If I hand out a pop quiz with four multiple choice questions, surely I know how many students aced it.
So long as at least 25% answered each question correctly, it is possible that 25%+ got all four correct. So long as the sum of the wrong answer percentages is at least 75%, it's possible that not more than 25% got all four correct. Both of those are true here.
You don't have enough information from the individual figures to do better than this. But the "teacher" does.
To make this clear, say that 25% get four answers right, and the rest are dolts who get 0% on their quizzes. Then the correct answer rates for all four questions will be 25%; still 25% of the students got all the answers correct. That's even worse than the actual individual question results.

Hi @Rbrt
I'm not a math whiz; but I need help with discovery of that 25% number, too.
Can't email the author, as is the case now for most of these folks. She has a twitter account that I viewed, but nothing related to her write.
The quiz should have a re-do as to whether any of the original quiz takers are able to understand the math behind the 25% number...........now, there is the test.
Perhaps too tired tonight, for me.

How did they arrive at the 25%? I know if the percentages were say machine up time then you could say all 4 are probably only available 19.2% of the time - but how do we know that the 54% that got #2 right didn’t get the other 3 questions right?
BTW, if kids weren’t sure and they picked “not sure” did they get credit?

If they can't do their finances, can they write grammatically correct headlines?
Marketwatch is the source of this thread's subject line (fewer than 25% of grads); other sites like ZeroHedge served up a different article with a headline reading "less than 25%" of grads.

FYI: The marketing and sales tactics Fidelity Investments uses with retirement savers were called out in a lawsuit involving alleged retirement-plan mismanagement by Vanderbilt University, bringing into focus the ongoing and seemingly increasing tension felt between plan sponsors, participants and their service providers, many of which are seeking out additional revenue in the face of fee compression.
Monday, Vanderbilt University reached a $14.5 million settlement with the plaintiffs, represented by attorney Jerome Schlichter — the largest settlement to date by a university.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=omy_XN2dB4G15gLg8J6wCg&q=Fidelity+sales+tactics+called+out+in+settlement+of+retirement+plan+lawsuit&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Fidelity+sales+tactics+called+out+in+settlement+of+retirement+plan+lawsuit&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2962.2962..4346...0.0..0.131.236.0j2......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.sM35IAlScVg

FYI: This will peak your interest.
Consumer banking firm Sallie Mae released its new “Majoring in Money” study of hundreds of current and recently graduated college students up to age 29 — and one big red flag sticks out: Even college graduates don’t know much about basic financial concepts like interest.
Indeed, Sallie Mae asked them four questions related to credit and interest, and fewer than one in four got all four of these correct. Here are the questions (the correct answers are below):
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fewer-than-1-in-4-college-grads-can-answer-these-4-simple-money-questions-correctly-2019-04-15/print

At least they're being honest! Though given their utter reluctance to adjust their holdings as the GFC was confiming itself didn't sit well with me ... they were too stubborn at the time and the fund suffered more than it probably needed to.
The Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund will reopen to new investors on May 1, 2019.
The Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund will reopen to new investors on May 1, 2019. The Fund was closed in 2015 to proactively "tap the brakes" on the Fund's growth, but remained open to existing shareholders.
Since then, we have continued to deepen our global research and shareholder services capabilities. Volatile global equity markets have also created what we believe to be many attractive long-term investment opportunities outside the United States. This volatility, industry trends, and the Fund’s recent relative results have contributed to outflows, creating ample investment capacity to accommodate reasonable growth into the foreseeable future.
All of these factors led us to conclude that this is the right time to open the Fund to new investors. Our primary objective at Dodge & Cox is to serve our existing clients and shareholders well, and we believe reopening the International Stock Fund supports this objective.

Nice 3 year run.
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/tcw-new-america-premier-equities-fund-marks-3-year-anniversary-with-5-star-overall-morningstar-ratingtm-2019-02-07
It will be interesting to see if it continues this out-performance. Never heard of the fund before, thanks for sharing.

”I am lookin for a growth fund that is not heavily weighted on Tech, not above 50 % at least.”

Your question suggests that such a fund would be an

exception to the rule or an aberration from norm. Frankly, I’m not aware of any diversified growth funds that would ever exceed 50% in technology under normal circumstances. With growth funds I think the most important thing is to buy-in for the long haul. Each will have its day - but their performances diverge sharply over shorter periods as various sectors wax and wane. Trying to always own the best performing one might be the equivalent of the proverbial elephant chasing his tail.
Lots of fine growth funds out there. Just a couple that come to mind:
TRBCX - 28% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_FomFGKRzy/Zlxw7oh/nFxhuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf+NFFYgOPjGud+qERLyR7v
DODGX - 15% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_ku+B2TlKptBi+tpivKaWyBuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf8SJRq1qRCsCbi0+hJj/WI
Different rating services and observers may define “technology” companies differently. One might include a company like Amazon under consumer retail and another might consider it a technology company. Telecommunications is sometimes listed as a separate category and at other times considered part of the broader technology area. Some of that is just games people play. But sometimes it’s because there’s considerable “gray area” when deciding where a particular company best fits.
That said, Lord help anyone who ends up in a “diversified” fund that has committed over 50% to the technology sector. It’s one of the most volatile areas in which to invest.

@hank, Dodge & Cox is most definitely not a Growth shop....

@MFO Members: The linked article was poorly written by not explaining the criteria for AI ETFs.
Artificial Intelligence ETFs are funds that meet at least one of the following three criteria:
They are funds that specifically invest in companies involved in the development of new products or services, technological improvements in scientific research related to artificial intelligence, or
They are funds that have at least 25% of portfolio exposure to companies that spend large amounts on artificial intelligence research and development (R&D) expenses. Examples of such companies are Amazon, Tesla Motors, Apple and Alphabet, or
They are funds that use artificial intelligence methodologies to select individual securities for inclusion into the fund.
Regards,
Ted

@msf - Re: SEC - “Truth in labeling”? That’s new to me. That would suggest HSGFX should have omitted the word “growth” from its name. Maybe HS#FX. :)
From your source “The rule requires a fund with a name suggesting that the fund focuses on a particular type of investment (e.g., "stocks" or "bonds") to invest at least 80% of its assets accordingly. Under Commission staff positions, these funds previously were subject to a 65% investment requirement.”
Not what I had in mind, but very interesting. PRMTX must than be legally obligated to have 80% in those 2 sectors? (Fortunately, it’s a spectacular fund).
What I had in mind was the rule referenced in a Zack’s article (cited below). The article’s so skimpy I was reluctant to post it. (And I’d previously assumed - incorrectly - that by law “diversified” funds could not concentrate heavily in one sector.)
(From Zacks) “Diversified funds cast a wide net for assets, catching bonds, cash, and stocks from many companies. Under federal law, a fund cannot tie more than 5 percent of its value in a single company's stock.” https://finance.zacks.com/difference-between-diversified-nondiversified-mutual-fund-5139.html

”I am lookin for a growth fund that is not heavily weighted on Tech, not above 50 % at least.”

Your question suggests that such a fund would be an exception to the rule or an aberration from norm. Frankly, I’m not aware of any diversified growth funds that would ever exceed 50% in technology under normal circumstances. With growth funds I think the most important thing is to buy-in for the long haul. Each will have its day - but their performances diverge sharply over shorter periods as various sectors wax and wane. Trying to always own the best performing one might be the equivalent of the proverbial elephant chasing his tail.
Lots of fine growth funds out there. Just a couple that come to mind:
TRBCX - 28% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_FomFGKRzy/Zlxw7oh/nFxhuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf+NFFYgOPjGud+qERLyR7v
DODGX - 15% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_ku+B2TlKptBi+tpivKaWyBuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf8SJRq1qRCsCbi0+hJj/WI
Different rating services and observers may define “technology” companies differently. One might include a company like Amazon under consumer retail and another might consider it a technology company. Telecommunications is sometimes listed as a separate category and at other times considered part of the broader technology area. Some of that is just games people play. But sometimes it’s because there’s considerable “gray area” when deciding where a particular company best fits.
That said, Lord help anyone who ends up in a “diversified” fund that has committed over 50% to the technology sector. It’s one of the most volatile areas in which to invest.

I am lookin for a growth fund that is not heavily weighted on Tech, not above 50 % at least. I saw a TCW fund, TCW New America Premier Equities Fund (TGUNX). What is your take on it ? Any other options ?

@msf Thanks. Quite clear. "These bonds completely disconnect the use of the proceeds from source of revenue to pay for them..." Reminds me of our city trash collection fee. It went up from $45 to $90 in one swoop. What's the new, additional $45 for? The LIBRARIES. For better service? To be able to cease keeping some branches closed and some branches open, from day to day, on a rotating basis? No. If the fee-hike allows for the buying of new material to read, listen to or watch, that would be a good thing, anyhow. These days, libraries are so... DIFFERENT. Noisy. With "pyjama parties" with stories being read to the youngest ones. Because we've all given up the idea that mom and dad might take the time to read to their kids? Cripes. High school-age Board Members, too.

These bonds completely disconnect the use of the proceeds from source of revenue to pay for them.
These are revenue bonds, backed and paid for exclusively from, as you speculated, riverboat gambling. Okay, not exactly something that colorful, but pretty close. However, the money goes to something more productive - infrastructure.
I'm guessing these are the bonds the fund is invested in:

In October 2015, the State issued $200,000,000 in Gaming Tax Revenue Bonds (Series 2015E). The proceeds from this sale will be used for the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) to construct an over-the-railroad bridge in Vicksburg, the Local System Bridge Program within State Aid Road Fund, and for deficient bridges on state highways. The debt service revenues are derived solely from gaming tax revenue collections from casinos located along the Mississippi River and the Gulf Coast.

https://www.treasurerlynnfitch.ms.gov/Programs/Documents/Bonds/Debt Affordability Study 2017.pdf

First of all, who can TRANSLATE this? I know it's SOMEHOW connected to Gambling, now commonly euphemized as "gaming." In Mississippi. A State agency is floating a 5% bond to do... what, exactly, for the sake of casinos? Or...? It's just 0.45% of the full PTIAX portfolio, the 24th-largest holding.
"Mississippi State Gaming Tax Revenue."
To encourage people to gamble? At taxpayers' expense? To rebuild casinos after one of the hurricanes? I can't come up with an honest, ethical reason for that particular State agency to be floating its own bonds. What is this about?

Folks, this is a well written article that provides some good thoughts as to how the average retail investor can become a better one. Perhaps Carl (the subject in the article) along with a good number of my friends should start reading the MFO board as they tend to buy high and sell low as Carl has done. I have found through the years the best avenue, for me, was to follow my asset allocation and when one area got heavy (or light) then rebalance. Plus, I like to play around the edges from time to time with some spiff money.
In order for me to better follow the movement of the stock market I came up with my market barometer which scores the S&P 500 Index based upon three main data feeds. They are an earnings feed, breadth feed, and a technical score feed. Generally, when the barometer indicates that the markets are oversold I will do a little buying; and, when it reflects that the markets are overbought I'll trim my equity positions if warranted based on where I bubble within my asset allocation.
Most on the board know of my monthly (and sometimes weekly) postings of my barometer report.
If you are not familiar with it I have provided a link below to the my April report. Perhaps, in reading Old_Skeet's Barometer Report will instill some ideas that you might carry forward in developing a system of your own to become a more skilled retail investor.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/48963/old-skeet-s-market-barometer-report-thinking-for-april-2019-april-18th-update#latest
Wishing all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

FYI: Carl is a 75-year-old retiree from Mercer Island, splitting time between charity efforts, yard work, family and trying to make sure his money will last for the rest of his life.
In September 2018, Carl’s portfolio — 100% invested in index and specialty exchange-traded funds (ETFs) — was up more than 15% on the year. By the middle of December, he was in the red and “just could not afford to lose any more,” so liquidated nearly his entire portfolio.
As a result, he finished 2018 with a loss of about 10%.
By mid-January, Carl was convinced that the bull market was back on, so he invested again, just in time to catch the end of the rally.
As a result, Carl didn’t endure the very worst of the “buy high, sell low” cycle that investors experienced in the last six months.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/the-signal-for-avoiding-markets-next-painful-downturn-comes-from-within/

Part of this CEF distribution in 2017 was return of one's own capital invested.
Being curious....., the below 3 healthcare related were chosen, for about 5.5 years of compare.
GRX FSPHX FHLC FSMEX compare chart starting Oct. 2013
GRX has performed well during the past 3 week healthcare whack. It appears they are able to use a percent of the money for derivatives functions; and have it right at this particular time frame.
However, we remain a total return investor; not for the yield/distribution function.

FYI: A 5% yield is difficult to come by these days, even if income is your only objective. But the Gabelli Healthcare and Wellness Trust has a distribution yield above 5% and also pursues long-term growth.
Jeff Jonas, who co-manages the fund, described his investment strategy and spoke about several representative stocks in an interview.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/you-can-capture-a-dividend-above-5-and-still-enjoy-stock-market-growth-2019-04-17/print
M* Snapshot GRX:
https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/xnys/grx/quote.html