Toeholds raise acquirer profits but don't reliably scare off rivals: in a multi-round sequential takeover-auction model, equilibrium multiplicity means identical payoffs can coexist with very different deterrence outcomes, so a stake does not mechanically buy preemption.

Main Finding

A toehold reliably raises the toehold-holder’s expected profit (the arithmetic channel) but does not reliably increase deterrence (the “aggressiveness” channel) once the takeover contest is modeled as a genuinely multi‑round, public, alternating auction. The game admits multiple Bayes‑Nash equilibria that agree (to high precision) on the holder’s payoff but differ drastically in behavior: in some equilibria the holder jump‑bids and the rival folds, in others the holder opens cheaply and rivalry persists. Preemptive jump bidding survives even at zero toehold, so the stake itself is not what buys preemption. Solver restarts can converge to different, equally well‑certified equilibria, so reported deterrence values can be a solver‑selection artifact.

Key Points

• Equilibrium multiplicity: independent solver restarts produce profiles that give the toehold‑holder essentially the same profit (agreement to 4 decimals in many cases) but very different conduct. Example (three‑round game): at θ=0.05 two equilibria give holder ≈0.2716 vs 0.2715 but rival‑concession probabilities 0.002 vs 0.333.
• Deterrence channel fails in multi‑rounds: the classical monotone relation “larger toehold → more deterrence” holds in one‑round (and in the one‑round sweep here) but breaks down once the auction has a genuine second round; by three rounds multiplicity and non‑identification appear.
• Jump bidding is endogenous to sequential public play: a preemptive jump‑bid equilibrium exists even with θ=0 (recovering Fishman‑style signalling), so the toehold is not necessary to generate preemption.
• The toehold’s profit effect survives: owning a stake still increases expected payoff because of the arithmetic payoff structure (pay less if you win; sell into winner price if you lose).
• Solver dependence and certification: equilibria are certified as ε‑Nash with ε in the reported runs between ~5×10⁻⁷ and ~8×10⁻⁵. Different converged solutions with similar ε can imply conduct differences much larger than ε, so small ε does not guarantee unique behavioral predictions.
• Methodological safeguard: the author implements a “forced‑opening” (commit-to-open) exact calculation that computes the holder’s payoff for each possible opening bid against a fixed rival strategy; this gives an exact price for preemption conditional on the rival, isolating solver selection as the remaining ambiguity.
• Solver benchmarking: on this domain, a generic policy‑gradient method can reach near‑exact equilibrium; NFSP fails to converge; regret‑based methods (e.g., CFR) work on small enumerated instances; for larger games the paper uses learned‑best‑response exploitability estimates. Code and data are released.

Data & Methods

• Model
  • Two bidders, common‑value target W on a discrete grid (num_values = 3).
  • Each bidder gets k = 1 private noisy signal (signal_noise = 0.5).
  • Bid prices on discrete grid (num_bids = 9; bid_step = 0.375 → prices span [0,3]).
  • Toehold-holder (bidder 0) owns fraction θ ∈ [0,1); studied θ grid includes 0, 0.05, 0.15, 0.20, ….
  • Alternating, ascending auction of up to R rounds (a round = one turn per bidder); R ∈ {1,2,3} studied (so R=1 is the two‑move exchange classical models analyze).
  • On its turn a player may jump to any strictly higher grid price or pass; public history, private signals; perfect recall.
  • Payoffs: if bidder 1 (rival) wins at p, payoff = W − p for winner and θ p for holder (who sells); if holder wins at p, holder payoff = W − (1−θ) p (pays only for fraction not yet owned).
• Solution approach
  • Game encoded as an extensive‑form imperfect‑information game in OpenSpiel.
  • Solved for own‑profit Bayes‑Nash equilibria using fictitious‑play–style best‑response dynamics (compute best reply to opponent’s average strategy; average replies).
  • Equilibria certified by computing NashConv / exploitability (ε): reported runs used 2×10⁶ iterations with tolerances to 1e‑8 and accepted restarts with NashConv ≤ 1e‑4 for tables; certified ε values between ~5e‑7 and 8e‑5.
  • Forced‑opening exact computation: force bidder‑0 to open at each price and compute the exact optimal continuation payoffs (no iterative error) against a fixed rival strategy to measure value of preemption independently of where the solver lands on equilibria.
  • Benchmarks: exact CFR on small enumerated instances, policy‑gradient (PPO/PPG family) near‑exact on the studied instance, NFSP failed to converge; for large instances used learned‑best‑response exploitability estimation.
• Experimental instance (main results): num_values=3, num_bids=9, bid_step=0.375, k=1, signal_noise=0.5, R∈{1,2,3}; each cell solved from 6 restarts. All games/solvers/experiments released: https://github.com/zainnab-sparq/sequential-takeover-auctions

Implications for AI Economics

• Modeling auctions with AI/game solvers
  • Beware equilibrium multiplicity: computed equilibria can yield identical payoffs but very different behaviors; any policy or economic conclusion that depends on predicted conduct must be robustly checked across restarts and selection mechanisms.
  • Certification matters: report exploitability (ε) and, where possible, compute exact conditional payoffs (e.g., forced‑opening) to separate solver selection from structural model predictions.
  • Use multiple solvers / seeds: identical solver hyperparameters with different initializations can converge to different equilibria; policy recommendations should not rely on a single run.
• Policy and market design
  • Regulatory or managerial arguments that hinge on deterrence/bargaining effects predicted by short or sealed models may be fragile when the true process is multi‑round and public. For takeover regulation, expected deterrence benefits of toeholds may be smaller or non‑identified once realistic sequential play is modeled.
  • Mechanism designers should test dynamic, multi‑round versions of mechanisms: short (one‑move) models can create artifacts (e.g., monotone comparative statics) that disappear in longer games.
• Multi‑agent learning and empirical work
  • Training multi‑agent RL systems on mechanism design problems must account for multiplicity and equilibrium selection: different learned equilibria can produce disparate market dynamics even with comparable welfare metrics.
  • The paper provides an open benchmark (and open‑source code) for testing solver robustness and exploitability estimation methods on a non‑trivial economic game.
• Research methodology
  • When using computational solutions to draw economic conclusions, combine iterative solvers with exact (or conditional exact) computations to isolate what is model‑determined vs solver‑determined.
  • Report both payoff certainties and behavioral variability; small ε is necessary but not sufficient to claim unique behavioral prediction in non‑zero‑sum games.

Limitations (as stated in the paper) - Results are from a specific, small instance and parameterization (two players, common value, discrete grid, risk‑neutral, simple signal noise). Generalization to other regimes requires further study. - The model omits several real‑world features that plausibly affect toehold decisions: disclosure thresholds/costs, market price impact during toehold accumulation, reputational/hostility concerns, multiple bidders, continuous bids, and richer private information structures. - Non‑convergence for larger toeholds or larger games is reported in some parameter cells; absence of a reported equilibrium there reflects numerical/intractability limits, not a proven absence of equilibrium. - Equilibrium selection mechanisms (e.g., refinements, equilibrium selection by dynamics, off‑path beliefs) are not modeled; multiplicity remains a theoretical and computational challenge.

Suggested follow‑ups (practical) - Sweep more parameterizations (more signals, continuous price spaces, more bidders) to assess robustness. - Model disclosure cost/price‑impact explicitly to see if procedural/market frictions restore deterrence benefits. - Study equilibrium selection mechanisms (learning dynamics, focal refinements) that could pick among multiple equilibria in practice.

Repository (code + data): https://github.com/zainnab-sparq/sequential-takeover-auctions