Making Auctions Robust to Aftermarkets

Authors Moshe Babaioff, Nicole Immorlica, Yingkai Li, Brendan Lucier

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.72 MB
  • 23 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Moshe Babaioff
  • Microsoft Research, Herzliya, Israel
Nicole Immorlica
  • Microsoft Research, New York, NY, USA
Yingkai Li
  • Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Brendan Lucier
  • Microsoft Research, Cambridge, MA, USA

Cite AsGet BibTex

Moshe Babaioff, Nicole Immorlica, Yingkai Li, and Brendan Lucier. Making Auctions Robust to Aftermarkets. In 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 251, pp. 9:1-9:23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)


A prevalent assumption in auction theory is that the auctioneer has full control over the market and that the allocation she dictates is final. In practice, however, agents might be able to resell acquired items in an aftermarket. A prominent example is the market for carbon emission allowances. These allowances are commonly allocated by the government using uniform-price auctions, and firms can typically trade these allowances among themselves in an aftermarket that may not be fully under the auctioneer’s control. While the uniform-price auction is approximately efficient in isolation, we show that speculation and resale in aftermarkets might result in a significant welfare loss. Motivated by this issue, we consider three approaches, each ensuring high equilibrium welfare in the combined market. The first approach is to adopt smooth auctions such as discriminatory auctions. This approach is robust to correlated valuations and to participants acquiring information about others' types. However, discriminatory auctions have several downsides, notably that of charging bidders different prices for identical items, resulting in fairness concerns that make the format unpopular. Two other approaches we suggest are either using posted-pricing mechanisms, or using uniform-price auctions with anonymous reserves. We show that when using balanced prices, both these approaches ensure high equilibrium welfare in the combined market. The latter also inherits many of the benefits from uniform-price auctions such as price discovery, and can be introduced with a minor modification to auctions currently in use to sell carbon emission allowances.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Algorithmic mechanism design
  • Theory of computation → Computational pricing and auctions
  • carbon markets
  • aftermarkets
  • price of anarchy
  • multi-unit auctions
  • posted prices


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. CARB. Cap-and-Trade Program., 2022.
  2. Gabriel Carroll and Ilya Segal. Robustly optimal auctions with unknown resale opportunities. The Review of Economic Studies, 86(4):1527-1555, 2019. Google Scholar
  3. Deborah Cotton. Emissions Trading Design – A Critical Overview, edited by stefan e. weishaar. published by edward elgar, uk, 2014, pp. 249, isbn: 978 1 78195 221 4, aud$114.00 (hardcover). Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 59(1):156-158, 2015. URL:
  4. Peter Cramton and Suzi Kerr. Tradeable carbon permit auctions: How and why to auction not grandfather. Energy Policy, 30(4):333-345, 2002. URL:
  5. Peter Cramton, David JC MacKay, Axel Ockenfels, and Steven Stoft. Global carbon pricing: the path to climate cooperation. The MIT Press, 2017. Google Scholar
  6. Bart de Keijzer, Evangelos Markakis, Guido Schäfer, and Orestis Telelis. Inefficiency of standard multi-unit auctions. In European Symposium on Algorithms, pages 385-396. Springer, 2013. Google Scholar
  7. Paul Dutting, Michal Feldman, Thomas Kesselheim, and Brendan Lucier. Prophet inequalities made easy: Stochastic optimization by pricing nonstochastic inputs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 49(3):540-582, 2020. Google Scholar
  8. Piotr Dworczak. Mechanism design with aftermarkets: Cutoff mechanisms. Econometrica, 88(6):2629-2661, 2020. Google Scholar
  9. Alon Eden, Michal Feldman, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, and Ori Zviran. Price of anarchy of simple auctions with interdependent values. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.00498, 2020. Google Scholar
  10. EU ETS. Auctions by the common auction platform., 2021.
  11. EU ETS. European Commission Auctioning., 2021.
  12. EU ETS. Auctioning regulation., 2022.
  13. Europa Union Law., 2021.
  14. Michal Feldman, Nick Gravin, and Brendan Lucier. Combinatorial auctions via posted prices. In Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pages 123-135. SIAM, 2014. Google Scholar
  15. Kira Goldner, Nicole Immorlica, and Brendan Lucier. Reducing inefficiency in carbon auctions with imperfect competition. In Proceedings of the 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2020), 2020. Google Scholar
  16. Isa Hafalir and Vijay Krishna. Asymmetric auctions with resale. American Economic Review, 98(1):87-112, 2008. Google Scholar
  17. Isa Hafalir and Vijay Krishna. Revenue and efficiency effects of resale in first-price auctions. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 45(9-10):589-602, 2009. Google Scholar
  18. Philip A Haile. Auctions with private uncertainty and resale opportunities. Journal of Economic theory, 108(1):72-110, 2003. Google Scholar
  19. Yaonan Jin and Pinyan Lu. First price auction is 1-1/e² efficient. 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'22), 2022. Google Scholar
  20. Robert Kleinberg and Seth Matthew Weinberg. Matroid prophet inequalities. In Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 123-136, 2012. Google Scholar
  21. Bernard Lebrun. Revenue ranking of first-price auctions with resale. Journal of Economic Theory, 145(5):2037-2043, 2010. Google Scholar
  22. Brendan Lucier. An economic view of prophet inequalities. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 16(1):24-47, 2017. Google Scholar
  23. Brendan Lucier and Renato Paes Leme. GSP auctions with correlated types. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 71-80, 2011. Google Scholar
  24. Evangelos Markakis and Orestis Telelis. Uniform price auctions: Equilibria and efficiency. Theory of Computing Systems, 57(3):549-575, 2015. Google Scholar
  25. Renato Paes Leme, Vasilis Syrgkanis, and Éva Tardos. Sequential auctions and externalities. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 869-886. SIAM, 2012. Google Scholar
  26. Marco Pagnozzi. Bidding to lose? Auctions with resale. The RAND Journal of Economics, 38(4):1090-1112, 2007. Google Scholar
  27. Simon Quemin and Michael Pahle. Financials threaten to undermine the functioning of emissions markets. Available at SSRN 3985079, 2021. Google Scholar
  28. Tim Roughgarden. Intrinsic robustness of the price of anarchy. In Proceedings of the forty-first annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 513-522, 2009. Google Scholar
  29. Tim Roughgarden. The price of anarchy in games of incomplete information. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 862-879, 2012. Google Scholar
  30. Tim Roughgarden, Vasilis Syrgkanis, and Eva Tardos. The price of anarchy in auctions. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 59:59-101, 2017. Google Scholar
  31. Ester Samuel-Cahn. Comparison of threshold stop rules and maximum for independent nonnegative random variables. the Annals of Probability, pages 1213-1216, 1984. Google Scholar
  32. Ivan Susin. Auctions with resale: a survey. HSE Economic Journal, 21(2):333-350, 2017. Google Scholar
  33. Swiss Re Institute. Swiss Re Institute April Report., 2021.
  34. Vasilis Syrgkanis and Eva Tardos. Bayesian sequential auctions. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 929-944, 2012. Google Scholar
  35. Vasilis Syrgkanis and Eva Tardos. Composable and efficient mechanisms. In Proceedings of the forty-fifth annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 211-220, 2013. Google Scholar
  36. UN Goals. Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts., 2019.
  37. Martin L Weitzman. Prices vs. quantities. The review of economic studies, 41(4):477-491, 1974. Google Scholar