[HN Gopher] When negotiating a price, never bid with a round num... ___________________________________________________________________ When negotiating a price, never bid with a round number (2016) Author : mhb Score : 442 points Date : 2022-05-06 09:10 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (hbswk.hbs.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (hbswk.hbs.edu) | ineedasername wrote: | It seems like this is at least slightly backwards in reasoning. | | I think it has less to do with something _sounding_ more precise | than it does with the fact that, in the real world, actual costs | are only rarely a round number. As such, if there 's a | psychological association of non-round numbers sounding more | precise, it's because non-round numbers are actually much more | common. This means if you provide a round number bid, you are in | reality more likely to have given a value that is incorrect. | tromp wrote: | I bid 701k on my house, whose asking price of 645k seemed on the | low side. After winning the bid, I asked what the next-highest | bid was. Turned out to be 699k. I'm so happy they took this | unrounding advice in the other direction :-) | noitsnot wrote: | Or you could use an escalation clause. Go above the highest bid | by a certain dollar amount and cap the limit. | op00to wrote: | For a 2k difference, I hope the sellers evaluated both offers | for contingencies that would complicate the transaction. It | would suck to have to carry a house for an extra month or two | and lose the $2k difference because Offer 701k can't get their | financing together! :) | arunprakash01 wrote: | matwood wrote: | This is how I bought my house back when the market was bad. | We had cash and financing and _didn 't_ have another house to | sell. In my case at the time, it was a pretty decent | discount. | | It also helped the owner had been moved by his job, and was | looking to get out of the house ASAP. | Ensorceled wrote: | Kind of weird to be accusing the commenter of being unable to | get their financing together. | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | I think they're suggesting the seller should understand the | risks of their undertaking. If they didn't do their due | diligence it could end up being the case that the offer | they take was the "worse" offer because the person making | it couldn't back it. | LanceH wrote: | That there are other considerations for a seller aren't | really relevant when the post is about bidding just | higher than a round number to win it. Just as explaining | how you won the bid at 2k lower by having a cash offer | and writing a nice letter and being accommodating with | their move out times is irrelevant to the round number | argument. The story of bidding 701k is clearly in the | realm of "all else being equal", nudging the price up a | relatively insignificant amount can have a significant | effect. | Ensorceled wrote: | Right, but they are replying to the BUYER. The seller | probably doesn't even know what HN is. | | It's just a weird thing to say to the BUYER, "ah, but did | the SELLER look into your finances before they took your | bid" | op00to wrote: | A lot of what's said on HN, in good faith, would sound | totally weird in person. | t_mann wrote: | People seem to forget about that. As a seller, a smooth | transaction is far more valuable to you than a .3% price | difference (and troubles can get way more uncomfortable than | just a delay; you don't want some three-letter agency come | knocking at your door asking questions about your buyer or | where their money came from). Just to be clear, if you're not | going for the best offer for discriminatory reasons that's | definitely not ok (morally and might also get you into legal | trouble), but AML or financing concerns are very valid | reasons. | bell-cot wrote: | > ...you don't want some three-letter agency come knocking | at your door asking questions about your buyer or where | their money came from... | | That does not sound realistic for a normal-homeowner U.S. | real estate sale. There are generally two Realtors and a | title company as professional intermediates in the | transaction. The seller may only know the buyer's name if | the seller spends time reading routine paperwork - which | those intermediates create and handle. Why would the XYZ | agents visit the seller - when the buyer's Realtor, buyer's | bank, and title company have so much more information, | insight, and experience on the matter? | t_mann wrote: | I know a guy who backed out of a real estate deal that | he'd really wanted for that reason (AML). He's a banker | himself, maybe that's why he was a bit more on the edge | wrt AML, but his attorney also recommended it. That was a | normal (ok, nice) one-family home in an affluent suburban | area, not a rock star villa in Beverley Hills. | t0mas88 wrote: | Absolutely, you can bid lower if you add "cash in your | account tomorrow". People are risk adverse, they want a | solid offer that closes immediately. | bitexploder wrote: | When we sold our house ~6 months ago we had about 7 offers | and we took a solid, but middle of the pack offer in terms | of price. Their offer also had strong pre-approval and | financial info and they were the fastest to respond when | the house went on the market. This showed us they wanted | our house in particular more than the other bidders, | especially considering the pre-approval for their loan and | their other financial details. They were still stretching a | bit to buy the house, but they came through and closed in | like 3.5 weeks on a jumbo loan. Did we leave a few dollars | on the table? Probably. Were we happy with the outcome, yep | :) | mellavora wrote: | I used to negotiate really hard. Barely left a drop for | the other side. | | It's a losing strategy. | | I found I was much better off if I could give the other | side real wins. | | Especially in repeated games. | kqr wrote: | What do you think negotiation is? | | Good negotiators find trades that are valuable for both | sides of the table. That's how you negotiate well. | bitexploder wrote: | Game theory says you are leaving something on the table | when you do that. But we are all humans first and | optimized game theory machines second :) | Spellman wrote: | Game theory for repeated games actually says you want to | seem like a fair or generous player so that the other | side doesn't defect and keeps wanting to play the game | with you. | | Single-round best strategy is squeeze and defect. | kqr wrote: | Game theory is great for zero-sum situations. Most | negotiations are not. | whimsicalism wrote: | Financing? In 2022? | tromp wrote: | Indeed; my offer also came with no contingencies... | t_mann wrote: | haha, I wonder who's analyzed that game formally. feels a bit | like the 2/3 game with flipped signs | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guess_2/3_of_the_average). for | real numbers, the unique Nash equilibrium is 0, for finite | precision numbers (which we're effectively dealing with in | reality), the set of Nash equilibria is a bit more interesting. | | but of course, Nash equilibria don't always line up well with | human behaviour. for the 2/3 game there's empirical work | showing that the best strategy against inexperienced players is | betting somewhere around 20 iirc. would be interesting if there | are papers that would give a similar rule of thumb how much of | a "premium" you should offer over the nearest sensible round | number | [deleted] | JackFr wrote: | "What's my cover?" | | Often bond dealers will put out "bid lists" to customers or | other banks of relatively illiquid bonds and ask for | competitive bids for a handful of bonds. Invariably the buyer | with the winning bid on a bond would ask "What's my cover?", | that is "How much more did I pay than the next best bid." | | Importantly, there is no legal obligation to tell the them or | especially to tell them the truth, and invariably the response | would be "a tick" (1/32). The only time I've heard someone say | someone tell the truth with bad news for the customer was "No | cover - you were the only bid." | pc86 wrote: | 701 is just as non-round as 699 | rovr138 wrote: | hence, | | > I'm so happy they took this unrounding advice in the other | direction :-) | | they went up, the others went down. | pc86 wrote: | Ah, I read it as going against the advice! | gpvos wrote: | True, but bidding is also the opposite from offering for | sale, so it makes sense to go up instead of down like you see | with the prices in shops. | Uehreka wrote: | Does it? The point of 699 is to get the highest price | possible while hiding the most-significant digit. The | opposite of that would be signalling a high most- | significant digit while giving as little as possible, which | would be 700. 701 just kind of looks like an esoteric joke. | TonyTrapp wrote: | This also often worked on ebay for me, e.g. if you are willing | to spend 60 $currency on an auction, make your highest bid | 61.52 or something like that. The extra 1.5 | dollars/euros/whatever doesn't really hurt but if there's many | people who'd want to win the action for a similar price as you, | it can be the distinguishing factor. | toss1 wrote: | Yup. Same here for eBay and industrial equipment auctions - | figure out my approximate maximum, consider the nearby round | number, then add something almost trivial like the "1.52" in | your example. While it obviously doesn't help if the bidding | runs up to another level, I've found it helps a surprising | number of times. And if you actually want to win the bidding, | definitely do not skimp to below or at the round figure - | that marginal extra will provide way more value than the cost | (i.e., not losing & spending more time & funds getting the | item elsewhere). | | Now, I wonder how long it will take for auction systems to | start suggesting this type of bid and ruining the strategy so | we need to find another strategy... | TonyTrapp wrote: | > Now, I wonder how long it will take for auction systems | to start suggesting this type of bid and ruining the | strategy so we need to find another strategy... | | To be honest, the immediate issue that is already there in | this very moment is that more and more people no longer | sell their stuff as regular auctions on ebay, but as | completely overpriced fixed-priced offers. This is the main | distinguishing factor for me between using ebay ten years | ago and now. If everyone starts doing that, the best | bidding strategies become useless. | planede wrote: | ebay is basically a second price auction, although not | sealed-bid. I try to follow the strategy to bid my true value | near the end of the auction, this is my only bid. I bid at | the end to minimize the effect my bid has on other bidders. | Then I just let the auto bidder to take over. | frou_dh wrote: | It can sometimes be surprisingly difficult to sit down in | isolation and decide what the ACTUAL maximum you're willing | to pay for an eBay item is. That's part of the whole | "auction" gimmick I guess: there can be an element of wanting | to beat any competitors. | tomxor wrote: | That sounds like a closed bid, where any psychological tactics | against other biders are ineffective... maybe if someone | incorrectly attempts to apply open biding strategies it makes | sense to think of number that would barely outbid those people | (as you did). | | But to be honest I'm not sure what they were attempting to | signal with 699, that's a sales strategy to make the price | appear lower, surely you want it to appear the opposite. I | guess some people copy strategies without understanding them. | jwozn wrote: | It's possible they were only approved up to a limited amount | for a mortgage, and went to the top of that amount, or left | some room for negotiation, and the top minus 5% came out to | 699. Cash could also be a factor here. | | It could also be that the buyer couldn't stomach paying 700 | for the home, so they used the sales strategy on themselves | to justify the price. | Taylor_OD wrote: | It just sounds to me like some person said, "I'm not paying | over 700K for this house." without thinking about how the bid | would come across. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _sounds like a closed bid, where any psychological tactics | against other biders are ineffective_ | | Other bidders aren't making the decision to sell. The seller | is. $701k might deter a seller countering a $700k bid with | $735k (5% more). | gowld wrote: | Other bidders are making the decision whether to increase | their bid. | bialpio wrote: | I don't remember this was how putting an offer for a | house worked. The seller is collecting a bunch of offers | and picks the one they like the most. The offers can | include escalation clause, but it's still more of a | closed auction than the open auction. | xenadu02 wrote: | Bought a house in SF last year. We lost two offers before | securing this place. Both of the lost offers followed | this pattern: | | 1. Set a bid due date 2. Ask three best offers for their | "Best Final Offer" 3. We increased our offer (50k 1st | case which was generous, 150k second case) 4. Lost, move | on to the next showing. In the second case our BFO was | 400k over asking, ultimate winner offered 600k over | asking. Insanity. | | When I sold my house in TX I also did the same: got two | offers almost immediately after putting it on the market, | so we went back to the buyers and asked for BFO. Both | increased their offers. | | Funny enough for our third winning offer we saw it the | day before the Open House (which just started being | allowed again) and put in our offer the day of the Open | House. Won for around 50k over asking. I'm not 100% sure | but from what I gathered an investor who wanted to rent | it as an upstairs/downstairs duplex offered more but they | wanted to sell to another family so they took our offer | without asking for more money. I was very thankful for | that - if they had come back asking for better offers | we'd have walked. | toast0 wrote: | The seller doesn't have to accept one of the offers, they | can ask bidders to rebid or just let it sit on the market | longer. If they got a lot of offers clustered around | $700k, they might take the best (which might not be the | largest, if there's a difference in contingencies), or | they might try to get everyone to rebid, or maybe just | the lower bidders to try to go back and forth. Of course, | asking for a rebid usually means not accepting the firm | bid, and there's a risk of putting off the potential | buyers. | throwawayboise wrote: | If the ask was 645K and the seller got a bid of 700K would | they counter higher? As a buyer I'd tell them to fuck off. | davio wrote: | My realtor says when they have multiple offer and send | out a request for "Best and Final Offers", hardly anyone | ever changes their offer. They seem to be insulted about | being asked for more after bending over backwards by | going over ask, waiving all contingencies, etc. | vkou wrote: | Listing price isn't asking price, it's just advertising | to get your foot in the door. | | If sellers got more money by listing their homes for $1, | they'd be listing their homes for $1. | joedissmeyer wrote: | I had an extremely similar situation when we purchased our home | last year. The home had an estimated valuation of 320k but | because of the ridiculousness of the US housing market bids | were going for upwards of more than 20k higher than the asking | prices. We put in our bid for 341,100 - and we got it. I found | out later that the next highest bid was exactly 340,100. That | extra 1k in our offer made the difference for us. | astura wrote: | The reason someone would accept a slightly lower bid for a | house is the funding source is easier/more likely to go though. | Nothing to do with the roundness of the bid. | | That's assuming the $699k bid isn't entirely fictitious, which | it probably is. Both agents have an incentive to make the buyer | feel good about the transaction and not like they overpaid when | they did. | danielmarkbruce wrote: | Why didn't you bid 702? | r3trohack3r wrote: | Another extremely successful tactic I stumbled upon by accident: | electing a 3rd party decision maker that the other negotiator | can't communicate with. Without the communication channel, the | other negotiator is forced to "sweeten the deal" instead of using | conversational skills. | | I received a job offer while my wife was traveling. The number | was right for me and the job/company was right. But I told the | hiring manager that I needed to talk it through with my wife | first and that I'd need a few days (no context about why I needed | the time or which direction I expected it to go). | | She got home 3 days later. We sat down, talked it through for 10 | minutes, and we were ready to accept. | | In the time between the initial offer and accepting the offer, I | received 3 updated offers with increasing compensation. The final | offer I accepted was $75k higher than the initial offer. | | After experiencing that, I've noticed companies use this tactic | frequently. When you call into a help center, often times the | phone operator "will need to talk to their manager" who is | authorized to make the actual decision. You aren't allowed to | talk to the manager - all communication goes through the | intermediary. I suspect they are aware that this is an effective | negotiating tactic. | nickff wrote: | I agree with you about the benefits of disallowing your | counter-party from communicating directly with the final | decision maker (for the purposes of a negotiation), but I don't | think that's what call centers are doing. Front-line agents | screen a lot of calls by people who have easy-to-resolve | issues, or are just angry.. | TameAntelope wrote: | Hm, that probably won't work against a competent negotiator, | but it makes sense! They invent some nightmare scenario where | they lose you, and they end up bidding against their nightmare, | rather than you. | jandrese wrote: | > electing a 3rd party decision maker that the other negotiator | can't communicate with | | This is why every dealership salesman "has to go talk it over | with his manager" at some point in the negotiation. | jacquesm wrote: | The manager might not even exist. | TZubiri wrote: | This is a matter of taste | | I'd rather work with round numbers and settle things verbally or | in paper than having to use a calculator like a nerd. | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/04/09/facebooks... | ipaddr wrote: | A nerd doesn't use a calculator they can do simple math in | their head. | BolexNOLA wrote: | When I would do estimates for clients I'd regularly say | something along the lines of "devil's in the details but this | job sounds like it's in the $5k-$7.5K range." Then if they | still wanted to play ball, I'd send an actual quote and | contract, which usually was more precise (e.g. total of | $7250.00 or whatever). | | Now when it came to grant writing, I was definitely a little | more prone to trying to make the numbers look specific out the | gate. "I need $10,000" sounds like a gut number regardless of | context, so in a case that really was the estimate (it | happens!) I'd say "$9,850" or something. Usually a 10% | misc/"the unexpected" line item took care of it though. | ryan_j_naughton wrote: | > than having to use a calculator like a nerd. | | Why the hating on nerds? | amrtn wrote: | This is one of the key ideas behind the book Never Split the | Difference by Chris Voss [1]. I found the book quite enlightening | if you peek through all the hostage negotiation stories. | | 1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26156469-never-split- | the... | justinlloyd wrote: | Every time I negotiate a job offer I use something like "two | hundred and sixty two thousand and seven hundred dollars as my | final figure" or "You'd need to increase that compensation by at | least nineteen thousand four hundred dollars." | | The precise number indicates confidence in my research and it | gets past the other person's resistance point. They focus on the | weird number rather the actual round amount. "And four hundred | dollars? _laughs_ I 'm sure we can do that." | | This is also a stronger negotiation tactic than asking for the | whole amount. They offer 180k but you really want 210k? "To make | me feel comfortable I'd need to see that number adjusted by | thirty four thousand and six hundred dollars." | | I am on the fence about numbers that are alliterative. They sound | good, but they let people latch on to the sound which you don't | want. You want them focused on the smaller number and get them to | say "yes" to that, because then their brain won't let them say | "no" after they've thought about it. In their mind, they are | committed to that course of action then. | | Also works for buying anything that you have to haggle over, like | antiques, like the glass fronted antique cabinets we want. Four | of them. $11,200 in total according to the ticket price. "Would | you be willing to throw in all four for $8,760?" Slaps hand on | desk as I say the final number. Sold! Lowest they could go was | $10,500 just moments before. | | Works every time, ninety percent of the time. | triyambakam wrote: | Can you explain alliterative numbers? | justinlloyd wrote: | I don't want thirty-three-thousand dollars. | | I want thirty-two-thousand and nine-hundred dollars. | | I want thirty-four-thousand and one-hundred dollars. | | The human brain is good at picking up on alliteration, you | don't want them focusing on the alliterative number, you want | them focused on the smaller "hundred dollar" number. | | Unless your hundred dollar number is alliterative. I want | thirty-four-thousand and twenty-two dollars. But generally I | only use that when buying antiques. | mywittyname wrote: | I assume they mean numbers that form an alliteration when | spoken. | | So Three Hundred and Twenty-two Thousand, Four hundred Fifty- | Four. | sicromoft wrote: | > Works every time, ninety percent of the time. | | ITYM 91.4% of the time | justinlloyd wrote: | A recent study shows that made up statistics are more | believable if you use a very precise number. And emphasize | the word "point." | | Another study I read some years ago that I can probably never | find again, but I am sure you are already aware of because | you seem interested in this sort of thing, showed that by | quoting the p value as less than 0.1% added unsubstantiated | authority to the numbers. | | Anecdotally though I prefer putting the statement about the p | value before the statistical number. | | Some guys out of Harvard, for their final year thesis that | got some massive government grant demonstrated that | bequeathing knowledge on the other person in the form of | positive attributes, such as already having read a study, | increased the chance that your statements would be believed. | Especially if you use mirroring and nod as you are saying it | so that they nod, and thereby agree, along with you. | | Also, throwing in the fact that you personally disagree with | the study you read, or point out that you think the | methodology employed had some flaws, or that the results were | not as conclusive as the authors claim, adds even more | authority to your citing of the study. | syngrog66 wrote: | related phenom: whenever I see something that is retail priced at | $X.99 I can assume that price was not driven entirely by | organic/natural/production/COB input factors, but rather a | psychological one. and thus they are either overcharging or | undercharging. | troelsSteegin wrote: | The idea is that the bidder's precision signals confidence, and | that low confidence signals amenability to negotiation, and that | negotiation leads to poorer outcomes for the bidder. The HBS | paper they cite on M&A [0] is most interesting, to my view, in | the sense that both players in the M&A "game" are presumably | quantitative. One would think a social psychology effect would be | less so in a game between quants, but their interviews suggest | perceived confidence does matter. The precision signals that the | bidder is confident pricing and negotiating analytically. | | The thing I am curious about in [0] is that they report the bid | price per share, and not (unless I missed it) the asking price. I | don't know how M&A "works". If you and I are both estimating the | value of a good, if our estimates are close it's one thing and if | they are far apart it's another. Are rounders losing because | their estimates are less accurate, relative their counterparty's? | | [0] | https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/16-058_27d73983-... | runarb wrote: | > If you and I are both estimating the value of a good, if our | estimates | | > are close it's one thing and if they are far apart it's | another. Are | | > rounders losing because their estimates are less accurate, | relative their counterparty's? | | I belive it is normally the one with the most optimistic | evaluation that wins. It is called "winner's curse": | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winner%27s_curse | bumby wrote: | > _One would think a social psychology effect would be less so | in a game between quants_ | | Is the presumption that a "quant" bases their decision on logic | alone and that's why they wouldn't be susceptible so social | psychology? Maybe someone with more background can elaborate | but I think behavioral psychology might refute that assumption. | dmurray wrote: | > I don't know how M&A "works". | | In general it's the buyer who names a price first. Take the | current Twitter acquisition, the board weren't trying to sell | the company at all and Elon Musk made an unsolicited bid of | $54.20/share. | | Other times the board may be actively looking for a buyer and | have a price in mind, but it will still typically be up to the | buyer to propose a deal. Not least because the number isn't the | only thing being negotiated: the buyer will likely have a range | of stipulations or conditions attached to the bid so every bid | will look different. | vasco wrote: | > One would think a social psychology effect would be less so | in a game between quants | | One would, but the little I've seen & heard about due | dilligence around M&A (and startup investments for that matter) | tells me it's nothing close to "quant". People decide they want | to buy something, and then try to get it for a good price, and | try to have it so that due dilligence works to reduce the | purchase price, while not actually finding anything to block | the deal. Perhaps in public company acquisitions there's more | sophistication, but I really doubt that. | rapht wrote: | > People decide they want to buy something, and then try to | get it for a good price, and try to have it so that due | dilligence works to reduce the purchase price, while not | actually finding anything to block the deal. Perhaps in | public company acquisitions there's more sophistication, but | I really doubt that. | | That's indeed how it works in my experience. Thay's also why, | as a seller, you want to invest a lot of time making sure | that the due diligence scoresheet will be as clean as | possible - because then, there can be no mechanical way for a | prospective buyer to lower the price: only their belief | against that of other prospective buyers... | noduerme wrote: | I took this to apply to common things like buying a house, | not M&A, but I think when you get a little emotionally | invested in buying something the same concepts apply. | Specifically, there's a phase where you've decided you want | it already, but now you want to get the best price possible. | The people selling it know you already want it, so they have | all the leverage unless you're completely willing to walk | away. In this scenario, setting an arbitrary target price | makes sense, but only if you're completely unwilling to | negotiate. | xenadu02 wrote: | > People decide they want to buy something, and then try to | get it for a good price, and try to have it so that due | dilligence works to reduce the purchase price, while not | actually finding anything to block the deal | | Here's a sales secret: this is how most people and businesses | buy things most of the time. Key stakeholders (which may not | be the big boss) decide they want something then find reasons | to justify it. They'll only abandon the deal if there are | true blockers either on price or features. And by "big boss" | that can be a parent, spouse, Director, CxO, Board, etc. The | buyer decides they want a thing and will set about convincing | whoever needs convincing. The more you can make them engage | emotionally the harder they'll go on securing approval. | | If you're a startup selling to companies have one or two | impressive "wow" features to make people decide emotionally | they want your product, even if they don't seem like | important "bread & butter" core features. It makes the rest | of the process a lot easier. | | Same goes for selling to consumers or even app | videos/screenshots: sell people on your product emotionally | within the first 5 seconds if you can. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _it 's nothing close to "quant"_ | | This is accurate. | | For public companies, the quant part has been calculated by | the market. Everything that remains is, almost by definition, | in the realm of the irrational, unknowable and/or political | (usually at the Board level, though government factors could | also be involved). | sitkack wrote: | > quant part has been calculated by the market | | And then you go on to say "everything that remains is ... | in the realm of the irrational", everything you have laid | out is in the realm of the irrational. Including the | market. | skriticos2 wrote: | Well, the market does follow a set of rules (buy-sell | pressure), but it's not necessarily reflective of actual | value of a stock. More a heard consensus (which is why we | get bubbles). | | The other side is also not necessarily irrational, but | much less deterministic. For example, there is the | question if the board even wants to sell, if they like | the potential buyer, if they have a vision for the | company that aligns with the buyer and some non- | tangibles. Charisma projection and speech-craft | definitely has an influence too, as has track record. | | The more factors are in alignment with the board, the | closer the price is to the stock value. The more hostile | the negotiation, the more it moves away. | skriticos2 wrote: | PS: in the case of Musk and Twitter, which I believe | started this discussion.. | | It's Musk, so you can throw out the book. He just takes | the stock value and then tweaks it so that the offer | contains 420 because obviously that's his shtick since | some time. | | Wonder if the SEC will ever live that one down. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Musk, so you can throw out the book_ | | Musk's Twitter takeover is a textbook LBO transaction. | The negotiations were unorthodox. But that's been true of | LBOs since the 80s. Usually the bankers were the ones up | to the antics; this time it's the principal. | bjelkeman-again wrote: | LBO, Leveraged Byout. I had to look it up. "A leveraged | buyout (LBO) is the acquisition of another company using | a significant amount of borrowed money (bonds or loans) | to meet the cost of acquisition." | spoonjim wrote: | Textbook except for the size of course. Very few LBOs are | above $5 billion. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _it 's not necessarily reflective of actual value of a | stock_ | | An econ 101 trope about the value of stock ties it to the | value of future dividends. This is technically correct, | but practically useless. You don't get those dividends | unless the Board gives them to you, and investing on the | hope that a Board throws you candy is just a hair short | of stupid. | | The real enforcer of value in the markets is M&A. In M&A, | you become the board. If there are cash flows, you can | take them. If there aren't, you can't. You're playing a | game of looking for things the market and/or management | missed or couldn't access. Furthermore, the moment that | process starts, the moment negotiations become public, | smart people focus on the stock to anticipate those | terms. If they think another buyer could see cash flows | you don't, they'll bid it up and the Board will take the | signal (as will those other buyers and _their_ bankers); | if they don 't, if post announcement the stock keeps | trading below the bid, the Board will take the hint. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _you go on to say "everything that remains is ... in | the realm of the irrational", everything you have laid | out is in the realm of the irrational. Including the | market._ | | This discussion devolves into useless semantics if we | rely on colloquial definitions. In case it wasn't clear, | the predictable, explicable parts of a public company's | value are generally priced in by the market. (If they're | not, we're in a chaotic environment and nobody's doing | classic M&A.) It's the other stuff, which we put in a | bucket titled "irrational," M&A bankers address. | | This is why the cash-flow models bankers prepare are | largely performative. Every buyer builds their own | models. And most of the time, the market does the | modeling for them. The part the market can't model, the | things one seeks to do with control, is the main | attraction. | | I caveated the comment because private company M&A is | different. There, the negotiation _does_ focus on | valuation. Quality of assets. Current cash flows. | Strength of contracts. Discount rates tied to the actual | cost of financing versus an MBA model. While public | company M &A dresses financial strengths and weaknesses | in the language of partnerships, private company M&A | seeks to address political issues ( _e.g._ a senile | founder with voting control) through talk of | fundamentals. | bombcar wrote: | I also suspect that sometimes the bid price is a signal to | others besides the company being bought - and a number that's | easy to digest might help in media, etc. | Loic wrote: | You have exactly the same effect in play if somebody calls you | and ask how long it takes for you to arrive to a meeting point. | If you answer 10 minutes, it will be seen as an approximation | between 10 and 20 minutes. If you answer 8 minutes, it will be | considered as 8 +/- 1 minute. | | This is really impressive, this works each time. Especially if | you are on ski slopes and you have two groups trying to meet at | a given point. 10 minutes == "We can do another run or two". 8 | minutes == "We need to pay attention, they are coming right | now!" | gowld wrote: | Another good approach is to explicitly say what you mean: | "5-10min", "10-15min", or "8-10min" | dr_orpheus wrote: | But its hard to extend this one to prices and bids. If you | give a range of money, people will come back and say "but | you said you could do it for [the lowest possible number | you gave]" | jdavis703 wrote: | The answer is to make it clear what the tradeoffs are. | For example it could be more cash and less stock. Or | lower price but longer lead time. Just offering a range | without any other variables would be foolish, and | complicated negotiations usually have more factors than | just price. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Although your answer may be closer to the truth, this paper | suggests using a fixed number not divisible by 1 or 5. So, | for example, 6 minutes and 23 seconds. | Eduard wrote: | The paper doesn't make any claims regarding interval or | ranges whatsoever, only single values. | cwmoore wrote: | To replace that with saying 383.512 seconds would signal | confidence in the time of a future event, but not in a | speaker who is scheduling a meeting with another human. | pavel_lishin wrote: | > _If you answer 10 minutes, it will be seen as an | approximation between 10 and 20 minutes. If you answer 8 | minutes, it will be considered as 8 + /- 1 minute._ | | Unless you're talking to a child who has not yet internalized | this distinction! My kid frequently asks exactly how much | time has passed, and I sometimes have to explain that I don't | mean five minutes _literally_ , but figuratively. | Terretta wrote: | Per U.S. Census data, relatively few people have a commute in | the 5 minute block from 25 to 30 minutes. Only 20-25, and | 30-35. The data shows a very clear valley in the 25-30 block. | | Suggests people think of their commute as 20 plus a few | minutes but rounding down optimistically, or think of it as | almost 30 minutes rounding up angrily, never think of it as | 27 minutes. | | No writeup of the commute data has mentioned this phenomenon, | which I suspect was exactly the same thinking you describe. | btilly wrote: | Do you have a link to this data? | osrec wrote: | That's a great example, with the arrival time estimates. I | wonder whether this effect itself would diminish as more | people get to know about it... | mbreese wrote: | And yet, how often are prices at a store still quoted as | $4.95? or $10.99? We all know what the psychology of | pricing is, and yet it still persists. People are strange | and illogical creatures. | dymk wrote: | Those are "round" numbers by social convention, and our | psychology rounds them down. | iso1631 wrote: | I think I automatically round 10.99 to 10, 9.99 to 10, | 4.95 to 5, etc. | V-2 wrote: | The first case is bizarre to me, unless that's a typo | dvtrn wrote: | Keeping with the arrival time estimate, and I'm not sure if | this answers your question | | But I live in a very dense city (Chicago), it's become | almost "set your watch to it" reliable that not only are | estimates more reliable from friends who live here when | they say "I'll be there in 8 minutes", they're also | seemingly more likely to offer such a precise estimate | because they know the area, light timings, and traffic | patterns and that certain kind of behavior found among | drivers in this city. | | Compared to when I have friends from out of town renting a | car they'll tell me "GPS says we'll be there in 10 minutes" | I instinctively add another 10 and it's never failed that | they'll show up and go "that was a long 10 minutes!" And I | just smile. | hinkley wrote: | I lived in a part of town that was in the process of | infill so a lot of people "knew" it without really | knowing it. | | It was practically a given that the first time someone | visited they would arrive 15-20 minutes later than they | estimated. It seemed like an area without a lot of | traffic but it was in that uncanny valley where there's | enough traffic where you catch a lot of lights, and you | aren't turning right on red because there are people in | front of you, and you may or may not make the left turn | light on the first cycle. | | Also the whole city is so tuned for one direction of | traffic that it takes longer to go across the narrow | dimension than the long one. | | There was a movie theater that I found I could reliably | get to faster on a Friday evening if I drove five blocks | past it and doubled back, the lights were that screwed | up. 15 blocks faster than 5. | jhgb wrote: | ...or knew about octal numbers. (Does it even work on old | Unix people?) | t_mann wrote: | The way M&A usually works is that all sides have | bankers/advisers who run Excel spreadsheet calculations that | come out with different precise numbers depending on a couple | of scenario parameters. Those are put on PowerPoint slides and | presented to management. The decision whether to go with one of | the precise numbers (or some aggregate thereof), or some close | by round number has more to do with bidding tactics, game | theory and psychology, so I think this research actually quite | interesting. | | If you're a manager involved in some bidding process, what this | article is telling you could be somewhat loosely rephrased as | "use the Excel numbers rather than the ones that stuck in your | head after the presentation", which is interesting advice. | gowld wrote: | If your Excel is done properly, you wouldn't have the sigfigs | for a precise number. | t0mas88 wrote: | I've seen a few M&A experts run their spreadsheets and then | the negotiations happened. In reality 90% of the outcome was | determined by how competitive the bidding was and how willing | the target company seemed to walk away. All spreadsheets went | out the window in the first phase. | noduerme wrote: | >> If you and I are both estimating the value of a good, if our | estimates are close it's one thing | | Yeah, if I say EUR193,345 and they say EUR1 million, that last | five euro would look a little stupid. This is a scenario where | already being close to knowing their closing figure is | everything. | | The proper analysis here would be: What's the chance you get | your <1% edge versus losing a deal by being stuck on a number | too early? | [deleted] | m3kw9 wrote: | Like how Elon Musk bid 54.20 for twitter? | prasadjoglekar wrote: | I think that was as much a 420 reference as an un-rounded | price. | londons_explore wrote: | And rounding to the nearest cool reference is just as bad as | a round number according to this paper... | ryeights wrote: | I would argue it might help the buyer, if the seller | believes they're committed to the joke... | lvl102 wrote: | I hate these hypotheticals on negotiations. They don't work | unless you come across a "rational" player and the world is full | of irrational people. For example, one lowish starter bid could | cut you out of the whole process. Now what? You followed a stupid | MBA advice and you shot yourself in the foot. Great job! | xadhominemx wrote: | Sounds like you could use some MBA coursework | lvl102 wrote: | Sounds like you could use some game theory lessons. | matwood wrote: | This strategy works because people are irrational. The round | number vs. not round number are not that different, but they | are perceived differently b/c we're all a bit irrational. | | Pricing is a tricky process of course, but you also shouldn't | be over paying or under charging if selling. It's perfectly ok | to get cut out of the process in those cases. | Zenbit_UX wrote: | I personally think it's rational to perceive a round number | and a precise number differently. I suggest the problem isn't | that we're all a bit irrational, but that we try to apply | reason to an irrational process. | simmerup wrote: | You have to be willing to walk away to get a good deal. If | you're not willing or can't take the risk then these strategies | aren't going to be in your interest | the_gipsy wrote: | There is information asymmetry in negotiations, you should try | to take advantage of it, but it's never a certain science. | 10x-dev wrote: | Anecdata: I bid 90% of asking price on a house a month ago. | Owner got offended (as I was told by my agent) and didn't | counter. He then lowered the asking price to 93% of the | original. Still didn't counter even though his new asking price | wasn't far from what I had offered initially. House is now | pending. | mhb wrote: | I think this idea of a seller being "offended" is far more a | fiction in a buyer's mind than actual reality. Think about | when you are selling something. Does a too low initial offer | offend you and make you unable to evaluate a more reasonable | subsequent offer by that person? | [deleted] | d--b wrote: | Mmh it really depends on the situation. The apartment I paid was | listed at 985kEUR. High confidence? Maybe... | | I made an offer at 800kEUR. The broker literally insulted me. We | settled at 825k. | moomin wrote: | I wonder if the markets realized that "54.20" was, in fact, a big | round number. | monktastic1 wrote: | Tangential, but it bothers me that the technical definition of | "precision" is often at odds with its common usage. | | Someone who is very precise in their measurements and measures | Mount Everest to be 29,000 ft has a figure that is less "precise" | than that of someone who is sloppy and arrives at 29,001 ft | (though both are, of course, less precise than the person who | comes up with 29,000.482712...). | | https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_(numbers) | anonu wrote: | This reminds me of one of my favorite websites: | https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations | ryan_j_naughton wrote: | There is a confounding variable (omitted variable bias) here that | could explain the entire thing, namely, those who used precise | numbers likely ACTUALLY DID use a model and/or more quantitative | analysis to determine that price. | | Similarly, those who chose hole number prices likely did NOT use | a model to determine that exact price (as the odds of a model | resulting in a whole number price is extremely unlikely). | | Thus, you cannot disentangle the effects of the precise bidders | actually being more quantitative from the perception of them | being more quantitative by the seller. | | To properly disentangle this, you would need an experiment (or | potentially quasi-experiment) where you randomize either adding | some noise to the bid for some bids and rounding other bids to | whole dollar amounts. | danuker wrote: | Using a model is risky, because there are tons of things you | have to price. | | Is it noisy outside? Is it warm in the winter? summer? Does | sunlight pose problems (too much? not enough?) What taxes are | there? Is there an HOA? Is the town growing? Is it in a | walkable neighborhood? What amenities are nearby? What color is | the counter? | | Insufficient models was the bane of Zillow, which paid for it | dearly. | | https://www./live/2021/11/02/business/news-business-stock-ma... | vivegi wrote: | Once upon a time the company I worked for had a client, a private | company that we provided business services. Lets say we provided | 5 different services for this client and had been doing so for | several years and our client was quite satisfied with our | services. The client was acquired by a PE firm and one of the | first things that the acquiring PE firm did was to get all their | vendors to bid in a realtime reverse auction. It was a standard | process that the PE firm executed on all their portfolio | companies post-acq. | | Of the 5 services that we provided to the client, there was one | service that was very demanding. Suffice to say, it took us | several years to get it off the ground and stabilize it. All that | knowledge and experience made us a valuable extension of the | client. We both had the battle scars. This service was only 10% | of the total billing from this client, but very high maintenance, | highly visible and operationally very challenging. | | When it came to the reverse auction, we dropped our price on this | service marginally and held our price on all other services. | | A feature of the realtime reverse auction was that we would know | our rank amongst competitive bidders on where our bid stood. So, | it was nerve-wracking to know that we are not the L1 bid. | | We retained all our services at the pre-bid volume levels at the | conclusion of the reverse auction and continued to grow this | client account for another 5+ years. While this is a single | anecdote and may not apply in all scenarios, complex bids don't | always come down to price. | noud wrote: | I bid 6793.75 euros for my new bathroom as my final offer a | couple of years ago. You should have seen the confused face of | the sales person. | | ...he accepted my offer. :) | stavros wrote: | He was probably confused because he was hoping for 6793.76 and | was on the fence. | rootusrootus wrote: | I did something similar when selling an item on craigslist. I was | having trouble with lowballers and flakes, so I relisted the item | but gave it a weirdly specific price. Something like $347. Maybe | it was dumb luck, but I had a buyer come pick it up a few hours | later and they didn't try to negotiate down the price at all. | | Could've just been a coincidence. But it did get their attention, | for sure, because after they gave me the money, they asked why I | was so specific on the price. Got an appreciative chuckle when I | told them the truth. | jalgos_eminator wrote: | That's funny because when buying things from Craigslist I try | to round the price to an even number since the transaction will | always be cash and few people have enough small bills to make | change. | | For instance if the asking is $125, I'll offer $120 since I | don't want to find a $5 bill or make the person find change for | the extra $20 bill I'd have to use. I've even rounded up a few | times to make it easy, though some people have been so | insistent that they even resorted to giving me quarters. | rootusrootus wrote: | Yeah, that makes sense. If they'd have offered me a round | number anywhere near my asking price I'd have just said yes, | for much the same convenience reason you cited. But in this | particular instance they had Venmo so just paid me the exact | amount. | bstar77 wrote: | In the early 2000's I was planning to buy a specific car. The | salesman told me not to even think about for getting it under | $20k. I came back the next day and told a different sales guy | that I wanted the car for $16,750. He came back from the | manager's room after a minute or so and said "lets do the | paperwork". | | I always wondered what part of my tactic worked the best... I | wasn't sure if it was setting the oddly specific price or my | terseness or maybe both. | bumby wrote: | I've personally had more success in salary negotiation with | using oddball numbers. I think the presumption on the managers | side is either 1) I have a specific offer from another | potential employer or 2) I've calculated to the dollar how much | I think the job switch is worth. (The latter is usually true, | but with large error bounds). | | I wonder if the second salesman assumed you had already shopped | around and found a car of similar price to your offer. | bstar77 wrote: | The car was a Honda Insight... the original one from 2001, so | there was nothing else like it. I think they probably felt | only select customers were going to be interested in that | niche car and that I had probably done my research so best to | just accept and get rid of this weird inventory. | bumby wrote: | Sorry, I meant a similar car of the same make/model. I.e., | another Honda Insight from another dealer. | | FWIW, I've always loved the Insight and wish they made more | of them :-) | bstar77 wrote: | Me too, getting 90mpg was no joke. I would fill up once a | month with a 2 hour daily commute. | theonething wrote: | I'm car shopping now but it's the worst time to get one. My | wife's car is dying so we have no choice. | | My friend who's family runs a dealership says that just getting | MSRP is good right now. In my negotiations I got MSRP plus the | stupid dealer installed "options" which apparently are | mandatory now. They were asking $34,000 out the door total | price and I got them to knock off $2000. | | Did I get a good deal? Who knows? I need a car and I'm getting | it. | stevehawk wrote: | "Good" is such a relative term right now. It's really more of | a "You didn't get screwed." Everyone is paying dealer options | unless they're buying one of the few cars that isn't selling. | Same with MSRP if not MSRP + Dealership Owner's Next Vacation | markup. | jacquesm wrote: | I found buying new cars is an excellent waste of money. Young | cars repossessed or returned early from a lease are good | value, as are cars that are about 5 years old with a hair | over 100K miles on them. That psychological 100K is enough to | knock a good bit off the value. | mikemac wrote: | Car dealerships are a black box; feel like so much depends on | timing and where they are with their sales numbers for the | month. | | I tried to lease a car last year and after some research knew | what was a fair price for a well stocked model; when I | suggested a range one sales manager laughed at me. | | I emailed a finance manager at a different dealership with | exactly what I wanted and told him I could get all of the | paperwork done in the next hour if it was a good fit. They | agreed and dropped the car off in my driveway a few days later. | seabird wrote: | That's just a car dealership. They're not necessarily out to | screw you, but they _are_ trying to make as much money as they | can, so you can 't (and you didn't) let yourself get pushed | around. The first salesman thought you would buy at $19-20k, | and the second one didn't (or he just wanted the sale, or his | boss told him to just get rid of the car, or he wanted to scalp | the sale from the first guy, etc). | mindvirus wrote: | This reminds me of a story of Mount Everest - apparently the | people who did the first measurement had it come in at exactly | 29,000 feet - so they said 29,002 to make it sound like they | weren't making it up. Official measurement now is 29,032 feet. | thehappypm wrote: | It's getting taller too which is crazy | 988747 wrote: | I cannot find the reference right now, but I read somewhere that | when people are on vacation they prefer round prices so they | don't have to count change. So, if you are running a gift shop in | some popular tourist destination pricing something $5 is better | than pricing it $4.95. | | Edit: apparently it is not just tourists: https://www.strategy- | business.com/blog/The-Psychology-of-Pri... | pflenker wrote: | This advice is also part of the book "Never split the difference" | by Christopher Voss, a highly recommended book for anyone looking | to improve their negotiation skills. | leeoniya wrote: | i found a lot of his advice somewhat silly. | | why would you come up with some to-the-$1,000 asking price in a | salary negotiation rather than just asking for 30% more than | you'd be okay with? | | i know he has another version where at some point in the | negotiation (rather than the beginning), you whip out some very | precise number, but that would immediately strike me as a | psychological play rather than the honesty/thoughtfulness it's | designed to convey. | | in a different situation it's certainly more effective, like | when requesting a budget/expense for a specific project, since | it signals you've done the math and not just throwing inflated | approximations. | asurty wrote: | I think the core ethos of the book is every negotiation is | different and so each tip/technique is just that - a | tip/technique you can add to your tool belt and use when the | context lends itself to it. | | The book also mentions anchoring should usually be avoided in | negotiations and instead it recommends you focus on the non | monetary value points each party can exchange. | | There is actually a section on negotiating salary and IIRC it | recommends you provide a range where the bottom of the range | is where you are hoping to land. | | So you are correct - I would never say in a salary | negotiation that I need an exact dollar amount as it might | make me love petty unless I prefaced it with 'I have a family | to feed and a roof to put over our heads'. | pflenker wrote: | I was able to successfully navigate tricky negotiation | situations using his advice, but salary increases were never | a part of it. I believe salary increases should reflect | professional skills and not negotiation skills, and I avoid | companies which reward negotiation skills with higher salary. | | I have always used the "imprecise offer" somewhere in the | middle, and it usually worked out great. | Jiro wrote: | >I avoid companies which reward negotiation skills with | higher salary. | | This is like saying "I avoid companies run by humans". | BeetleB wrote: | Terrible book with some gems: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21769264 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19059590 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25309966 | goostavos wrote: | I thought the book was great! It's also the only book on | negotiation that I've ever read (aside from Art of the Deal | out of curiosity, which isn't actually about negotiations at | all!), so take my views with a grain of salt. | | If you ignore the stuff your linked comments complain about, | which is largely him having an obnoxious writing style and | literal too-cool-for-(Harvard)-school attitude (them nerds | don't know nothin'!), I found tons of the actual content | immediately applicable with lots of return. | | The thing I absolutely loved about the book was shifting your | mindset away from negotiations being these big scary | stressful standoffs with winners and losers, and towards them | being lighthearted, possibly even fun(!) shared problem | solving sessions. That mental shift, and having a box of | tools to use, makes navigating tricky situations so much | easier. | | It also make me look forward to previously stressful | situations. For instance, I recently bought a new car, which | is a process I usually loathe. However, using all the tricks | from the book, I was able to negotiate down a crazy amount | off our car with the main approach being the "how can I do | X?" from the book. There was some back and forth, some | huffing and puffing about how it couldn't be done ("we're | already taking a loss on this!"), but eventually, after | numerous showy checks with the management, we agreed on a | price. I legit had a blast the whole time cause the mental | state the entire time was "can we solve this problem | together?" | kqr wrote: | Another thing in that book that's helped me is the suggestion | to make your first bid 65 % of the maximum price you're ready | to offer. Second bid 85 %, then 95 %, then your maximum offer. | | It's not that these numbers are magical in any way, it's just | that for me it's convenient to have a rule ready so I don't | have to expend mental energy on what numbers to say, and I can | instead use that energy on coming up with how to present them. | | Knowing the steps I'll take to the final offer ahead of time | also makes me slightly more comfortable entering such a low bid | to start out with. | qznc wrote: | "What are your salary expectations?" | | "$153,845.64" | | Anybody ever tried that? | exegete wrote: | From the article: | | >That said, he warns that a bid too precise may make the bidder | look suspicious, or even ridiculous, to the recipient. Bidding | $1.03 million for a house is one thing. Bidding $1,033,235.83 | is another. | | >If a bid is too precise, it may strike as strategic to the | recipient, rather than being driven by superior information," | Keloharju says. "This may lead the recipient to rethink whether | the bid is really informed." | | So I think $153k is an ok level of precision. $153,900 is | starting to be "too precise". $150k is definitely too round. | It's all a personal judgement call on how precise one should go | but I think it's easy to see what is too extreme (with cents in | it in this case). | jghn wrote: | Not quite,but after reading about this effect years ago I | started asking for $153,000 instead of $150,000 or $155,000. I | can never know for sure that this is the reason I got what I | asked for, but I've always gotten what I asked for. | bumby wrote: | Not to the penny, but usually to a non-normative hundred. So | maybe something like $153,800 instead of $150k. That has worked | surprisingly well for me (someone who didn't know how to | negotiate well early in my career and it probably set me back | quite a bit). | FatalLogic wrote: | That extra $0.64 could lose you the job, because you'd appear | to be insane and obsessed with tiny unimportant details | op00to wrote: | My old boss loved to calculate our salaries (increases always | in percentages) so the actual dollar amount would contain our | birthday or be $123456 or whatever. | pc86 wrote: | Oh so they were _actually_ insane, got it :) | op00to wrote: | His reasoning was 5% is just as arbitrary as 5.02% or | whatever he would do. Also it really pissed off finance, | which you rarely get to do with impunity. I miss him. My | new boss is more concerned with my haircut and beard than | anything else. | glouwbug wrote: | Then shake a leg and get a 6% promotion | Pete-Codes wrote: | yeah, birthday date is a clever trick to add in a number | op00to wrote: | Sadly I wasn't born on 99/99/99. | stavros wrote: | It's not too late for that! | nonameiguess wrote: | We're currently on Kubernetes version 1.23.4 and I'm trying | _very hard_ to convince people we can 't upgrade until it | hits 2.34.5. | contravariant wrote: | Looks like you were too late to convince Kubernetes to | deviate from semantic versioning and instead move to | Knuth versioning with the version getting asymptotically | closer and closer to 100/9^2. | tsukurimashou wrote: | I will | andi999 wrote: | add one more digit. Every ten years they need to pay another | cent. | Sankra wrote: | Not with that exact number, but on my last job change my demand | was equally precise. Although we reached an agreement, my new | boss said that this was "an oddly specific number" and she'd | never experienced that before. | noirbot wrote: | Did you have a particular reason for requesting that number? | Or just a bargaining tactic. Would you have been ok if they | just rounded it to a clean number? | MauranKilom wrote: | https://xkcd.com/2597/ | dazc wrote: | There was similar thinking in retail not so long ago when prices | started to change from something like 3.99 to 3.77, for example. | I don't see this so much now which suggests it didn't work out as | expected? | NikolaNovak wrote: | Some retailers in Canada use the two penny/cent digits as a | code. I.e. Something like.99 is regular price,.77 is manager's | special,.88 is corporate sale. | Frost1x wrote: | This happens in the US as well from what I understand and I | always found it an interesting testament to margin size of | the product when you're selling something at a mass scald and | can afford shaving 10 or 20 cents off the product price | point, overloading the value to codify it internally. | | Seems like there are cheaper ways, but maybe the price cuts | back on secondary labeling or sell association, ultimately | saveing personnel time, which ultimately costs less than | those expenses. | dr-detroit wrote: | gumby wrote: | Sometimes shops use the low order bits to encode metadata, e.g. | "this is the 20% off price" or "this is ineligible for the sale | (discount) going on now". | | Thus $15.20 vs $15.40 | DFHippie wrote: | I was at a craft fair in Tennessee once long ago. People were | selling hand-turned bowls, fountain pens, textiles, pottery, | etc. There was one seller whose products were quite different: | bowls and things roughly hewn out of wood with the bark on and | such. I think he styled himself as, and perhaps was, an | Appalachian mountain man from eastern Tennessee (this was in | Nashville, which is a bit like Las Vegas). I wasn't in the | market for what he was selling, or really anything, but another | oddity of his goods was the precision of their prices: $41.13 | or $15.02 and so forth. Everything else had a price that ended | in 0, 5, or 9, and generally it was a number of dollars with no | cents, maybe just two significant digits. This gave me the | impression he had very exact knowledge of his own costs and | profit margin but very little sense of the pricing customs of | craft fairs, or really pricing in general. Anyway, this is just | an anecdote. His pricing didn't seem to be making him more | prosperous, but he is one of the few things I remember from | that day. | Archelaos wrote: | In 1985 I visited the Pergamon Museum in East Berlin. The | price for a pot of coffee in the cafeteria was something like | DDM 2.67. | mellavora wrote: | Isnt' DDM 2.67 just 1.00 in Ishtar Crowns? I'm sure they | were just trying to maintain consistency across the museum. | | It's a great museum by the way. | foodevl wrote: | Maybe the prices were calculated to make post-sales-tax | amounts round numbers? That's been the case when I've seen | weirdly precise store pricing in the past. | bombcar wrote: | Sam Walton hated .99 for some reason, so Walmart prices are | never that. | rascul wrote: | That may have been true at one time but nowadays there is a | lot of .99 in Walmart. | raverbashing wrote: | Well, maybe because it's one of the lowest forms of making | stuff look cheaper | | I'd wish Apple cut the crap on that, it makes them look like | you're buying stuff from a used car lot. | bombcar wrote: | Which is strange because you'd think the $1000 would make | it look like a higher class item. | | You'll never see decimals in a fancy restaurant for | example. | HPsquared wrote: | ASDA (subsidiary of Wal-Mart) fuel stations in the UK always | have the fuel price ending in .8 (e.g. 175.8p per litre) | while pretty much EVERY other fuel station always has prices | ending in .9. | | It gives a feeling that they're slightly cheaper than the | competition, I think. Even if the more significant digit is | more expensive sometimes, people don't remember that part as | much because it varies from day to day. | mytailorisrich wrote: | The problem at the moment is that '175'... I don't think | people bother too much about .8 vs .9 | twelve40 wrote: | ...until someone else comes along and offers .7 : ) so the | race to the bottom begins | hmate9 wrote: | It's not a race to the bottom because what Asda is doing | is pricing it 175.8 when others price it 174.9 | Mordisquitos wrote: | I assumed they meant a race to the bottom in terms of | decimal digits only. Another petrol station could price | it at 175.7, or maybe even 176.7 if the illusion of being | cheaper than ASDA still works. | Mordisquitos wrote: | And, once the race to the bottom reaches _.0_ , the | petrol station operator that stuck to _.9_ is back in the | lead, again regardless of the significant digits! It | would be a bit of a retail version of the Shepard tone: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_tone | munchenphile wrote: | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rnso4nfdM9w | ak_111 wrote: | You tend to see this a lot in LinkedIn profiles: "Increased CTR | by 142%". | frereubu wrote: | Surely this has something to do with the anchoring effect: | | - If you offer PS210,000, it's a signal that you're looking at | increments of PS10,000. | | - If you offer PS211,000 it's a signal that you're looking at | increments of PS1,000. | | - If you offer PS211,000.01 then it signals that you're taking | the piss. | | I'm sure there's something about confidence and accuracy in there | too, but I would expect anchoring effects to be stronger in those | contexts. | t_mann wrote: | I guess a "precise" number would be more something like | 210,980.55 than 211,000.01 | jjri wrote: | Don't forget, PS210,999.99 is a bargain. | whitesilhouette wrote: | And something to do with taxation. | whoopdedo wrote: | When you show me the price in GBP I assume the tax has | already been added. That's only a thing for the US. | thereddaikon wrote: | In the US, sales tax is handled on the state level not | the national level. So it varies wildly. | afiori wrote: | the store is able to compute it on the fly at the | register, so they can also print price stickers* (for | products that don't have the price on them) | | showing prices without vat should be banned for sales | that are never business-to-business. | | * unless they also vary wildly by the week | bialpio wrote: | To expand on that: it's on state, county, and city level | - I believe all those jurisdictions can introduce a sales | tax. | [deleted] | clb92 wrote: | Or if it's business-to-business, at least if the UK is | anything like here in Denmark in that regard. | ouid wrote: | It's a heuristic about the complexity of the number. If I have | some idea bout the ways that you can come up with numbers, then | the vast majority of numbers of low complexity were arrived at | with short programs, or through rounding. Short programs tend | to be heuristics themselves, and indicate estimates, and thus | wide implicit error bars. Often even wider than the reported | significance. | | As long as there are still people negotiating this way, then it | is rational to assume that people negotiate this way some | proportion of the time and account for it in your own strategy. | It's probably not stable in general. | frereubu wrote: | I get what you're saying, but my point would be that the | rounder the number you use, the more you're anchoring your | negotiation to the rounding point, and the metric being used | here seems to be the outcome of the negotiation. If someone | says their price is PS45,765 then the anchor is to the single | pound. If someone says their price is PS45,000 then the | anchor is to PS1,000s. I think there are both things - | complexity and anchoring - at work, but I'd say the anchoring | to the rounding point is actually most salient here and don't | think it's necessarily much to do with perception of | complexity, as attractive as that might be as an explantion. | acchow wrote: | The study looks into 'investors who offer "precise" bids for | company shares' | | But then the article opens with 'anyone negotiating to buy a car, | a house, or even a company' | | Seriously? | coward123 wrote: | I work in a field where we are negotiating over price daily. We | often are using "weird" numbers because we know it will push our | price just over a competitors, and because the sellers will find | our number psychologically "interesting" over those competitors. | We also make sure our escalation numbers are not "normal" for the | same basic reasons. It has worked well for me, though I'm not | sure it would make as much of a difference if my competitors were | the kind of people who read articles on hbs.edu. | pessimizer wrote: | The same thing is true with lists (listicles) of principles or | rules that are even (or lucky) numbers. If somebody is advocating | 5, 7, 10, or 20 principles for doing something, I assume at best | that they added or dropped marginal ones to get the round number, | and at worst that they just had a remit to do 10 rules for | _something_ and were just winging it. | galoisscobi wrote: | Came across 37 signals yesterday (https://37signals.com/) which | might be a nice exception to this. | | I say might because they count from 0, so technically it's 38 | signals ;). | troupe wrote: | The funny thing is that the name 37 signals comes from a | count of the signals from space have unexplained origins. So | they picked their name long before they came up with that | list that just happens to fit. (With one extra by starting at | 0) | gowld wrote: | > that just happens to fit | | pretty sure they forced it to fit, probably by padding the | list. | pessimizer wrote: | More likely by truncating the list, since they felt they | had to sneak one more in at zero. | pessimizer wrote: | A nice _example_ of this. They didn 't bid a round number, so | it seemed like they knew what they were talking about. | galoisscobi wrote: | Ah, that's right, thanks for pointing this out. I misread a | part of your comment at first. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-06 23:00 UTC)