mutual funds for manager skill： 共同基金管理人员的的技能
（我觉得可以理解为字面意思，另外我还是觉得这个phrase文法上很奇怪，可能是我水平不够）

如果整句翻译：在测试共同基金管理人的技能时，最大的挑战是缺乏“零假设经理无技能”的收益概率分布。

我找到了原文（应该是的http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2143293），看了一下，是在讨论技能测试方法。

零假设是为了证明no skill是错的（我个人理解，如需深入理解请参考http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis/ 和wiki null hypothesis）

能力有限，希望能帮到lz啦

是要翻译这个句子吗？

请问来源是？

manager skill 这个词组很奇怪，应该是management skill 吧？

检验共同基金管理者技能的最大挑战来自于，我们并不知晓在“没有技能”的零假设之下，回报（收益）的概率分布状况。

我发了一次为什么没显示。。新手不太懂。。或许是我引用链接了？

在测试共同基金管理人员的技能时，最大的挑战是缺乏“零假设基金管理人员无技能”的收益分布概率。

＝＝＝＝＝＝下面是我想放的链接里的文章，你的那句话是这里面的吧？联系上下文就不难理解了。下文主要是讨论几种测试管理人员技能的方法和技能是否带来更多收益，它是一篇论文的摘要。如果需要更深理解请看一下null hypothesis 的解释。零假设no skill 是为了证明管理人员有技能。＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

Not Fooled by Randomness: Using Random Portfolios to Analyze Investment Funds


Roberto Andres Stein
Tulane University - A.B. Freeman School of Business; University of Chile - School of Economics and Business

August 31, 2012


Abstract:      
The biggest challenge in testing mutual funds for manager skill is the lack of a probability distribution of returns under the null hypothesis of no skill. A methodology based on randomly trading portfolios and non parametric statistical tests is explored, and a test of skill is proposed. Simulation is used to perform an in-depth study of the properties of this test, and to compare its power against that of other tests of skill based on factor model alphas. Empirical tests performed on a sample of US equity mutual funds find evidence of skill in a reduced number of managers, but that the value added by this skill is charged away from the investors in the form of fund fees and expenses. Overall, random portfolio based measures are found to be more powerful and easier to interpret than tests based on traditional and bootstrapped factor model alphas.

下面的同学引出了来源，可以去了解一下，大家的翻译都跟我之前想的差不多，应该就是这个意思了，我就是想确认一下学术翻译而已。谢谢大家