轮拍卖(SMRA):
- 所有许可证同时提供:不是一次卖一个许可证(这使得组建组合不可能),而是所有许可证同时摆在桌面上
- 多轮竞价:价格从低开始逐步上升。每轮后,所有出价被公开。这为出价者提供了关于他人估值的信息——利用了关联原则
- 活跃规则:出价者必须在每轮积极出价——不能坐在场边等待。这保持拍卖推进并防止战略性拖延
- 撤回惩罚:出价者可以撤回出价,但必须支付罚金。这防止操纵同时允许一些灵活性
1994年的第一次SMRA拍卖经过47轮出售了10个许可证,筹集了6.17亿美元。《纽约时报》称之为”有史以来最伟大的拍卖”。随后的美国频谱拍卖已筹集超过1000亿美元。
米尔格罗姆后来的创新:
- 组合时钟拍卖:允许出价者直接竞拍许可证组合,而非通过单个出价组建组合。这解决了暴露问题但需要大量计算能力
- 激励拍卖(2016年):一种双面拍卖,首先从电视广播公司购买频谱(反向拍卖),然后卖给无线公司(正向拍卖)。这将70兆赫兹的频谱重新用于移动宽带,筹集了198亿美元——有史以来最大的频谱拍卖
为什么拍卖设计重要
频谱拍卖是最显眼的应用,但拍卖理论改变了社会分配资源的方式,远不止无线电频率:
- 电力市场:发电商竞拍供电权,拍卖形式决定了效率和消费者价格
- 碳排放:碳排放交易系统使用拍卖分配排污许可——设计决定减排是否以最低成本实现
- 政府采购:当政府购买从办公用品到军事装备的一切时,拍卖设计决定纳税人是否获得好的价值
- 在线广告:每次谷歌搜索都在广告商之间触发一场拍卖争夺结果页面的广告位——每天发生数十亿次这样的拍卖
- 国债:政府通过拍卖出售债券;形式影响纳税人为国债支付的利率
SMRA形式已被97个国家采用于频谱分配,通过全球420场拍卖大约颁发了15,000个许可证。
他们2020年的诺贝尔奖授奖词为:“因其对拍卖理论的改进和新拍卖形式的发明。” 正如瑞典皇家科学院所说:“新的拍卖形式是基础研究如何随后产生惠及社会的发明的美丽例证。“
讲给小孩听
想象你和朋友们发现一罐硬币,但你们不能打开数。每个人猜里面有多少硬币,谁猜最高就以那个价格买下这罐子。问题来了:猜最高的人可能猜得太高——他们会付出比罐子实际价值更多的钱。这就是”赢家的诅咒”,威尔逊弄清了聪明的竞拍者如何避免它。现在想象更难的事:政府想把手机公司在不同区域发送信号的权利卖掉——就像卖看不见的天空碎片。一家手机公司想同时要纽约和新泽西的碎片(因为电话会跨越边界),但如果只得到一个,就不那么值钱了。米尔格罗姆和威尔逊发明了一种新拍卖,所有碎片同时出售,经过很多轮竞价,公司可以看到别人在做什么并调整。他们的拍卖筹集了数十亿美元,现在全世界都在使用。
Sources:
- The Prize in Economics 2020 - Nobel Prize
- The Bid Picture: Nobel Winners Explain Auction Theory - Stanford
- Auctions Are Changing - World Economic Forum
- Making Auctions Work - The Conversation
- How Milgrom and Wilson Changed Auctions - UNSW
- Economics Nobel Honors Auction Theory Pioneers - Science
- The Greatest Auction Ever - NSF