From: Dan Maguire (dmaguire@mchsi.com)
Date: Sat Nov 20 2004 - 20:44:36 PST
Tom,
That was me, not Ryan... and I was talking about 12 groups of 12 people
fixing their bids - meaning 12 active bidders with 132 people in the
background.
In your example, though, if 2 of the twelve were the only ones who
desperately wanted it and one of them has agreed not to bid against the
other, the seller loses. That was all I was trying to say.
Dan
Thomas M McHugh wrote:
> I'm confused at the math Ryan is quoting..
>
> If 12 people out of the 144 bidders work together, there are still 132
> other bidders + the 1 out of the 12. The only change is that those
> 12 are not bidding higher against each other.
>
> That sounds fairly smart to me.
>
> Tom McHugh, NJ
> 1952 M38A1
> M-416 trailer
> MVPA, MTA
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [MV] Link to an interesting court case
>
>
> At 6:07 PM -0500 11/20/04, Dan Maguire wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>>> And how many of them know each other and, more importantly,
>>> are working in collusion? Near zero.
>>
>>
>> I thought that you said that you and eleven other people decide which
>> one of your group will bid. That group comes to mind. If each single
>> bid represents 12 people that have informal or formal agreements, that
>> means that instead of 144 people going at it, there are only 12. How
>> is that in the seller's best interest, again? :-)
>
>
> Of course technology in this case can stack the
> deck for or against the sellers. In this case,
> overall, it's stacked against us. More so with
> the GL website. In an in person auction, you know
> who you're bidding against. Its certainly not
> collusion to want to not bid against your
> neighbor for a lot of cattle when you could just
> as well get it. Moreso, if you are an agent for
> the same group it's certainly not in your
> interest to bid against another in the same group.
>
> The e-bay system and more so, GL, enforces some
> anonymity among the bidders to the point total
> mystery.
>
> Frankly, I'd rather not bid on the same piece of
> WWII British kit that my partner in a WWII
> restoration project is also bidding on. He and I
> are in the same organization (a 501 (c) (3)) and
> have a joint LLC in the restoration of an Armored
> car.
>
> Does that fit the basic concept of collusion?
>
> Must a company bid against itself? A Club? This
> is hardly two or 5 people working to defraud the
> seller.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:37:42 PDT