How to sell a $20 note for $200
To take money from a MBA program student is easier then to take a candy from a child. When students are about to graduate, it’s not required – they throw own money around. Every year Professor Max Bazerman sells to his MBA students at Harvard Business School $20 note more expensive then its face-value. During the past ten years he has earned more than $17,000 by auctioning $20 bills to his MBA students. In the course of almost two hundred of his actions, the top two bids never totaled less than $39, and in one instance totaled $407. How does he do it? First of all he demonstrates the $20 note to whole class and says that he will give it to the student who will give him back the highest sum. But there is one condition. The student whose sum will follow the winner’s sum must give his sum to the professor too. For instance, let’s suppose that two leading bids are $15 and $16. So, the winner will obtain $20 in exchange for his $16 and the second student will give his $15 to the Professor. Auction starts with $1 bid and very fast reaches $12-$16. At this point most students stop bidding and there’re left only two students with highest bids. Slowly they reach $20 bid. Obviously from this point to win in sum is impossible but to lose own money and get nothing back none wants. As soon as the auction gets passed the $21 bid, class rolls with laughter. So smart MBA students are ready to give more money then the face-value is. Indeed, that’s rather comic. However the auction goes on and reaches $50 bid; then – $100; sometimes – $200 or more. So, why does Professor Bazerman sell his $20 note? Why there is rush about the note? Anyone, especially when it’s about business, has own weak spot – loss aversion. Multiple experiments show up that most people behave irrational and even unequal when start losing money. At first all students consider that they have opportunity to get easy money. Well, they are not fools and will not pay more then face-value of the $20 note. However when auction reaches $12-$16 line, the second-place student realizes that he faces the prospect of money loss. That’s why he starts bidding more then intended until auction reaches $21. At this very point both main competitors will lose money, but one of them will lose only $1, the other – $20. To minimize loss they both make efforts to win. But this rush leads to that with every new bid both of them lose more money. Thus they reach the line when further bidding makes no sense and the opportunity to get easy money results in losses. There are a lot of facts – especially at stock market and casinos – proving Bazerman’ phenomena in work. When people start losing money instead of stopping the process, they hope to recoup losses. In most of these cases, they lose more and more. So, remember the lesson of Professor – fear of losses leads to greater loss. Fix losses when they a minimal. And, by the way, never trust your money to a person with MBA degree. 






Brilliant!
Comment by Speedmaster — November 26, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Interesting, although I still don’t understand how the bidding would go that high since you don’t have the potential to win anything back like you would gambling. Say it gets up to $50, with the other person at $49 – one has now lost $30, and the other $49. At this point both are losers, so why keep bidding up to be the one with the minimum loss when it only adds to it?
Comment by Laura K — November 26, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Unfortunately, this doesn’t really have much to do with irrational loss aversion, and more of the 2nd place person having a $19 benefit by bidding again. This is always true once a person has joined the game. Straight game theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
Comment by Andrew — November 27, 2008 @ 5:39 am
Cooperative action could defeat this, if two or more bidders agreed to split the $20. For instance, if the whole class agreed to split the $20, one could bid $1, the rest could abstain from bidding, and everybody would get a small profit. Or, the two high bidders, if they realize they are hooked into a definite loss, could agree to split the loss, and stop bidding rather than keep trying to foist the whole loss on the other.
Comment by Vincent — November 28, 2008 @ 12:25 am
Hilarious
Comment by BLamont — June 5, 2009 @ 10:44 pm