Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.08407

Does a Toehold Make a Bidder Bolder? Preemption and Multiplicity in Multi-Round Takeover Auctions

Zain Naboulsi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A bidder can quietly buy a stake in a company before making an offer for it. That stake, a toehold, is supposed to pay for itself twice: it makes the bidder willing to bid harder, and it frightens rivals into staying out of the fight. The first effect is arithmetic. The second is what would justify the cost and exposure of taking one at all. Yet toeholds are rare in practice, a standing puzzle. We ask whether that second effect is there once the contest is modelled as several rounds of escalating offers rather than the single exchange classical models assume. We turn it into a game a computer can solve, and certify the answers to an accuracy a referee can check. Three findings. The auction fixes what the toehold-holder earns but not how it bids: the same contest supports a bidder who opens aggressively against a rival who folds, and one who opens cheaply against a rival who does not, with the same profit either way. Aggressive preemptive bidding still appears when the toehold is removed entirely, so it comes from bidding in public and in turns, not from owning the stake. And the tidy "bigger toehold, more deterrence" relationship holds only in a contest cut short after one round; give it a real second round and it stops responding. So the two reasons to buy a toehold do not fare alike. The profit reason holds up; the deterrence reason does not, which suggests why toeholds may be rarer than theory predicts, alongside the procedural costs of disclosure and price impact that this model omits. A warning follows for anyone computing economics from a game solver: solve this auction once and it returns a confident figure for what a preemptive bid is worth; solve it again from a different start and it returns a different one, equally converged. We also report which solvers cope with contests of this shape, including versions too large to enumerate. Code is released.

Explore related subjects

cs.GTcs.AIcs.LG

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Zain Naboulsi. 2026-08-09. Does a Toehold Make a Bidder Bolder? Preemption and Multiplicity in Multi-Round Takeover Auctions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08407

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MMS Allocation for Chores with Online Agent Arrivals

We study the fair allocation of $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with subadditive cost functions arriving online in an arbitrary order. Upon an agent's arrival, we are informed of her cost function and must irrevocably assign her a set of chores. We focus on the Maximin Share (MMS) fairness notion and aim to compute an allocation in which all items are assigned, and no agent incurs a cost more than $\alpha$ times her MMS. Without any prior information about the instance (other than $n$ and $m$), we design an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{n, k\log^{1+\epsilon}k, \log m\})$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$, where $k$ denotes the number of cost function types. Our bound matches the best known offline approximation guarantees for MMS under subadditive costs and is nearly optimal with respect to all three parameters: we show that even for binary additive cost functions, no online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio of $o(\min\{n, k\log k, \log m\})$. We then consider the setting in which the $k$ cost function types are known in advance (though the realized types of arriving agents are not). For additive cost functions, we provide an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{\log k, \log(kn)/\log\log(kn)\})$, and show that constant-competitive algorithms do not exist for general $k$, even for the binary additive setting. For binary additive functions when $k \le n$, we propose a $3$-competitive algorithm and establish a lower bound of $2$.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Truncated Noisy Best-Response Algorithms: Toward Game Theoretic Learning with Safety Guarantees

We consider a game theoretic approach to solve multi-agent coordination problems with submodular maximization objectives. It is known for such problems that the Nash equilibria for the corresponding game are always within 50% of the optimal, but that the equilibria which achieve this worst-case bound are not stable. To exploit this instability, we propose a family of algorithms which we call Truncated Noisy Best-Response (TNBR) Algorithms. These algorithms are flexibly characterized by agents asynchronously and stochastically selecting actions from a neighbourhood of their best response payoffs. We compute bounds on the recurrent classes of TNBR algorithms' associated Markov chains. Our bounds fall into two categories: first, "Performance" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms always have a high-value recurrent state; second, "Safety" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms never have arbitrarily-bad recurrent states. Furthermore, these two types of bounds are linked by a waterbed-like effect: every game with a poor Safety guarantee necessarily has a favorable Performance guarantee.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Existence of the Core in Approval-Based Committee Elections

We settle the main open question in the theory of approval-based multi-winner elections: we show that there always exists a committee in the core. The core is a stability and group fairness concept. The proof introduces a new voting rule that optimizes an entropy-like objective function over committees and payment systems. All local optima of this objective function lie in the core, which implies that a core committee can be found in polynomial time.

cs.GT↗