Question

Exercise 13.3 Suppose that two mining companies, Australian Minerals Company (AMC) and South African Mines, Inc....

Exercise 13.3

Suppose that two mining companies, Australian Minerals Company (AMC) and South African Mines, Inc. (SAMI), control the only sources of a rare mineral used in making certain electronic components. The companies have agreed to form a cartel to set the (profit-maximizing) price of the mineral. Each company must decide whether to abide by the agreement (i.e., not offer secret price cuts to customers) or not abide (i.e., offer secret price cuts to customers).

If both companies abide by the agreement, AMC will earn an annual profit of $30 million and SAMI will earn an annual profit of $20 million from sales of the mineral. If AMC does not abide and SAMI abides by the agreement, then AMC earns $40 million and SAMI earns $5 million. If SAMI does not abide and AMC abides by the agreement, then AMC earns $10 million and SAMI earns $30 million. If both companies do not abide by the agreement, then AMC earns $15 million and SAMI earns $10 million.

Complete the following payoff matrix using the previous information.

SAMI
Abide Not Abide
AMC Abide million , million million , million
Not Abide million , million million , million

In the absence of a binding and enforceable agreement, AMC’s dominant strategy is to   .

SAMI’s dominant strategy is   .

If the two firms can enter into a binding and enforceable agreement, AMC would chooose to    and SAMI would choose to   .

0 0
Add a comment Improve this question Transcribed image text
Answer #1

According to the question,

SAMI

AMC

Abide

Not Abide

Abide

$30 million, $20 million

$10 million, $30 million

Not Abide

$40 million, $5 million

$15 million, $10 million

a)

In the absence of a binding and enforceable agreement, AMC’s dominant strategy is to   .

SAMI’s dominant strategy is: Not Abide

Reason: Whether SAMI plays ABIDE or NOT ABIDE, the AMC gets the highest pay -off by playing NOT ABIDE.

Dominant Strategy of player 1 over player 2 is to play its strategy which gives him the highest pay-off no matter what other player is playing.

If the two firms can enter into a binding and enforceable agreement, AMC would choose to NOT ABIDE and SAMI would choose to NOT ABIDE.

Reason: SAMI also have NOT ABIDE as its dominant strategy. So they both will choose NOT ABIDE.

Add a comment
Know the answer?
Add Answer to:
Exercise 13.3 Suppose that two mining companies, Australian Minerals Company (AMC) and South African Mines, Inc....
Your Answer:

Post as a guest

Your Name:

What's your source?

Earn Coins

Coins can be redeemed for fabulous gifts.

Not the answer you're looking for? Ask your own homework help question. Our experts will answer your question WITHIN MINUTES for Free.
Similar Homework Help Questions
  • Exercise 13.1 Suppose that two Japanese companies, Hitachi and Toshiba, are the sole producers (i.e., duopolists)...

    Exercise 13.1 Suppose that two Japanese companies, Hitachi and Toshiba, are the sole producers (i.e., duopolists) of a microprocessor chip used in a number of different brands of personal computers. Assume that total demand for the chips is fixed and that each firm charges the same price for the chips. Each firm’s market share and profits are a function of the magnitude of the promotional campaign used to promote its version of the chip. Also assume that only two strategies...

ADVERTISEMENT
Free Homework Help App
Download From Google Play
Scan Your Homework
to Get Instant Free Answers
Need Online Homework Help?
Ask a Question
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 3 hours.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT