WHERRY, Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermination of a deficiency in income tax and a penalty respondent determined for petitioner's tax year ended (TYE) August 31, 2004.¹

After concessions the issues remaining are:²

(1) whether the compensation paid to N. Arthur Astor was reasonable under 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*112 section 162 for TYE August 31, 2004; and

(2) whether petitioner is liable for a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for TYE August 31, 2004.

The parties' stipulation of facts, with accompanying exhibits, and the stipulation of settled issues are incorporated herein by this reference.³ At the time 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*113 petitioner filed the petition, its principal place of business was in California.

N. Arthur Astor has been in radio broadcasting for over 60 years. He was involved in several television shows, did a little film work, and worked as a talent in radio broadcasting before he decided to become involved in broadcasting sales. After many years of managing sales for a multitude of different radio broadcasting companies, Mr. Astor in June 1970 was employed as general manager of KADY, a 50,000-watt radio station in Los Angeles owned by Atlanta-based Rollins Broadcasting. In 1975 he was employed by Dratch & Knott Enterprises, which owned three radio stations and was the number 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*114 one programing company supplying programing and special features to radio stations nationally.

*100 About two years later Mr. Astor was offered a position as general manager of a small FM radio station in Canoga Park, California, with ownership potential based on performance levels. He met those performance requirements and after two years of work earned 10% of the station and was then able to purchase another 10% of that station for 10%, $31,200, of its original 1976 $312,000 purchase price. In 1983 Mr. Astor arranged for a loan and bought out his other partners to became the sole owner of that station, KIKF.

At the same time that Mr. Astor bought out his KIKF partners, he or an entity he controlled also purchased two other radio stations, KTIM-AM and FM, in Marin County, California. He then purchased two more stations, KOWN-AM and FM, in San Diego, California, in 1987. He sold the two Marin County stations in 1994, and he purchased an additional NorthSan Diego station, KCEO, in 1995. In 1999 or 2000 Mr. Astor purchased another station, KSPA AM 1510, in Ontario, California, from a friend.

Mr. Astor bought and sold certain of these stations using petitioner, Aries Communications Inc. (Aries), 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*115 and its subsidiaries Orange Broadcasting Corp. and North County Broadcasting Corp. (Orange Broadcasting and North County *101 Broadcasting, respectively).⁴ Mr. Astor was Aries' president, chief financial officer (CFO), and sole shareholder from its incorporation in 1983. Mr. Astor acted as general manager of each of petitioner's radio stations. He was a "hands-on" manager who was actively involved in many aspects of petitioner's day-to-day operations. Mr. Astor's duties included: (1) oversight of petitioner's other management personnel; (2) planning and overseeing the execution of programming; (3) negotiating and communicating with petitioner's lenders; (4) participating in sales meetings; and (5) communicating with outside advisers (such as lawyers and accountants).

Susan Burke has served as the executive vice president and corporate secretary for both Orange Broadcasting and North County Broadcasting from 1996. Her duties included: (1) Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues (e.g., license renewals and upgrades, consultation 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*116 with counsel); (2) labor and employment issues; (3) music licensing; and (4) review of documents, leases, and contracts. During the year at issue petitioner paid Ms. Burke $288,654, including a $200,000 bonus from Orange Broadcasting.

Aries and its two operating subsidiaries, Orange Broadcasting and North County Broadcasting, are known as the Aries Consolidated Group. The Aries Consolidated Group operated on a fiscal year that ran from September 1 through August 31. Petitioner was a cash basis taxpayer until it changed its method of accounting to the accrual basis in the year at issue. Petitioner filed consolidated Federal income tax returns from 1998 through at least 2008. Petitioner earned revenue by selling advertising spots on its radio stations.⁵

Orange Broadcasting was incorporated in 1976. From 1977 until 2003 Orange Broadcasting held the FCC license for 94.3 FM in Orange County, California. During the 1980s and 1990s Orange Broadcasting aired a country music radio station broadcast under the call letters KIKF. In 2000 Orange Broadcasting changed the 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*117 station's format to an adult contemporary music station under the call letters KMXN.

On May 15, 2003, petitioner sold 94.3 FM to LBI Media and its subsidiary, Liberman Broadcasting, Inc. (Liberman), for $35 million. Petitioner engaged *103 Kalil & Co. (Kalil), a broker, to help sell 94.3 FM. Upon completion of the sale petitioner paid Kalil $790,000 in accordance with the brokerage agreement. Mr. Astor explained at trial that petitioner engaged the broker primarily to find prospective purchasers he might not know about. He referred the broker to potential purchasers he was aware of personally.

Mr. Astor was personally involved in garnering the first bid of around $18 to $20 million for 94.3 FM from Liberman. Mr. Astor knew that Liberman already owned 94.3 FM in the San Fernando Valley, and he explained to Liberman that the two stations together could form a quasi-Los Angeles station which would be much more valuable than the two stations separately. After several rounds of phone calls with Mr. Astor over the course of a year, Liberman advised that its final offer was $28 million. Thereafter, Kalil, at Mr. Astor's suggestion, sought and obtained a bid from Entravision of $33 million. With 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*118 this bid in hand, Kalil and Mr. Astor held a telephone conference with Liberman where Mr. Astor explained that he would sell 94.3 FM only for $35 million. Liberman discussed this price with Mr. Astor and ultimately agreed to it.

*104 Orange Broadcasting's unaudited financial documents reflected the following net income (loss) and "Stockholders Equity" as of December 31 of each calendar year listed below.⁶

North County 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*119 Broadcasting was incorporated in 1987. North County Broadcasting owned three radio stations at the beginning of the year at issue: AM 1000 with call letters KCEO, AM 1450 with call letters KFSD, and 92.1 FM with call letters KFSD (these were the stations originally purchased in 1987 with call letters KOWN). Each of the three stations owned an FCC license to broadcast on its respective frequency across portions of San Diego County and Riverside County, California.

*105 In April 2004 North County Broadcasting sold certain assets of 92.1 FM, including FCC licenses, equipment, engineering data, and selected contracts to Jefferson-Pilot Communications (Jefferson-Pilot). This sale did not include: the Carlsbad Studio; certain equipment located there; vehicles, receivables, cash and cash equivalents; North County Broadcasting's name, programing materials and information; and North County Broadcasting's sales and marketing materials.

Before the sale the president of Jefferson-Pilot informally contacted Mr. Astor and offered $12 million for the station, which Mr. Astor rejected. The president of Jefferson-Pilot then made a further offer of $15 million. Mr. Astor also rejected this offer and informed 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*120 Jefferson-Pilot that he wanted $18 million for the station. After these negotiations petitioner again engaged Kalil to broker the sale of 92.1 FM for $18 million. Upon the completion of the sale of 92.1 FM, petitioner paid Kalil $459,333.34.

North County Broadcasting's unaudited financial documents reflected the following net income (loss) and "Stockholders Equity" at the end of each calendar year listed below.⁷

Petitioner reported the following for TYE August 31, 1999 through 2006:

*107 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*121 Although respondent disputes the characterization of the type of compensation, the parties stipulated that petitioner paid Mr. Astor the following compensation for TYE:

Petitioner's Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, page 4 balance sheet for 1998, the earliest return in the record, shows a common stock account balance of $280,000 at the beginning of the year and a common stock account balance of $120,000 at the end of the year. Thereafter, all of petitioner's tax returns in the record report a common stock account balance of $120,000.

Petitioner guaranteed loans from Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. to Orange Broadcasting (Goldman Sachs debt) from as early as the end of the calendar year 2001. Mr. Astor had also personally guaranteed the Goldman Sachs debt. The total debt was $20 million. Petitioner's December 31, 2001, financial documents stated that petitioner and Goldman Sachs had entered into a forbearance agreement which required petitioner to sell some of the radio stations 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*122 *108 to satisfy obligations under the Goldman Sachs debt before December 20, 2002. When the assets of Orange Broadcasting were sold, $32,784,836 of the $35 million gross proceeds was used to repay the Goldman Sachs debt, including $20 million of principal and $12,784,836 of interest.

For the year at issue Aries' Federal income tax return was prepared by Thoerner & Toma certified public accountants of Orange County. They have been preparing Mr. Astor's returns for 20 to 25 years. Aries' Federal income tax return for TYE August 31, 2004, claimed a deduction for compensation paid to Mr. Astor of $6,896,974.

Respondent issued petitioner a notice of deficiency on September 15, 2010, disallowing $6,086,752 of petitioner's claimed $6,896,974 deduction for compensation paid to Mr. Astor and determining a deficiency of $2,676,002 and a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty of $535,200.40 for TYE 2004. Petitioner timely petitioned the Court on December 13, 2010. A trial was held on December 9, 2011, in Los Angeles, California.

After the petition was filed petitioner commissioned Martin Wertlieb to prepare a report on the amount of compensation, that 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*123 in his opinion, petitioner *109 could have reasonably paid Mr. Astor in TYE August 31, 2004. Mr. Wertlieb has a bachelor of arts degree from the Baruch School of Business of the City College of New York and graduate studies in management at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has over 40 years of experience in the compensation and personnel field and has been an expert witness on reasonable compensation before the U.S. Tax Court and many other courts.

In reaching his conclusions, Mr. Wertlieb examined the financial statements of 10 publicly traded radio broadcasting companies. He calculated the pretax revenues of these companies and compared them to that of Aries. Mr. Wertlieb also compared the amount paid to Mr. Astor with the compensation paid to the CEOs of the publicly traded corporations. He believes that because the corporations are publicly traded and the compensation they pay is subject to the approval of the boards of directors and State and Federal regulators, that compensation represents arm's-length transactions.

Mr. Wertlieb explained in his report that fixed compensation tends to correlate to annual company sales or revenues.⁸ Mr. Wertlieb2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*124 applied a *110 mathematical formula using the statistical technique of linear regression or "line of best fit" to show the correlation.^{92013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*125} Mr. Wertlieb used the trend lines for the correlation of CEOs' fixed compensation to annual revenues at the 75th percentile range because of Mr. Astor's experience in the industry and his status as the owner/operator. Mr. Wertlieb also believes that variable compensation tends to correlate to the company's profitability. Mr. Wertlieb again used linear regression analysis to show the correlation. On the basis of this information Mr. Wertlieb believes that reasonable fixed compensation and reasonable variable compensation for Mr. Astor were as follows:

Respondent asked Dr. Caffrey to opine on the validity and usefulness of the regression analyses presented in Mr. Wertlieb's report. Dr. Caffrey has a bachelor of arts degree in mathematics and economics from the California State University, Bakersfield and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Caffrey is a staff economist for the Internal Revenue Service who receives an annual salary that is not dependent on the outcome of this case.

Dr. Caffrey came to four conclusions after reviewing Mr. Wertlieb's report: (1) Mr. Wertlieb's regressions are used to extrapolate rather than to interpolate;¹⁰ (2) the inclusion of Clear Channel Communications (the largest of the publicly traded companies Mr. Wertlieb looked at) drives the results of the fixed compensation regressions; (3) on the basis of the P-values of the coefficients in all of the regressions, the coefficients are not useful; and (4) on the basis of the R-squareds 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*126 of the regressions, the regressions do not explain the variation in either the fixed compensation or the variable compensation. Dr. Caffrey concluded that *112 Mr. Wertlieb's regression analysis is not useful to make a positive conclusion about the reasonableness of Mr. Astor's compensation.

After the petition was filed respondent engaged Lipis Consulting, Inc., to opine on what constituted reasonable compensation for the owner/operator of the radio broadcast stations operated by Aries and its subsidiaries for TYE August 31, 2004. Mr. Lipis has a bachelor of science degree in economics from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and a master of business administration degree from the University of Chicago. He has been in the consulting field of compensation for more than 30 years serving clients in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors.

Mr. 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*127 Lipis considered executive officer compensation and broadcaster gross income and profitability information from the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) for the position of general manager and information from the Economic Research Institute. He then applied a 75% premium to those figures to account for the fact that Mr. Astor was not just the general manager of one station but also the president and CEO. The adjusted NAB figures are as follows:

Mr. Lipis averaged the total compensation with the addition of the 75% premium to arrive at $287,732 and compared it with Mr. Astor's 2004 compensation. Mr. Lipis then discounted the $287,732 backwards to compare it with Mr. Astor's compensation in 2003, 2002, and 2001. On the basis of this analysis, Mr. Lipis concluded that for the four years Mr. Astor was underpaid by a total of $173,114 if his bonus is not included; and if Mr. Astor's bonus was 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*128 included then he was overpaid over four years by a total of $8,394,734.

Mr. Lipis also compared Mr. Astor's compensation with data from broadcast company proxies as reported by the Kenexa.com database. That data includes compensation amounts for several television and radio companies, all of which were much larger than Aries when measured by revenues. Mr. Lipis used *114 scattergrams and regression analysis to show the correlation between compensation and revenue, net income, and profit margin.

With respect to Mr. Astor's bonus, Mr. Lipis believed that the question to be answered was: "Assuming the owner acted as a consultant to Kalil, how much were his services worth to improve the $12 million offer to $18 million?" Mr. Lipis concluded that a reasonable success fee for securing the additional $6 million of value was $210,000. Mr. Lipis then combined all of his methods and concluded that the total reasonable compensation for Mr. Astor for 2004 was $635,447.

The Commissioner's determination of a taxpayer's liability for an income tax deficiency is generally presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the determination is improper. SeeRule 142(a); 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*129 Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111">290 U.S. 111, 290 U.S. 111">115, 54 S. Ct. 8">54 S. Ct. 8, 78 L. Ed. 212">78 L. Ed. 212, 1933-2 C.B. 112 (1933).¹¹

Respondent contends that most of the compensation paid to Mr. Astor was not reasonable under section 162 for TYE 2004 and, in the notice of deficiency, disallowed $6,086,752 of petitioner's claimed salary expense of $6,896,974. Petitioner contends that all of Mr. Astor's compensation was reasonable, that it included catchup payments for prior years in which Mr. Astor was undercompensated, and that he was entitled to a bonus for the sales, which he masterminded and facilitated, of the two radio stations.

Section 162(a)(1) provides a deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses, including "a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered". Absent stipulation to the contrary, an appeal in this case would lie to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Seesec. 7482(b)(1). Therefore, we follow that court's precedent. Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742">54 T.C. 742 (1970), 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*130 aff'd, 445 F.2d 985">445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determines the deductibility of compensation through a two-prong test: the amount of compensation must be reasonable, and the payment must be purely for services rendered. *116 Nor-Cal Adjusters v. Commissioner, 503 F.2d 359">503 F.2d 359, 503 F.2d 359">362 (9th Cir. 1974), aff'gT.C. Memo. 1971-200; sec. 1.162-7(a), Income Tax Regs.

Compensation for prior years' services is deductible in the current year as long as the employee was actually undercompensated in prior years and the current payments are intended as compensation for past services. R.J. Nicoll Co. v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 37">59 T.C. 37, 59 T.C. 37">50-51 (1972); see also LabelGraphics, Inc. v. Commissioner, 221 F.3d 1091">221 F.3d 1091, 221 F.3d 1091">1096 (9th Cir. 2000) ("an intention to remedy prior undercompensation can weigh in favor of reasonableness"), aff'gT.C. Memo. 1998-343. To the extent total compensation includes amounts that were actually for prior years of service, the total compensation need not be reasonable in the year it was paid. Devine Bros., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-15. Petitioner contends that the amount paid to Mr. 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*131 Astor in fiscal year 2004 includes catchup amounts for the three prior years. Therefore, we shall evaluate the reasonableness of Mr. Astor's compensation for TYE August 31, 2001 through 2004.

*117 There is no doubt that Mr. Astor was the most valuable employee of Aries and the compensation paid to him, or at least a portion thereof, was for services actually rendered.

We consider the reasonableness of the compensation with reference to five broad factors set forth in Elliotts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 716 F.2d 1241">716 F.2d 1241 (9th Cir. 1983), rev'gT.C. Memo. 1980-282. No single factor is dispositive. 716 F.2d 1241">Id. at 1245. The relevant factors are: (i) the employee's role in the company; (ii) a comparison of the employee's salary with salaries paid by similar companies for similar services; (iii) the character and condition of the company; (iv) potential conflicts of interest; and (v) internal consistency. 716 F.2d 1241">Id. at 1245-1247.

We also consider an additional factor: whether an independent investor would be willing to compensate the employee as the taxpayer compensated the employee. Metro Leasing & Dev. Corp. v. Commissioner, 376 F.3d 1015">376 F.3d 1015, 376 F.3d 1015">1019 (9th Cir. 2004), aff'g119 T.C. 8">119 T.C. 8 (2002). 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*132 The Court of Appeals notes that "the perspective of an independent investor is but one of many factors that are to be considered when assessing the reasonableness of an executive officer's compensation." 376 F.3d 1015">Id. at 1021. The reasonableness of compensation is a question of fact to be determined on the basis of all the facts and circumstances. *118 Pac. Grains, Inc. v. Commissioner, 399 F.2d 603">399 F.2d 603, 399 F.2d 603">606 (9th Cir. 1968), aff'gT.C. Memo. 1967-7.

This factor looks to the overall significance of the employee to the company. Elliotts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 716 F.2d 1241">716 F.2d at 1245. "Relevant considerations include the position held by the employee, hours worked, and duties performed, American Foundry v. Commissioner, 536 F.2d 289">536 F.2d 289, 536 F.2d 289">291-292 (9th Cir. 1976), as well as the general importance of the employee to the success of the company", id.

Mr. Astor was the hands-on owner-operator of Aries. Mr. Astor has been Aries' president, chief financial officer, and sole shareholder from its incorporation in 1983 and has acted as general manager of each of petitioner's radio stations. He was actively involved in managing many aspects of petitioner's day-to-day operations, including: (1) 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*133 overseeing management personnel; (2) planning and overseeing programming; (3) negotiating and communicating with lenders; (4) participating in sales meetings; and (5) communicating with outside advisers. As the key employee, he played a pivotal role in the profitable sale of petitioner's major assets.

*119 Respondent argues that the sale of Aries subsidiaries' assets was profitable not because of Mr. Astor's personal role but because of the significant appreciation of the FCC licenses. While we agree that the FCC licenses were the principal driving force behind the sale and the key component of the sale price of the subsidiaries, that does not necessarily diminish Mr. Astor's role as an employee of the corporation.

Mr. Astor made the decision to both acquire and maintain the FCC licenses. However, his role does raise an interesting issue. Did Mr. Astor invest in the licenses personally, as the passive owner/investor of Aries, or did he make the investment choices as a money-making strategy, in his employment capacity, as the chief executive of Aries? Respondent wants to disallow the deduction of most of Mr. Astor's salary and thus increase the tax of Aries. Had Mr. Astor personally purchased 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*134 the FCC licenses and then transferred them to a corporate entity such as Aries or its subsidiaries, respondent's position might be well taken. However, the FCC licenses were acquired by the corporate entities, and the decisions of Mr. Astor should therefore be treated as the decisions of the chief executive of Aries. Aries should compensate Mr. Astor for his successful investment choices.

In a situation similar to that of the appreciation of the FCC licenses, market forces also helped create the cashflow enabling an employee's significantly *120 increased salary. In Shotmeyer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-238, we explained that one of the reasons the employee-owner's corporation was finally able to pay the manager a large salary was the conditions created by the Arab oil embargo. We noted that the "economic conditions were not the primary reason for the increase in salary." The primary reason was the taxpayer's "business acumen and experience".

Although petitioner did not have any substantial taxable income before the sale of two of its major assets, Mr. Astor, who was responsible for the assets, facilitated the sale of those assets for prices far exceeding the buyers' original offers. 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*135 For the year before the year at issue petitioner's taxable income was $14,596,284, and for the year at issue its taxable income was $3,902,092. Both respondent's and petitioner's experts agree that Mr. Astor was petitioner's most important employee. Mr. Astor also facilitated the Goldman Sachs debt by way of his personal guarantee. See Leonard Pipeline Contractors, Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-315, aff'd without published opinion, 210 F.3d 384">210 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 2000).¹² We find this factor weighs in favor of petitioner.

The next relevant factor is a comparison of the employee's salary with those paid by similar companies providing similar services. Elliotts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 716 F.2d 1241">716 F.2d at 1246; Hoffman Radio Corp. v. Commissioner, 177 F.2d 264">177 F.2d 264, 177 F.2d 264">266 (9th Cir. 1949). Mr. Astor explained that Aries was one of only a few companies in the industry in which the owner was also the operator. Therefore external comparisons are difficult, and each of the parties retained an expert to provide an opinion 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*136 regarding reasonable compensation for Mr. Astor.¹³

The following table summarizes both expert opinions as to Mr. Astor's fixed reasonable compensation:

The following table summarizes both expert opinions as to Mr. Astor's variable reasonable compensation:

The 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*137 tables indicate that the experts' opinions are very divergent. Both experts compared the compensation of executive officers in companies similar to Aries and then used linear regression as a tool to compare the companies' income with that compensation.¹⁴

*123 Respondent called a rebuttal expert, Dr. Caffrey, to challenge the findings of Mr. Wertlieb, petitioner's expert. Dr. Caffrey came to certain conclusions regarding Mr. Wertlieb's report. The concerns we find relevant are: (i) Mr. Wertlieb's report is premised on a model analysis that employs return on sales as its principal if not sole measure of financial performance; (ii) the regressions are used to extrapolate; (iii) on the basis of the p-values, the coefficients are not useful, and; (iv) on the basis of the R-squareds, the regressions do not explain the variation in either 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*138 the fixed compensation or the variable compensation. If those conclusions are true, these are factors that would describe the mathematical imprecision of the results of these regression models. Consequently, they constitute arguments that require the Court to determine the proper weight to be accorded to the conclusions of the Wertlieb report.¹⁵

*124 Dr. Caffrey explained that the regressions are used to extrapolate rather than interpolate because the data used for the comparison was acquired from companies much larger than Aries. Because of the nature of the 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 111">*139 radio industry, there are not very many companies whose financial information is public that are similar to Aries, and the experts must use the data available. In fact, respondent's own expert witness, Mr. Lipis, also used data from companies much larger than Aries, explaining that "all the companies were considerably larger than Aries Communications when measured by revenue yet I can still learn from their compensation practices".

Dr. Caffrey attempted to recreate Mr. Wertlieb's regression analysis, and then he listed the p-values for those re-creations.¹⁶ Dr. Caffrey explained that

[I]f the p-value is less than 0.05, then we can state that the beta coefficient is statistically different from zero "at the 5% significance level." The p-values generated from my replication attempts are 0.136 (2004), 0.105 (2003), 0.051 (2002), and 0.072 (2001). None of *125 these beta coefficients are statistically significant at the standard 5% significance level. The beta coefficients from the 2003 and 2004 regressions are not statistically significant even at the less rigorous 10% significance level.