To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

Search at the Margin

American Economic Review 2017 107(10), 3146-3181
We extend search theory to multiple indivisible units and perfectly divisible assets, solving them respectively with induction and recursion. Buyer demands and prices are random, and the seller can partially exercise orders. With divisible assets, the Bellman value function is increasing and strictly concave, and the optimal reservation price falls in the position, reflecting increasing holding costs (opportunity cost of delaying optionality for inframarginal units). The marginal value exists, and is strictly convex with a falling purchase cap density. Our model is amenable to price-quantity bargaining; e.g., greater buyer bargaining power is tantamount to greater search frictions.

Sorting through Search and Matching Models in Economics

Journal of Economic Literature 2017 55(2), 493-544 open access
Toward understanding assortative matching, this is a self-contained introduction to research on search and matching. We first explore the nontransferable and perfectly transferable utility matching paradigms, and then a unifying imperfectly transferable utility matching model. Motivated by some unrealistic predictions of frictionless matching, we flesh out the foundational economics of search theory. We then revisit the original matching paradigms with search frictions. We finally allow informational frictions that often arise, such as in college-student sorting.

Rushes in Large Timing Games

Econometrica 2017 85(3), 871-913
We develop a continuum player timing game that subsumes standard wars of attrition and pre‐emption games, and introduces a new rushes phenomenon. Payoffs are continuous and single‐peaked functions of the stopping time and stopping quantile. We show that if payoffs are hump‐shaped in the quantile, then a sudden “rush” of players stops in any Nash or subgame perfect equilibrium. Fear relaxes the first mover advantage in pre‐emption games, asking that the least quantile beat the average; greed relaxes the last mover advantage in wars of attrition, asking just that the last quantile payoff exceed the average. With greed, play is inefficiently late: an accelerating war of attrition starting at optimal time, followed by a rush. With fear, play is inefficiently early: a slowing pre‐emption game, ending at the optimal time, preceded by a rush. The theory predicts the length, duration, and intensity of stopping, and the size and timing of rushes, and offers insights for many common timing games.