- 65 -
much of Jack’s maximum reasonable compensation should be labeled
base pay and how much should be labeled bonus. He apparently
regarded this as so inconsequential that, in his rebuttal report,
he did not bother to correct the bonus components when he revised
the total compensation amounts. We cannot tell what function
Hakala’s discussion of base pay serves in Hakala’s reaching, or
explaining, his bottom-line conclusions.
Hakala’s discussions of other comparisons, although
eventually discarded, serve the appropriate function of
demonstrating that those comparisons would have resulted in lower
permissible amounts of reasonable compensation; they thereby make
the CAPM approach appear to be more generous to petitioner than
would be the case if the other methods had not been presented.
When “push came to shove”, Hakala’s conclusions rested
entirely on CAPM, and respondent followed Hakala’s conclusions to
the dollar.
(6) Conclusion
Hakala has not presented us with a description of how his
various analyses fit together to lead to the final numbers he
reaches. He has not specified what points in his analyses are
being corrected and how these corrections result in the changed
numbers between his original expert witness report and his
rebuttal report. As to the many different variables in CAPM,
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011