Talk:Dutch auction

message: All talk related content must remain at the talk level.
Some IDIOT posted this on the main page and I have removed it: 
The claim that a Dutch auction is a form of first degree price discrimination is nonsense submitted by an amateur. More specifically, it does not constitute a Nash equilibrium. It is clear to see that the above strategy guarantees zero profits to the bidder who employs it. Why not use a strategy that will give you positive profits, even if you don't win as often? I suggest you read Auction Theory by Vijay Krishna.
If it is reworded it may be acceptable posted back.Kendirangu 10:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that is incorrect. There are equivalences in optimal symmetric bidding strategies between the Dutch and the first-price sealed-bid auction on the one hand and the Vickrey and the English auction on the other hand. Bidding one's private value in a Dutch auction has an expected profit of 0, the expected profit of bidding slightly less is positive so bidding the private value cannot be a best-response. RoyalTS 18:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk related content 

message: The article says:
:(...) in the Netherlands this type of auction is actually known as a "Chinese auction". Another Dutch word for it is: "afmijnen" literally "Mining off" because the actual bid is often called out by the buyer, who says: "Mine!"
I never heard anyone in the Netherlands refer to a Dutch auction as a Chinese auction or as afmijnen. We call it veiling or veiling bij afslag. If it is known as afmijnen (which it might be; I'm not at all well versed in auction terminology), I very much doubt it originated in using the word mijn (mine) when calling the bid. Can someone verify either of these points? If not, I suggest they are removed. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 12:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Ralph Cassady, Jr.'s Auctions and Auctioneering (1967) Cassady indicates that buyers bid by shouting "Mine!" to stop the price and claim all or part of the lot for sale; however, Cassady does not connect this term to "Mining off." MP (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm clearing out the "Chinese auction" bit, and its (presumably meant as jokes) offspring. Near as I can tell, not speaking Dutch, the references for it are blog/message board posts. Cretog8 (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch auction in Dutch 

message: From the example given in this part of the article text, it would appear that the discount rate is actually the average of the blind or sealed bids, each based on a major commercial bank's own portfolio rate-of-return requirements. This suggests the irrationalist or market quality of the process and alludes to a degree of watering of the currency. The economist, Joseph Budish, had mentioned this in an older article.Castilloactualidada 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-Bill Dutch-Auctions 

message: A Dutch auction with buyers competing for an item (or lot) descends, but a Dutch auction with sellers competing for a fixed demand would increase: the defining characteristic for Dutch is that the price moves favorable for the bidders (decreasing for buyers; increasing for sellers); the reverse is true for an English auction (the price would increase for buyers and decrease for sellers).  For references on Dutch and English designs for buyers and sellers see: 
<P>1. Designing Call Auction Institutions: Is Double Dutch The Best? Kevin A. McCabe. Stephen J. Rassenti. Vernon L. Smith. The Economic Journal
<P>2. Auction Institutional Design: Theory and Behavior of Simultaneous Multiple-Unit Generalizations of the Dutch and English Auctions
KA McCabe, SJ Rassenti, VL Smith - The American Economic Review, 1990
<P>MP (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does 'Dutch' always descend? 

message: an example of selling a house by dutch auction http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7523088.stm --194.36.2.209 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting, I'm grateful for the link myself, but I don't think one case merits inclusion in the article. Cretog8 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That looks unnecessary. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  example that could be added 

message: How does the procedure described in the section "Public Offerings" have anything to do with the procedure described in the introduction?  e.g. The introduction says there "a sale never requires more than one bid", but there are 7 bid in the example.  70.211.27.43 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: I don't understand. If there are three cars for sale in my opinion all three cars would get sold at prices near zero. As the article points out:Since one car is still available, the price continues to be lowered. At this point, the bidders would begin to get anxious since only one car is left. Before the second to last car is sold, there is no incentive to bid at all because you can always make a winning bid immediately after the second bid. There is a big incentive to wait for someone else to move, so everyone waits until the price is a few dimes. Joepnl (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? Joepnl (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple items in a single auction should lead to near zero prices 

message: Second Item Auction more accurately "second highest or lowest bid acution"
With regard to the example of the Second Item Auction, it is unclear to me why the $20 bid is the successful bid, as the first sentence of the main description made it clear this auction type is not to be confused with the second price auction, which in this case the $20 bid is the "second price", as well as being the second highest bid and the second lowest bid; can anyone explain? 184.12.82.103 (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Item Auction 

message: This is generally true, but not always: "A Dutch auction is a type of auction in which the auctioneer begins with a high asking price which is lowered until some participant is willing to accept the auctioneer's price". Currently, the Greek government is 'auctioning' bonds. Those who own them already will only be paid a fraction of the face value, between 30% and 40%. Obviously, the auction will start low and go up, the reverse of the usual process. Shouldn't we mention this alternate version? Malick78 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  another type 

message: The introduction defines a Dutch auction as one thing (start with very high price, count down, first bid wins) and makes a point that a Dutch auction is *not* a second-price auction. Then, later sections talk extensively about second-price auctions, and the term "Dutch auction" is used to alternatively refer to both types of auctions throughout.
This article is a complete mess, and sorely needs a domain expert to make some deep and fundamental changes.
129.215.5.255 (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article doesn't make any sense 

message: I think the best bet here would be to remove the sections "Public offerings" and "Dutch auction share repurchases." This will remove the inherent contradictions, while leaving a reference to second-price (Vikrey) auctions. Other reference sources are split in terms of nomenclature, so I do think a domain expert's opinion would be good. The US Treasury does not refer to bond auctions as being 'Dutch'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keddie (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less is More 

message: "In a Dutch auction, the item being sold is initially offered at a very high price […] The price is lowered in decrements until a bidder accepts the current price. That bidder wins the auction and pays that price for the item. […] Dutch auctions are a competitive alternative to a traditional auction in which bids of increasing value are made until a final selling price is reached, because, due to ever-decreasing bids, buyers must act decisively to name their price or risk losing to a lower offer."<br
/>— i call bullshit on the last sentence : how can one lose to a "lower offer" when the first offer wins ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a poor choice of wording. How about "...or risk losing to another bidder"? --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah, right 

message: A going out of business sale often starts with most items marked at 10% off. That discount periodically increases until everything in the store is sold within a time table perhaps related to the terms of the lease on the property. While buyers have a motive to wait for lower prices they do not want to wait so long that the item their interested in sells out. My personal observation is items in demand sell out not much lower than market value and only very unattrative items make it to 50% off or more.Halconen (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Store Closing Sale similarity in strategy and psychology to Dutch Auction