Final Exam With Answers
[You may omit
any complete question or questions for 20%.
This does not apply to individual sections within a question]
1.
Scissors/Paper/Stone:
Matrix
|
Player 1 |
|||
Player 2 |
|
Scissors |
Paper |
Stone |
Scissors |
0 |
(-1,1) |
(1,-1) |
|
Paper |
(1,-1) |
0 |
(-1,1) |
|
Stone |
(-1,1) |
(1,-1) |
0 |
The Von-Neumann solution is for
each player to randomly choose one of the three strategies with equal
probability, each time.
2. The Putting to Bed Game (your daughter says she will throw a tantrum if you donÕt let her stay up during your dinner party)
Subgame perfect equilibrium
implies that you will put her to bed and she will not throw a tantrum.
The
argument is that once you do put her to bed, her payoff is higher if
she
doesnÕt throw a tantrum, so she wonÕt. That implies that your payoff
putting
her to bed is higher than not putting her to bed.
I offer no guarantee that this
solution accurately predicts what will happen.
3. PrisonerÕs Dilemma: The numbers represent the size of the penalty, so larger numbers are worse.
|
Baxter |
||
Confess |
Deny |
||
Chester |
Confess |
10,10 |
0,15 |
Deny |
15,0 |
1,1 |
The solution is for both to
confess. It is a dominant solutionÑwhatever one player does, confess is
better than deny for the other.
(Surprisingly, several students
gave matrices for which there was no dominant solution, since what it
paid one
player to do depended on what the other did.)
Ideally, each party to
the contract
should pay the costs and receive the benefits of decisions that it
controls and
of outcomes it can better predict. The former rule reduces moral
hazard, the
latter reduces adverse selection.
In this case, Motorola
should be
responsible for the cost of risks associated with the production of the
chip,
since it controls the design and production and has more information
about
those risks than Apple does. Apple should be responsible for risks
associated
with the sale of the machines, since it is designing, producing and
marketing
the machines. One could get this result by having Motorola agree to a
penalty if
the chips end up slower, available later, or costing more than
specified in the
original contract, and having Apple agree to purchase a specified
number of the
chips, with a penalty if it chooses to purchase fewer.
A further rule in
allocating risks
is to allocate them to the party that is in the best position to spread
risks,
but it isnÕt clear that the two firms differ in that respect here.
Some relevant facts: The firm, which has been in business for fifty years and owns considerable amounts of land and real estate, has developed several products which are now leading brands in their fields. Recently, however, it has been the target of two class action law suits on different issues; your attornies believe one has a somewhat better than even chance of succeeding, one a slightly less than even chance.
Six months probably isnÕt long
enough to substantially improve the firmÕs actual performance, but it
is long
enough to make the accounts look better. Some ways of doing so:
1. Sell assets, such as land,
whose market value is much more than the value at which they are
currently
shown in the firmÕs balance sheetÑthe latter being their purchase price
long ago. If you are using the land, sell it and then rent it back.
2. For accounting purposes, the
law suit with a better than even chance of succeeding counts as a
liability of
the estimated damage payment if it succeeds. You can improve the books
by
settling that for something less than that payment. The other suit
doesnÕt count
as a liability at all, so donÕt settle it.
3. The brand names of the
products the firm developed are not assets for accounting purposes, so
selling
themÑand, if necessary, licensing them backÑwill improve the balance
sheet.
A. CoaseÕs explanation of why firms exist
Firms exist because there are
costs to market transactions; where it is less expensive to coordinate
via hierarchal
authority than via the market, it pays to put both parties being
coordinated
within a single firm. One example would be where there are substantial
externalities from one actor to anotherÑthe benefit to a restaurant in
a
shopping center of having a theater next to it that brings customers
past its
door. One could have negotiations between the two firms, but it might
be more
efficient for one of them to buy out the other, putting both theater
and
restaurant in the same firm.
This is relevant to the question
of whether a merger is being done to increase efficiency, and should be
permitted, or is being done to increase market share so as to allow the
merged
firm to make monopoly profits.
B. The Berle/Means view of large corporations with dispersed stock ownership
Since the
individual stockholder has little incentive to either know how well the
firm is
being run or do anything about it, the executive can largely ignore the
interests of the stockholders in running the firm.
This is an
argument against legal rules that make takeover bids more difficult,
since
takeover bids are one solution to the problem.
C. The Efficient Market Hypothesis
The price of a stock
reflects all
available information relevant to the value of the firmÑwhere
ÒavailableÓ
has a range of possible meanings, depending on how strong a form of the
hypothesis is being considered.
One implication of the
intermediate
version of the hypothesis, where Òavailable informationÓ means Òpublic
information,Ó is that false statements by the firm result in an
incorrect price
for its stock, which can be viewed as Òfraud on the market.Ó
You should be able to get
capital at a lower return than most other firms, including ones that
can offer
risk free returns, since your stock can be combined with the stock of
companies
whose risk correlates with the market, allowing purchasers to get the
high
returns on such stock while eliminating part of the risk.
Consumer surplus is the
difference
between what a consumer has to pay for the goods he buys and the
highest price
he would be willing to pay for them. It thus represents the net benefit
to him
of being able to buy those goods at the price at which they are
available.
The price at which a
monopoly
maximizes its profits is above its marginal cost, with the result that
potential customers who value the product at more than its cost of
production
but less than its price donÕt buy them. That results in a lower net
benefit to
all concernedÑfirm + customersÑthan if the goods were sold at
marginal cost, hence a dead-weight cost of monopoly.
A further problem is
that the
opportunity to become a monopoly may result in rent seeking
expenditures.
C. What is economic efficiency?
Economic efficiency is a measure
of net benefit to all concerned, measured by willingness to pay. A
change
improves efficiency if the total amount that those benefitted by the
change
would be willing to pay to get it is larger than the total that those
worsened
by it would be willing to pay to prevent it.
An externality is a cost
or benefit
that one actor imposes upon another, without requiring the consent of
the
latter.
It is a problem because
the actor
imposing a negative externality has no reason to include its cost in
his
decision of what actions to take, so may take actions which produce a
net
benefit for him but a net cost for him plus the others affected,
reducing
economic efficiency. Similarly, in the case of a positive externality,
an actor
may fail to take an action that would produce net benefits because it
has net
costs to him.
One solution is for the
government
to tell individuals what actions to take, on the basis of its
calculation of
net costs and benefitsÑas when the EPA requires a power plant to filter
out some of the carbon from its emissions, or when auto makers are
required to
have catalytic converters in their cars. This depends on the regulator
having
the knowledge and incentives that lead to its giving the right orders.
A second solution is a
Òpigouvian
tax.Ó The person who produces an externality such as air pollution is
charged
an amount that represents an estimate of the cost the externality
imposes on
others. He then has an incentive to take that cost into account in
deciding
what to do. The workability of this depends on the government having
the
knowledge and incentives to set the right taxes, and imposing the cost
on the
right partyÑthe one who can at lower cost prevent it.
A third solution, along
Coasian
lines, is to define who has what rights and then let parties transact
among
themselves. If my air pollution imposes costs on my downwind neighbors
larger
than the cost to me of preventing it but the legal system gives me the
right to
pollute, they can buy that right from me. If the costs of the pollution
are
lower than the costs of preventing it but the legal system gives them
the right
to be free from pollution, I can buy the right from them. The
effectiveness of
this solution is limited by transaction costs that may prevent
efficient
transactions of this sort from happening.
With strict liability,
drivers bear
all the cost of accidents, so have an incentive to take any precautions
whose
benefit in reduced accident costs are larger than their costs.
Pedestrians bear
no costsÑthis assumes that strict liability really compensates them
fullyÑso have no incentive to take precautions.
Under a negligence rule,
drivers are
liable if they did not take all cost-justified precaution, so have an
incentive
to do so. Pedestrians expect that drivers will take all cost-justified
precautions, so will not be liable, so pedestrians will expect to bear
their
own costs giving them an incentive to take all cost-justified
precautions.
If, however, some driver
precautions
are not observable by the court which is deciding whether they were
negligent,
drivers have an incentive to take the efficient level of the observable
precautions but to ignore costs to pedestrians in deciding what level
of the
unobservable precautions to take.
The correlation
coefficient tells
you that the relation between octane rating and mileage is close to
linear, but
does not tell you the slope of the line, so you have no idea how much
improvement in mileage you would get from the higher octane so do not
know if
it is worth the price.
A linear regression, on
the other
hand, provides a regression coefficient which is an estimate of the
slope of
the line, information that would tell you which grade of gasoline would
give
you the most miles per dollar.
It means that if the null
hypothesis were true, it is unlikely that the result would have
produced
evidence that strong against it. If it is significant at the .05 level,
for
instance, that means that if the null hypothesis were trueÑif, for
instance, the coin whose flips you were observing were a fair coinÑthe
probability that the result would have been at least as far as it was
in the
direction predicted by the (alternative) hypothesis you are testing is
no more
than .05.
How close to linear the
relation is
between the two variables, and whether the slope of the line is
positive or
negative.
What fraction of the
variation of
the dependent variable from its mean is explained by the regression. R2=1
would
mean that the regression perfectly predicted the values of the
dependent
variable, R2=0 would mean that it did no better than
predicting that
the dependent variable would always be at its average value.
How many standard
deviations from
the mean the result is. If the distribution is normal, a z table will
tell you
how likely it is to get a result at least that far from the mean in
that direction.
How far a regression
coefficient is
from zero, relative to the standard error of the coefficient. A t table
can
then tell you how likely it is that you would have gotten at least that
large a
value of the coefficient by chance if the true value were zero.
A measure of how much the
variable varies. More precisely, the square root of the average squared
deviation of the variable from its average.
The standard deviation of the
mean of n observations is the standard deviation of one observation
divided by
the square root of n, so in this case the standard deviation of the
mean of 16
observations is 4/4 =1. Hence z is (159-158)/1 =1. Checking the z
table, you
see that the probability of z<1 is about .84, hence that the
probability of
getting evidence this for your friendÕs claim by chance is about .16,
so it isnÕt
very good evidence for the claim.
This is a one tailed test, since the claim was that the part time students were better qualified, not that they were either better or worse qualified.
What problems might occur to you or your friend with this approach to testing his claim?
The students are all from one
class, so not a random sampleÑthe class might be one that appealed to
particularly strong or particularly weak students. Your information was
gotten
by asking the students, and they may have an incentive to overstate
their LSAT
scores.
END OF EXAM