Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.27627

Random Disclosure Costs: A Unified Theory of Disclosure

Abstract

We propose a unified framework for a class of evidence games in which a sender, seeking to increase posterior expectations (e.g., a market price), chooses whether to reveal or withhold her information. Our model nests several classic models, including type-dependent disclosure costs or benefits, uncertain information endowment, and the market for lemons. Frictions are captured as random disclosure costs that are privately known to the sender and noisily inferred by the receiver. We derive a simple characterization of the equilibrium and show that it features increasing disclosure for lower frictions or greater fundamental uncertainty. Further, with high uncertainty or low frictions, greater uncertainty about disclosure costs decreases the likelihood of disclosure. Positive costs do not necessarily rule out unraveling to full disclosure, especially when outcomes have heavy tails or when disclosure costs are not constant. Finally, we demonstrate that the model can be estimated with a simple probit, suggesting that cost uncertainty is descriptive of real-world behavior.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeremy Bertomeu, Edwige Cheynel, Keri Hu. 2026-10-20. Random Disclosure Costs: A Unified Theory of Disclosure. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.70090

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Centripetal Structure under Alienation-Based Abstention

Alienation-based abstention makes participation endogenous because the platforms chosen by parties determine who votes. We study how voter tolerance affects the existence, location, and persistence of pure-strategy equilibria in two versions of a two-party spatial model. In the first, office-seeking parties maximize voter plurality; in the second, they care about the policy implemented. We characterize all office-seeking equilibria through a condition called window dominance, which gives a distributional characterisation of profitable deviations both near to and far from a party's platform. For general continuous voter distributions, pure strategy equilibrium in the office seeking game may fail to exist, may be non-unique, and may appear and disappear as tolerance increases. To resolve this, we identify a centripetal structure in the set of positions that can not lose to each rival. When this structure holds, a single anchor defeats every other platform and determines the unique office-seeking equilibrium. The classical Downs and Llavador results are special cases. We show that this structure persists at all larger tolerance radii once it holds at a radius of at least half the policy space and at least twice the median's distance from the center. The centripetal structure emerges before full participation for all voter distributions. Finally, the same structure yields a complete classification of equilibrium when parties care about the policy implemented rather than electoral victory alone.

econ.TH↗

Revenue Guarantee Equivalence between Dominant-Strategy and Bayesian Mechanisms

In auction design with limited information about bidders' value distributions, we provide an optimality foundation for dominant-strategy mechanisms. We show that simple dominant-strategy incentive compatible (DIC) mechanisms--either a second-price auction with a random reserve or the standard second-price auction without a reserve--achieve a revenue guarantee equal to the worst-case optimal revenue attainable by Bayesian incentive compatible (BIC) mechanisms, thereby establishing a robust form of DIC-BIC equivalence.

econ.TH↗

Collective decisions under uncertainty: efficiency, ex-ante fairness, and normalization

This paper studies preference aggregation under uncertainty in the multi-profile framework and characterizes a new class of aggregation rules that can address classical concerns about Harsanyi's (1995) utilitarian rules. Our aggregation rules, which we call \textit{relative fair aggregation rules}, are grounded in three key ideas: utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and the 0--1 normalization of individual utilities. These rules are parameterized by a set of weight vectors over individuals and evaluate each ambiguous alternative by taking the minimum weighted sum of 0--1 normalized utility levels over the weight set. For the characterization, we propose two novel axioms, \textit{weak preference for mixing} and \textit{restricted certainty independence}, with normative justifications. Additional results clarify how these axioms capture the utilitarian and egalitarian attitudes of the rules.

econ.TH↗