How to pronounce “quartile” in English

And what this does is it breaks down all mutual funds and these are not just, these are actively managed funds, this is every mutual fund there is in the United States, and it divides theminto quartiles. The low-cost quartile has lowest turnover and the lowest explicit expenseratio. The high-cost quartile has the highest costs and the highest portfolio turnover.

And the data there is overwhelming.If you compare top quartile VO2 max to bottom quartile VO2 max, it's 175% difference in all-cause mortality.If you measure top decile strength or even top quintile strength to bottom quintile strength,

Now, the interesting thing about private equity funds is the performance-- for the positive, performance is reallydominated by the top quartile, which means the top 25% of funds do very well.The second quartile is around the stock market, and the third and fourth are below.

dominated by the top quartile, which means the top 25% of funds do very well.The second quartile is around the stock market, and the third and fourth are below.So you've got half the people that don't have a very good batting average.

the extent of that disease based on age-match controls will tell you if you are at high risk or if you have a very low risk . There are ways to kind of see whether or notyou're in that quartile of people that have subclinical disease but don't have symptoms yet.female #12: What steps are taken if you have a history of heart disease .

ratio. The high-cost quartile has the highest costs and the highest portfolio turnover.And the low-cost quartile gives you an 8.66%rate of return. The high co-cost quartile gaveyou a 6.66 and this is the period 1994 through the end of last year - the end of '09. So

So you've got a lot more bankruptcies.We only invest in the top quartile private equity funds.

So you've got a lot more bankruptcies.And they weren't top quartile.

So then value investing says well, we can one-up that.We'll just buy the lowest quartile of P/Es.And that probably still worked in the '80s domestically, maybe in the '90s internationally.

Here are the stats on the-- if you just took a look at the top institutional managers for that decade, the ones who--2000 to 2010-- the top-quartile managers, the ones who ended up with the best 10-year record, here are the stats on them.97% of those who ended up with the best 10-year record, top quartile, spent at least 3 of the 10 years in the bottom half of performance--

How do you win?It's not being in the top quartile.

How do you win?So it was solidly in the second quartile every year for 14 years.

Not a question and that sounds like you're trying to squeeze every last ounce out of an employee-- how do I get the most?So we put it into the quartiles, high to low.

They're trying to do their best.They're trying to find ones that are in the top quartile.How do they do it?

Now that's one option.So you try to go to your top-quartile funds, and hope they repeat the performance.Unfortunately, most of them don't.

into quartiles. The low-cost quartile has lowest turnover and the lowest explicit expenseratio. The high-cost quartile has the highest costs and the highest portfolio turnover.And the low-cost quartile gives you an 8.66%rate of return. The high co-cost quartile gave

So there's two ways they do it.One is they look at a fund that was in the top quartile previously.So that fund is coming out with, let's say, fund number two.

end, and I've run out of money, and had terrible experiences; and I would still place being torn apart by zombies with an hour and a half of unsaved Resident Evil game play behindme, it's like in the upper quartile of the most miserable experiences of my life. It was so demoralizing and so infuriating, when that happened.So that's- from the second chapter of the book, and it's really like the only pre-2006 game that I really get into very much.

2000 to 2010-- the top-quartile managers, the ones who ended up with the best 10-year record, here are the stats on them.97% of those who ended up with the best 10-year record, top quartile, spent at least 3 of the 10 years in the bottom half of performance--not shocking, but everyone, right?

You're going to zig and zag differently.79% of those who ended up with the best 10-year record spent at least 3 of the 10 years in the bottom quartileperformance. And here's the stunner-- 47%, roughly half of those who-- they ended up with the best record, but they spent at least 3 of those 10 years

across every possible demand imaginable-- sports, entertainment, politics, art, chess, it just goes on and on-- that the difference between somebodywho's good, like let's just call it the top quartile of the population in their chosen field, and the top 1%,it's the degree to which they can focus to determine their goals and maintain that focus.

How do you win?So a lot of money managers go into the clients and say we will get you in the top quartile into the great right hand tail.

Not a question and that sounds like you're trying to squeeze every last ounce out of an employee-- how do I get the most?We actually saw a 42% increase in the team performance by those managers that scored in that top quartile for giving FRE than those that scored in the bottom.

themselves into four different categories based on a depression index. The higher the number, the more they were depressed. And you can see that this is on the Y axis thesurvival, the survival and this is days on X axis and for any given increase in quartile of the depression index they had an increased risk for death. In fact that risk, clinicaldepression, if you were actually classified as being clinically depressed, is a higher risk than diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking or age. Two point nine, two point six nine

as you might think. So they compared how funny people actually were with how funny they thought they were. And here's what they found. The straight diagonal line just indicates theactual test score on this humor test, so those who were in the bottom quartile, by definition, scored 12 and a half percent in this test. And those who were in the second quartile,by definition, 37 and a half percent and so on if you just divide them into quartiles.

actual test score on this humor test, so those who were in the bottom quartile, by definition, scored 12 and a half percent in this test. And those who were in the second quartile,by definition, 37 and a half percent and so on if you just divide them into quartiles.But notice that the perceived ability, that is, what percentage of people who they thought were less funny then they were, is actually above 50 for all of these groups. And the

a nice to have, it's bottom-line critical.There's some interesting McKinsey research that backs that up as well, they've found that being in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity, for example,is one of the strongest predictors you can find for financial returns.

So you've got a lot more bankruptcies.They were doing, say, between the second and the third quartile, which is what you'd expect if you selected the funds at random.

So I looked at thousands and thousands of 360s, and teased out the difference between people in the top 10%.People that were the top 10% in managerial effectiveness, what was their competency profile set versus people that were rated in the top and the bottom quartile?And I found that there's these very specific competencies they have.

Here's where you are in the distribution.You're in the top, middle-- well, top third, second, or bottom quartile of the company.And that's all we did.