4) You are evaluating a stock mutual fund that is among your employer's 401k fund electives. The fund is actively managed and seeks to outperform the S&P 500. Over the past 10 years, the fund returned 10.25% per year and had a beta = 0.8. Over the same period, the S&P 500 returned 10% and the risk-free rate was 3%. A colleague asked your opinion of the fund. Recalling the principles from FINC 561, you inform the colleague that the fund produced positive alpha - meaning that the fund's manager was able to find under-priced stocks thereby beating the market. Your colleague (who has not taken FINC 561) challenges your assertion stating: The fund returned 10.25%, barely more than the S&P 500. I wouldn't call 0.25% meaningful alpha - heck it's not that much better than a S&P 500 index fund. Comment on your colleague's assertion. Do you agree? Why or why not? Explain. (10 points) 4) You are evaluating a stock mutual fund that is among your employer's 401k fund electives. The fund is actively managed and seeks to outperform the S&P 500. Over the past 10 years, the fund returned 10.25% per year and had a beta = 0.8. Over the same period, the S&P 500 returned 10% and the risk-free rate was 3%. A colleague asked your opinion of the fund. Recalling the principles from FINC 561, you inform the colleague that the fund produced positive alpha - meaning that the fund's manager was able to find under-priced stocks thereby beating the market. Your colleague (who has not taken FINC 561) challenges your assertion stating: The fund returned 10.25%, barely more than the S&P 500. I wouldn't call 0.25% meaningful alpha - heck it's not that much better than a S&P 500 index fund. Comment on your colleague's assertion. Do you agree? Why or why not? Explain. (10 points)