Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan Page B

cases. On the other hand, the employees doing fancy things (like designing new financial products) will always have more information about what they are really up to than their superiors will; and their superiors will have more information than the shareholders. The challenge is to reward good outcomes without creating incentives for employees to game the system in ways that damage the company in the long run.
     
     
    One need not be a corporate titan to deal with principal-agent problems. There are plenty of situations in which we must hire someone whose incentives are similar but not identical to our own—and the distinction between “similar” and “identical” can make all the difference. Take real estate agents, a particular breed of scoundrel who purport to have your best interest at stake but may not, regardless of whether you are buying or selling a property. Let’s look at the buy side first. The agent graciously shows you lots of houses and eventually you find one that is just right. So far, so good. Now it is time to bargain with the seller over the purchase price, often with your agent as your chief adviser. Yet your real estate agent will be paid a percentage of the eventual purchase price. The more you are willing to pay, the more your agent makes and the less time the whole process will take.
    There are problems on the sell side, too, though they are more subtle. The better price you get for your house, the more money your agent will make. That is a good thing. But the incentives are still not perfectly aligned. Suppose you are selling a house in the $300,000 range. Your agent can list the house for $280,000 and sell it in about twenty minutes. Or she could list it for $320,000 and wait for a buyer who really loves the place. The benefit to you of pricing the house high is huge: $40,000. Your real estate agent may see things differently. Listing high would mean many weeks of showing the house, holding open houses, and baking cookies to make the place smell good. Lots of work, in other words. Assuming a 3 percent commission, your agent can make $8,400 for doing virtually nothing or $9,600 for doing many weeks of work. Which would you choose? On the buy side or the sell side, your agent’s most powerful incentive is to get a deal done, whether it is at a price favorable to you or not.
     
     
    Economics teaches us how to get the incentives right. As Gordon Gekko told us in the movie Wall Street, greed is good, so make sure that you have it working on your side. Yet Mr. Gekko was not entirely correct. Greed can be bad—even for people who are entirely selfish. Indeed, some of the most interesting problems in economics involve situations in which rational individuals acting in their own best interest do things that make themselves worse off. Yet their behavior is entirely logical.
    The classic example is the prisoner’s dilemma, a somewhat contrived but highly powerful model of human behavior. The basic idea is that two men have been arrested on suspicion of murder. They are immediately separated so that they can be interrogated without communicating with one another. The case against them is not terribly strong, and the police are looking for a confession. Indeed, the authorities are willing to offer a deal if one of the men rats out the other as the trigger man.
    If neither man confesses, the police will charge them both with illegal possession of a weapon, which carries a five-year jail sentence. If both of them confess, then each will receive a twenty-five-year murder sentence. If one man rats out the other, then the snitch will receive a light three-year sentence as an accomplice and his partner will get life in prison. What happens?
    The men are best off collectively if they keep their mouths shut. But that’s not what they do. Each of them starts thinking. Prisoner A figures that if his partner keeps his mouth shut, then he can get the light three-year sentence by ratting him out. Then it dawns on