Nazik, a portfolio manager, claims to have consistently produced excessive returns (over and above the benchmark returns) 95% of the time due to her skill and not luck. To support her claim, she presents regression results based on 72 monthly observations as follows: alpha = 0.58%, standard error of alpha = 0.232% Would you reject the null hypothesis of true α = 0 and accept her claim of superior performance 95% of the time due to her skill?
At = 2.50; reject the null hypothesis; reject her claim
Bt = 2.50; reject the null hypothesis; accept her claim
Ct = 2.39; fail to reject the null hypothesis; accept her claim
Dt = 2.39; reject the null hypothesis; accept her claim