Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Suppose 15 very low pop commons in 9 are available in an auction in individual lots, and the three top set registry guys, each of whom need them all, agree to allocate their bids so as not to bid against each other in the hope that each comes away with 5. Suppose there are also other anonymous people who will bid on some as well. Are you saying this is not collusive? (I don't care for and haven't used the term bid rigging.)
|
Peter...I was just mentioning bid-rigging in general...I wasn't pointing it at you.
I agree that the example that you are using above is definitely collusive. The more people that get involved, the more of an enterprise it becomes and then it certainly is limiting a sellers chance of maximizing his profits.
My comments are strictly related to the OP's description of 2 friends agreeing to partner-up to participate in an auction that they might or might not win.
I was once at a local auction house that had a bunch of sports memorabilia. Myself and 1 other person bid against each other on almost every lot. We cost each other a lot of money. Fast forward a few years and I run into this person again in Brimfield (he is a dealer). We recognize each other and laugh at how much money we cost each other. We agreed that if we ever saw each other again at an auction we would compare notes prior to the auction. I don't think that there is anything wrong with this type of agreement. As I stated earlier, there is the potential for others to bid and no guarantees of price in an auction setting.
Jeff