- 27 -
contests this assertion and particularly the comparison
petitioner's expert made to mutual fund returns. It is difficult
to determine what an independent investor would expect from the
risk of his funds in a business such as BI's. However, it is
reasonable to assume that an independent investor would be
unwilling for an officer to realize compensation out of line with
compensation paid by similar businesses, thus unnecessarily
reducing the income produced by the business in which he had
invested.
Petitioner discusses the general economic conditions and the
growth of the incentives industry in general, and contends that
BI's growth was outstanding, even compared to the general
economic conditions and the economic conditions in the incentives
industry. Unfortunately, the record has very little information
with respect to other members of the incentives industry, which
are petitioner's prime competitors. The record has some
indications that petitioner's growth did not exceed that of the
incentives industry in general. Petitioner's expert witness, Mr.
Locke, indicated that information as to the salaries paid to the
CEO by Maritz and MacDonald might be available to his firm, but
he did not produce the information, even when it was suggested to
him that it might be quite helpful. The information that is in
the record indicates that petitioner did not grow faster than its
competitors and may have grown less fast than its prime
competitor Maritz.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011