Smith (1995) presented a necessary and sufficient condition for the finite-

horizon perfect folk theorem. In the proof of this result, the author constructed a family

of five-phase strategy profiles to approach feasible and individually rational payoff vec-

tors of the stage-game. These strategy profiles are not subgame perfect Nash equilibria

of the finitely repeated game. I illustrate this fact with a counter-example. However,

the characterization of attainable payoff vectors by Smith remains true. I provide an

alternative proof.