“It seemed doomed almost from the moment they decided to go to a sealed bid,” Judge Lopez said. “Nobody knows what anybody else is bidding,” he added.

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    The market decided.

    This can’t be the first time the courts had to liquidate assets to pay for a civil suit, right? There must be an outline of some sort for them to follow?

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        13 days ago

        No, that’s actually still the market deciding. It’s a perfectly standard type of auction that discourages low-ball bids. Bidding is secret, you only get one bid, and you don’t know who or if anyone else is bidding.
        If you want it, you make your best offer for what you’re willing to pay for it, and if someone else bid more they get it. If you would have been willing to pay more with more rounds of bidding, you should have bid that from the start.

        Open-bid auctions get better prices for sellers when there are a lot of bidders, and better prices for buyers when there are few. Given there were two bidders, it’s fair to seek the most either party will bid, rather than seeking $1 more than the maximum the loosing party will pay.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          13 days ago

          Thing is, starting with lowballing (high in a market’s case) and then getting into a price war is exactly how a market decides things. I get what you mean, but I also agree that the market is equivalent to open-bid.