- 19 - be comparable to the partnership in certain respects, he concluded that to be conservative he would apply this more favorable 8.5-percent minority interest discount to the partnership interests. Dr. Shapiro’s study on holding companies is not in evidence. The minimal description of it in his testimony provides an inadequate basis for us to rely upon it in determining the appropriate minority interest discount here. We agree with Dr. Shapiro that, in order to derive a minority interest discount factor from REIT price-to-NAV data, one must account for the liquidity premium inherent in REIT data prices. See McCord v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. at 385. In quantifying that liquidity premium, however, we hesitate to rely on a single academic study–-particularly one that Dr. Shapiro did not participate in preparing and could not elaborate upon first hand. We therefore seek common ground between the Bajaj study and similar studies (the Wruck study and the Hertzel & Smith study)15 cited therein. According to the Bajaj study, the Wruck study found that the average discount observed in unregistered private placements 15 Wruck, “Equity Ownership Concentration and Firm Value: Evidence from Private Equity Financings”, 23 J. Fin. Econ. 3 (1989); Hertzel & Smith, “Market Discounts and Shareholder Gains for Placing Equity Privately”, 48 J. Fin. 459 (1993). We discuss such “private placement” studies more fully in the context of the marketability discount.Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011