- 42 -
A: * * * So, yes, they [Whitman and its promoter]
were making maximum use, pushing the limit right to the
edge. It was very aggressive or I wouldn’t have said
it was. You know, you have to know how to deal with
aggressive investments. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just
means you take your chance.
Q: I’m sorry. You said you must “take your
chance”?
A: You just take your chance.
Q: And this is the kind of investment that you
thought–-
A: How close can you walk to the line without
getting caught or tripped.
Finally, Thompson’s letter expressed so many misgivings, and
was filled with so many qualifications, reservations, and
disclaimers, as to undermine any contention that the letter
justified petitioner’s reporting position. Thus, numerous “areas
of concern” were identified in the letter. First and foremost
among such “areas of concern” was the value of the recyclers,
which Thompson identified as “the starting point for determining
the amount of credits available to the Partnership.” Thompson
expressly advised petitioner that “I am not in a position to
judge the FMV of the Recyclers”. Yet Thompson, even with his
lack of appraisal skills, was able to conclude that “the
valuation made in the Memorandum is challengeable.” He then went
on to explain why:
First of all, with regard to * * * [Burstein’s and
Ulanoff’s reports], neither evaluator appears to be
primarily a property appraiser, and neither engages in
an economic analysis of cost of production of the
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011