- 66 -
Hakala has not indicated why we should accept his choices in
values rather than other choices, such as Sledge’s.
Sledge, however, has not shown us how the changes in values
result in his conclusions. Rather, he simply concludes that
changing one of the variables to a value that is more favorable
to petitioner results in a specified amount of greater maximum
compensation. Without a thorough explanation or demonstration of
why his changes result in the numbers that he reaches, we do not
accept Sledge’s conclusions. Further, we cannot tell from the
information included in the expert reports whether a variation in
any particular value is likely to cause a great or only slight
change in the bottom line, and often it is not apparent whether a
change is likely to increase the maximum amount of reasonable
compensation or decrease the maximum amount of reasonable
compensation.
In fact, Sledge conceded that it would be highly improbable
for all of his suggested revisions to Hakala’s CAPM numbers to be
operable together. Adoption of some of his suggested revisions
very likely would require that some other suggested revisions
would have to be rejected, or might have to be revised in such a
way as to result in the latter revisions undoing the effect of
the former revisions.
We also note the paradox in Hakala’s approach that the more
successful Jack was in building up petitioner, the less the
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