Embed
Email

mike

Document Sample
mike
Shared by: HC111201175510
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
1
posted:
12/1/2011
language:
English
pages:
29
Game Theory

Mike Shor

Lecture 9









“I like work. It fascinates me.

I can sit and look at it for hours.”

- Jerome Klapka Jerome

Strategic Manipulation

of Information



 Strategies for the less informed

 IncentiveSchemes

 Screening







 Strategies for the more informed

 Signaling

 Signal Jamming









Mike Shor

2

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Less-informed Players



 Incentive Schemes

 Creating situations in which observable

outcomes reveal the unobservable actions of

the opponents.



 Screening

 Creating situations in which the better-informed

opponents’ observable actions reveal their

unobservable traits.





Mike Shor

3

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Moral Hazard & Roulette









$50





Mike Shor

4

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Risk Aversion



Risk Risk Risk

Seeking Neutral Averse









Lottery Corporations

(small stakes) one-time deals



Multiple Insurance

Gambles (big stakes)

Mike Shor

5

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Biased coin flip:

52%-48%

Would you bet $1000 on it?





Chance

0.6

0.5

0.4

of Loss

0.3

48%

0.2

0.1

0

-$1,000.00 $1,000.00



Mike Shor

6

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Biased coin flip:

52%-48%

Would you bet $100 on it 10 times?



0.25



0.2 Chance

0.15

of Loss

0.1 33%

0.05



0

-$1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00



Mike Shor

7

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Biased coin flip:

52%-48%

Would you bet $1 on it 1000 times?



0.03



Chance

0.02 of Loss



0.01

10%



0

-$100.00 $0.00 $100.00



Mike Shor

8

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Moral Hazard



 A project with uncertain outcome

 Probability of success depends on firm’s effort

 prob. of success = 0.6 if effort is routine

 prob. of success = 0.8 if effort is high



 Firm has cost of effort

 cost of routine effort = $100,000

 cost of high effort = $150,000

 project outcome = $600,000 if successful



Mike Shor

9

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Compensation Schemes





 Benchmarks:

 FixedPayment

 Observable Effort







 Result-contingent bonus scheme





Mike Shor

10

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Incentive Scheme 1:

Fixed Payment



 A fixed payment must be high enough

to get the firm to accept the project



 No amount of fixed payment can

change the firm’s behavior once it

accepts the project







Mike Shor

11

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Incentive Scheme 1:

Fixed Payment



 If firm puts in routine effort:

 Utility = Payment - $100,000

 If firm puts in high effort:

 Utility = Payment - $150,000

 Firm puts in low effort!

 Value of project = (.6)600,000 = $360,000

 Optimal Payment: lowest possible.

 Payment = $100,000

 Expected Profit

= $360 - $100 = $260K

Mike Shor

12

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Incentive Scheme 2:

Observable Effort





 If we can observe effort, contracts are simple:

 Work as hard as we tell you to, or you are fired







 Only question:

How hard do we want employees to work?

 Remember, salary must be commensurate with

level of effort, or no one will take the job



Mike Shor

13

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Incentive Scheme 2:

Observable Effort



 Firm puts in the effort level promised,

given its pay



 Pay for routine effort:

 Avg. Profit = (.6)600,000 – 100,000 = $260,000

 Pay additional $50K for high effort:

 Avg. Profit = (.8)600,000 – 150,000 = $330,000

 If effort is observable, pay for high effort



 Expected Profit = $330K

Mike Shor

14

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Problems

 Fixed payment scheme offers no incentives

for high effort

 Higheffort is more profitable

 Worst case scenario: $260K



 Effort-based scheme cannot be implemented

 Cannot monitor firm effort

 Best case scenario: $330K



 Question: how close can we get to best case

scenario if effort is unobservable?

Mike Shor

15

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Incentive Scheme 3:

Fixed Payment and Bonus



 Suppose effort can not be observed

 Incentive-Compatible compensation

 Compensation contract must rely on

something that can be directly observed

and verified.

Project’s success or failure

Related probabilistically to effort

Imperfect but positive information





Mike Shor

16

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Observable Outcome





 Incentive Compatibility

 Putting in high effort must be better

than putting in low effort





 Participation Constraint

 Putting in any effort must be better

than not taking the position





Mike Shor

17

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Incentive Compatibility



 Compensation Package (f, b)

 f: fixed base payment

 b: bonus if the project succeeds







 Firm’s Expected Earnings

 routineeffort: f + (0.6)b

 high-quality effort: f + (0.8)b





Mike Shor

18

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Incentive Compatibility



 Firm will put in high effort if

f + (0.8)b - 150,000

≥ f + (0.6)b - 100,000



 (0.2)b ≥ 50,000

marginal benefit of effort

> marginal cost



b ≥ $250,000

Mike Shor

19

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Incentive Compatibility



 Firm will put in high effort if

b ≥ $250,000

 Our profit maximization means that we

want to set b as low as possible



b = $250,000



 Next, solve participation constraint



Mike Shor

20

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Participation



 The total compensation should be good

enough for the firm to accept the job.



 If incentive compatibility condition is met, the

firm prefers the high effort level.

 The firm will accept the job if:





f + (0.8)b ≥ 150,000

Mike Shor

21

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Participation



 Firm will accept contract if expected pay

is greater than cost

f + (0.8)b ≥ 150,000



 Solution

 Substitute minimum bonus:

f + (0.8)250,000 ≥ $150,000

f + $200,000 ≥ $150,000

f ≥ – $50,000

Mike Shor

22

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Negative Fixed Payment?



 Certainly not for normal employees

 Ante in gambling

 Law firms / partnerships

 Work bonds / construction

 Startup funds





 Interpretation:

 Capital the firm must put up for the project

 Fine the firm must pay if the project fails.

 Risk premium

Mike Shor

23

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Negative Fixed Payment?



 Fixed payment not always negative, but:



1. Enough outcome-contingent incentive

(bonus) to provide incentive to work hard.



2. Enough certain base wage (salary) to provide

incentive to work at all.



3. Implicitly charging a “risk premium” to party

with greatest control.

Mike Shor

24

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Benchmarks

 Fixed payment scheme:

 Worst case scenario: $260K



 Effort-based scheme:

 Best case scenario: $330K



 Fixed payment and bonus:

Exp. Profit = (.8)600,000 – (.8)b – f

= (.8)600,000 – (.8)250,000 + 50,000

= $330,000

 Same as with observable effort!!!

Mike Shor

25

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Moral Hazard



COMMANDMENT

In the presence of uncertainty:

Assign the risk to the better informed

party. Efficiency and greater profits result.





The more risks are transferred to the well-

informed party, the more profit is earned.







Mike Shor

26

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Moral Hazard





CAVEAT

In the presence of uncertainty:

Assign the risk to the better informed party.

Efficiency and greater profits result.



BUT

If done imprecisely,

may be better not to bother.

Mike Shor

27

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Negative Fixed Payment?



 Bonus depends on

 difference between low and high effort costs

 Fixed payment depends on

 absolute magnitude of costs

 Example: Firm has cost of effort

 cost of routine effort = $250,000 (+$150K)

 cost of high effort = $300,000 (+$150K)



 BONUS UNCHANGED (b = $250,000)

 FIXED INCREASES (f = $100,000)

Mike Shor

28

Game Theory & Business Strategy

Summary



 Can perfectly compensate for

information asymmetry

 Letemployee take the risk

 Use two part contracts (salary and bonus)







 Often, this is unreasonable

 Employees unwilling to assume risks

 Contracts must be perfectly balanced

 May be better to settle for low effort



Mike Shor

29

Game Theory & Business Strategy


Related docs
Other docs by HC111201175510
seminar
Views: 1  |  Downloads: 0
Test de Billat
Views: 2  |  Downloads: 0
curnock cook
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
564
Views: 2  |  Downloads: 0
Rotations and Rotational Symmetry
Views: 1  |  Downloads: 0
SCIENCE
Views: 36  |  Downloads: 0
Sheet1
Views: 11  |  Downloads: 0
Communication
Views: 6  |  Downloads: 0
Rolnictwo w Polsce czynniki rozwoju
Views: 11  |  Downloads: 0
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!