- 59 -
iii. Analysis
In our comparison of the foregoing views, we generally found
those of Mr. Thomson to be better explained, better supported,
and more convincing. While we conclude that certain factual
assumptions described in Mr. Thomson’s report were not
established by a preponderance of the evidence, the level of
detail in the report’s treatment of individual factors considered
enabled us to make adjustments within what was a reasonable
framework. In contrast, Mr. Cronkite’s report was highly
conclusory and revealed little about the underlying analysis. As
a result, we could neither perform any meaningful evaluation nor
ascertain that the conclusions were supported by an appropriate
foundation. We therefore found Mr. Cronkite’s report
unpersuasive and of minimal assistance in the valuation endeavor.
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s position to the extent of
the reduced valuation amount discussed below for the Marsh note.
Mr. Cronkite’s Approaches: We begin by addressing the
difficulties encountered with Mr. Cronkite’s approaches. As
previously mentioned, Mr. Cronkite included in his report an
income approach discounting interest income at 15 percent.
Although the report explains that the required yield should
reflect inherent risk in the income stream, it fails to offer any
satisfactory link between this premise and the chosen 15-percent
rate. Mr. Cronkite apparently added the 5-percent default
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011