Abstract This article presents a commentary in response to a critical note by Bart P. Hartman and H.C. Zaunbrecher, published in this issue, about the author's article on the comparability and objectivity of exit value accounting. The author appreciates the effort by Hartman and Zaunbrecher to observe several imperfections in the experimental design of the study illustrated in the said article. Hartman and Zaunbrecher suggest several alternative procedures which might have further validated the study's findings. The author clarifies that the entire discussion of the critical note was concerned with limitations in experimental design concerns only three issues, two of which were stated explicitly in the original article. The first criticism concerns the fact that all exit values were based upon a single asset, while book values relate to twenty-six different assets. The second criticism is that all the dealers were located in a limited geographical area, while book values were obtained from owners dispersed through out the United States. The third criticism concerns the manner in which surrogate exit value measures were derived.
James Parker (Fri,) studied this question.