>> Again, please welcome our special guest of honor, Mr. Jack Bogle. >> Surely you must have had enough Bogle by now. God, I'm exhausted. I'm all exhausted thinking about who you all are out in the office, having -- all out in the audience is having subjected yourself to this unusual form of torture.

But I always love being with you, and I'll say a little bit more about that later on. I thought I'd just like to take a minute to talk about the development of Vanguard and the development of indexing at Vanguard, partly based on Gus's remarks. And first let me say that there is -- in that Wall Street Journal article, it was so nice, championed the long term.

I love that. There was a comment by Holman Jenkins that an industry graybeard told me that I would ruin the industry if I started a mutual company. This was not a graybeard. This was a man named John B. Lovelace, or John Lovelace. His father, John B. Lovelace, was the founder of the American Fund Group out in Los Angeles, and John was the head of it.

And he was a year ahead of me at Princeton. So calling him a graybeard is not exactly accurate. But he was an important factor in the industry, not a big participant, but that has always been a very well thought of group, and he was a great guy, and he had to see me when I was out in their offices.

I visited around a lot in those days. And when I was out in his office, he said, "I have to see you," and I said, "Well, I can't do it now. I've got a lot of meetings with your people. And then I can't do it tonight because I've got a dinner engagement, and I'll be leaving tomorrow morning on the 7 o'clock plane to Philadelphia.

And so if you want to meet me at the airport, I'll meet you in the diner at 6 o'clock." So I went to the diner at 6 o'clock in all those covered little stools kind of thing, like linoleum or something, and in there was John. And after a brief, very brief introduction, he said, "I've heard that you're going to try and start a mutual company." And I said, "That's true.

I don't know if it's going to work or not. We're still in the middle of no man's land with the board of directors in the summer of 1974, and no one knew how it was going to come out." And I said, "Yes, that's what I'm planning." And he said, "If you do that, you will destroy this industry." But this is not a gray beard.

This is a guy about my age and certainly with my Princeton heritage. And he was very, very foresighted. He did not destroy the industry, but if he just added, "You'll destroy this industry as we now know it," that is exactly what is happening now. And the reason for that goes through a phrase I haven't used yet today, but I usually use it about 10 times a day when I'm trying to explain to an outsider what we're all about, and that is we started with the structure, the mutual structure, and then developed from that structure, I have a speech called Strategy Follows Structure, a low-cost strategy.

The obvious thing to do if you have that structure, of which the highlight would, of course, be an index fund. So that was strategy and structure together. And it's amazing that it has worked this way. And I thought I'd just talk a little bit about the development of our index business.

First of all, because the point I'm trying to make is, every single thing I'm about to tell you was intuitive. We had not a single formula. I didn't understand most formulas. I can probably read half of half of the articles in the Financial Analyst Journal and the Journal of Portfolio Management, or did I write half of them?

I don't know, but something like that. And it was all intuitive, and starting with Vanguard Index Trust, Burst Index Investment Trust as it was called in 1975 when it was formed, I did a crude comparison of the companies and the mutual funds in the industry. There were about 60, it was all.

They're all pretty much large-cap, blue-chip kind of funds, very similar, and I compared them for 35 years for the S&P 500. You saw that slide in my talk. And the index won by 1.6%, I think was the number. And 35 years later, or maybe it was 38 years later, that is to say a couple of years ago, I decided it would be interesting to see the correlation of that group of mutual funds in terms of their performance, how much was explained by the S&P 500.

So I put Mike Nolan to work, and it turned out to be 97. In other words, if I produced that number, I would have been really confident, but this was just done intuitively without any of that. Then I decided that the S&P 500 would be the preferred index. I hadn't really heard of much else.

I knew the Dow Jones was a terrible index, and the Wilshire wasn't even developed by then, total market index. So we did start it with the S&P 500, and I thought, you know, it might be a good idea for purists. We thought about changing the structure of the fund to be a total stock market.

That made more sense, really, but no one had ever heard of the total stock market index. So in 1985, we created the extended market index fund, the completion fund. That's now our small, mid-cap and small-cap fund, and it's been very, very successful. But the original idea was the intuitive idea that you want to go out and get the rest of the market.

Statistical studies about that? None. I didn't even know what the composition was. At that point, we brought Gus Sauter in, because we now had two index funds, and we went on from there. We started a bond fund, I think in '86. That was not Gus's part of it. And then in '89, I think, don't hold me to these dates, I didn't look them up, but around '89, we started an international fund.

And I had the intuition that EIFA, Europe, Australia and Far East, Japan was terribly overpriced. It was half the world's market cap at that time. So I thought it would be a good idea to separate and have a European portfolio and a Pacific portfolio. Strictly intuitive. No data. In fact, the Japanese market soon collapsed, kind of vindicated keeping them apart.

And that's where that came from. Small cap fund, small cap index fund, in 1990, roughly, came when the manager for the small cap index that we had, small cap managed fund that we had, came into my office, and I was telling him what a terrible job he'd done, which he had.

And he said, and this is the first time I'd really thought about it, I said, "You know, I think we're going to convert this into a small cap index fund." And we did. I wasn't sure exactly how the small cap index worked, but it's worked okay. It's basically the best small cap index around, although I don't like its concept particularly, but that's another one.

Then we started those admiral funds, original admiral funds, for long, short and intermediate term treasuries, based on the way we ran our municipal bonds, have the shareholder choose between yield and volatility. Then we started, this is a curious one, the growth and value funds. I had said probably in 1990, the development of our growth and value funds, the formation of our growth and value funds, will come as soon as we have a growth and value index.

I didn't know what would be in the index, how would I know that? So Standard and Boors announced they were splitting the 500 into growth and value, so we started the fund, totally on intuition, on the basis that those two, growth and value, would be the same in the future.

I warned people about switching on them, and they were, turns out from then to now, '93 I think that was, growth and value had the same 9% return. It happens that Morningstar says that these two funds, growth and value, are the oldest and largest factor funds in the industry.

So I will take credit for building the factor fund industry, but I don't want any credit for it because I don't believe in that. I started them for a very different reason, and I want you to understand that you can have formulas and formulas and formulas, but if they don't comport with common sense, you don't want to have anything to do with them.

You can prove anything with data. I've done my share, and so that's a little bit about the development. We also tried quantitative, hire a quantitative manager, John Gorniak by name, to run Vanguard quantitative portfolios, and it seems so easy. There's the S&P 500. Just get rid of the five worst stocks or the three worst stocks, and all of a sudden you'll do well.

Seems easy. It wasn't easy, and he barely outperformed the S&P 500 after taxes, I think, maybe underperformed with that quantitative portfolio, and I honestly can't remember if we still have a quantitative portfolio or not, but it didn't work. When we had a managed fund, I picked the new managers by intuition.

When we had Windsor II, which I was assured would never do as well as Windsor, I picked the manager, Farrell Hanley, down in Dallas, and in fact, Windsor II has done a little bit better than Windsor, although they correlate very, very highly as they were supposed to. Prime cap, I like the way these guys look.

They worked for American Funds. They had a lot of experience, and they did a great job on that, so I want to emphasize that we can look at formulas until hell freezes over, but use your head, too, and it's just, to me, common sense. Now, they say a word about managers with skill, which Gus mentioned.

Yes, there are some managers with skill, and sometimes they beat the market, but if you think of Vanguard in one way, and people don't talk about this, competitors, we don't even talk about it, you are investing for a lifetime, and find me a manager that has beaten the market for 75 years or 50 years.

They don't live that long. Start with that. That's an important qualification, and they turn over, and the manager's typical fund lasts eight years. Half of the funds, I mentioned this the other day, yesterday, half of the funds go out of business every 10 years. There is this genius who comes in the business just the day you come in, manages your money until your retirement, and then you both retire happily together and rich.

They don't exist, and by the way, it's at the time sequence. How do you know to go to them? They don't have a record yet, so this industry is complicated. Things that, to me, are very, very simple. I think I said this the other day, but I'll repeat it because I like it.

When our guarantee for you, all you bogleheads and anybody else that comes to Vanguard, we will guarantee you that if you buy the 500 fund or the total stock market fund, and they're pretty much the same, very high correlation between the two, 98, 99, we will have the same non-manager when you buy the fund as you do when you redeem it, when you start to get conservative in your ancient years.

That makes sense. It's investing for a lifetime that this is all about. Those are just a couple of preliminary words. I should say that, to what Gus said, I did a competition with Rob Arnott, who runs this smart beta fund, so-called, at the Super Bowl of Indexing. I think that's the last one I went to, probably seven or eight years ago.

He wasn't there, so a couple of us, I think Burt Malkiel was there and I was there, and Arnott was the third participant. He was on a television screen, about five times our height. When I talked to the crowd, I said, "We've got this giant Buddha hanging over our heads," and in any event, the group there, Super Bowl, took a boat at the end of that meeting and they voted that the Bogle way, if you will, the standard and poorest 500 way, the market cap way, was going to be more successful than the Arnott way and the Jeremy Siegel way too.

That's exactly how it's turned out. I told you the other day, they don't look much different. Why would they look much different? But they're a little more risky or a little less risky, depending on which one you're talking about. They have a little higher return if they're more risky and a little lower return if they're less risky.

I mean, you kind of look at today, they've had 19 years, 10 for one and nine for the other to prove they're right and they prove that they aren't bad, they're not disasters, but they add no value. They actually subtract a little bit. So all these things lead up to the fact that we're getting big and big and big and big.

So I'm spending a little bit of time thinking about risks to the concept of indexing. I hope the people back at the ranch are doing the same thing. The first one is we're taking in billions and billions and billions of dollars at very full market prices, not necessarily overvalued stock prices, but highly valued stock prices.

How will those investors feel when the decline comes in? It will come. It always comes. We could easily have a 20% decline and since markets do overdo anything, it could easily be 30% and then it'll be maybe a great value. Who really knows? I don't. Number two, so that's one of the risks.

How will shareholders react to a bear market having taken all their money out of the other funds and put it into ours, index funds, and how will they react? Number two, and there's some things being written about this now, is the concentration of indexing in three firms and we all own, well, we own about 6% of the market.

State Street owns about 2.5% BlackRock, about 6%, same as we do, and yet it's a big difference in those three holdings. What does one make of it? I don't know, but we're the only one that is focused on traditional index funds, a standard garden variety, buy it and hold it index funds, and those two are dominated totally.

State Street's 100% really exchange-traded funds and I guess BlackRock is 85% exchange-traded funds. Does that make a difference? What happens when people start trading these things? Will they do well? Will they do ill? How will those markets hold up? Those are big questions and it will be focused on index funds when that happens because that's what's driving the entire exchange-traded market.

And then there is the randomness of performance. Think about this. Every year we look at the performance data and we say the average fund was up X, let's say 6%, and the index was up 8, and the industry number is the number of funds. So if you get a few very good performing funds, it doesn't help.

If it was market weighted, market cap weighted, it would be very different. So that can turn against you. Small cap funds, little funds, they do much better. They won't do much better for very many people, but they will make the index look like it's underperforming when in fact it's not.

So how will we deal with that? I don't know. And then there's the 10% rule. The 1940 Act says, the 1940 Act, the Investment Company Act, says that no mutual fund can own more than 10% of any corporation, essentially. We own 6%. What happens when you get to 10?

Spend a minute thinking about that, and then I will take you to a famous comment from the great Daniel Rumsfeld, another fellow Princetonian, but not the nicest guy I ever met. And he says, I've talked to you about the known unknowns. What about the unknown unknowns? And that's a good question, which I will now answer for you.

I'm only kidding. So let's take your questions. OK, Jack, the first question is from Kenner. He said, how does it feel to have beneficially transformed the investment world in order to give individual investors a fair share of the world's economic progress and to have enhanced the lives of millions of your fellow citizens?

Good. OK. I could have answered that one, and I figured that was the answer, but-- I might even say, although I think the word "very" is overused in our lives, I might even say "very good." This question is from Stay the Course. It says, if you were born Jack Yashihara in Japan instead of Jack Bogle in America, would you still be advising 100% home country bias, or did you have some prescient feeling America would do this well the last 50 years?

Well, look, this home country bias is a bunch of baloney. Think about it for a minute. The American corporations get half of their revenues and half of their profits from outside the US. So you have a diversified international portfolio already. Now, there are arguments you should add "international" or "non-US," and it's correct that these companies outside the US, indexes outside the US, have a lower price-earnings multiple.

As I said with Bill Bernstein the other day, does that mean that they're just riskier, or does that mean they're cheaper? I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't know anybody else who does. The one thing I've learned in my career here, 65 years, is this is a hard business.

It's a hard business to win at. So doing the simple things and getting cost out of the equation is the best thing to do. And everybody needles me, everyone, Vanguard doesn't even like it when I talk about it, about being international. I don't do it. Am I telling you not to do it?

Of course not. Am I going to tell you because international has done so much better and non-US has done so much better in the last 25 years, since I first went into it in detail in my first book, 23 years, I guess. Does that mean it'll do the same in the next 10 years?

I'd be astonished if it did that well in the next 10 years. Could it do worse? Of course it could do worse. So you just don't know, and it pays your money and it takes your choice, and I don't want to intimidate anybody into not buying international, although I do think diversifying at the market weight, which would mean non-US stocks are, I think, around 43% of the world market, is more than most US investors should have.

And to me, it's just a matter of logic. But if someone throws a big formula at it and proves I'm wrong again, believe me and not the formula. I guess a little background on this for those who aren't aware, Warren Buffett has directed that his estate go into treasuries and the S&P 500 index.

And this question asks, what is your take on Warren's choice of the S&P 500 versus the total stock market? Well, I asked him about that, actually, and he didn't answer. And first of all, there's not very much difference. The correlation, as I said, is, I think, 0.98 between the total stock market index.

The S&P 500 represents 85% approximately of the total market. They can't be too different. So I'm not about to argue with him. I think a more interesting proposition is why he picked the US. Home country biased idiot. I'm kind of a little high here. I had my martini before.

So I'm kind of relaxed about my answers. I don't mean to be cavalier. That's an excellent point, though. I hadn't even thought of that. I'm sure a lot of investors have. Oh, I'm thinking about it all the time. This next question is a two-part question. What is the ideal blend of treasuries and investment-grade corporate bonds in a long-term portfolio?

And the second part, any necessity for or significant benefit from an international bond holding in a long-term portfolio? I think you can probably answer the second one in one word, right? Well, the international thing kind of mystifies me. It's not going to make much difference what you do as long as international bonds have the same quality and protective nature that US bonds do.

So there's some questions I just don't have a good answer to. And that's one of them. I think it comes down to a preference. I do think that it's maybe a little bit preemptory to put these holdings of international bonds and individual stocks into the retirement plans, target date retirement funds, without asking stockholders would they like it, because there are quite large dimensions.

I think Mike will have to correct me here, but maybe 35% international stocks, both the stock position, and 35% international bonds, both the bond position, something like that, Mike? 30 and 30? 40 and 30. I mean, that's a big change, and if they all do the same, it's fine.

And I even hope somebody talked about it, even thinking of having target date funds that are US-oriented and target date funds that are world-oriented. Funds are large enough easily to accommodate that. But in any event, that's not the way it happened, and I think we should always have options available that don't encompass international stocks and bonds.

It's an important choice, and whether there's going to be a big difference, I don't know, but my intuition, you know, maybe I'm just proud to be an American, or at least I know I'm free. There's a song that goes that way, called "God Bless the USA," which I will say to all of you, God bless the USA, too, a big part of our family culture.

And the first part was -- The first part was, what is the ideal blend of treasuries and investment-grade corporate bonds in a long-term portfolio? Well, I have always said the best blend is not -- and this talks about, you know, intuition and not maybe thinking things quite through adequately, which is certainly what I have done, and that is when we started the bond fund, I just took the bond index.

I figured it was representative, and it turns out it's 70 percent in treasuries and government-guaranteed mortgages, and that didn't matter much in those days, because the yields were running around 8 percent, but today it matters quite a bit. So you start and reflect, times have changed, and I would think it would be desirable to have a fund like that, you know, just top of the head, maybe 50 percent high-grade corporates and 50 percent treasuries and other government-backed mortgage, 50/50, just for the fun of it.

Those corporates are now only about 30. So a better representation for a higher yield, and higher yield will lead to a longer return, holding everything else equal in the long run, as we all know. And somebody says, well, that doesn't match the allocation of the index. Well, wait a minute, pal.

Where do you think that balanced index fund came from? When I started that, 1993, I think it was, you know, I said 60/40. I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about it, but that seemed like a reasonable number, and there's no 60/40 index, except for the index fund, which is the standard.

And so some of this, I think we can overthink, well, having said that, I made a lot of mistakes in doing all the things I've done, and sometimes intuition doesn't work as well as I think. Sometimes my self-confidence is a little bit on the high side, compared to what turns out.

I mentioned picking that quantitative manager. So I've had some failures, funds that we started that didn't do anything. And so I don't have a good answer, but I do think there should be available to investors who want to take the extra risk in these days of very low-yielding bonds, if you want to take a little bit of extra risk.

You can do it now, by the way, by just owning a treasury fund and our corporate bond, high-grade corporate bond index fund, and it'll do fine. But people don't seem to like to do that, and it's hard to explain on the phone. Telemarketing is difficult when you've got to explain things to everybody.

So I think it's a good idea, but hard to implement. >> Jack, this isn't a prepared question, but since you mentioned target date funds, I brought up a question that I get asked a lot and I don't know the answer for, and maybe you do. Why aren't there admiral shares of the target date and the life strategy funds?

They use the investor share class in all of them, even if you had a million dollars in the fund. We like to try to recommend to people that they simplify their portfolios, and a great way to do it is either with the target date funds if you want the glide path or with the life strategy funds if you want a consistent asset allocation.

So when people put a lot of money in there, it seems like they should be able to get the admiral shares. >> Well, Michael, correct me if I'm wrong, which he does all the time, by the way, but don't the admiral shares buy the -- don't the target date funds buy admiral shares or they buy them an asset value?

An asset value? The funds don't pay an investor share price. They do? I'll talk to the management tomorrow. >> I've tried to get an answer from Vanguard and I haven't been successful, Jack, so hopefully you will. >> You might make a note of that, would you? >> I mean, it seems if they put -- the total amount needed to get the asset class of those would probably be much higher because of the underlying things, but it still seems if you put $100,000, whatever the requirement is, it still seems like there should be a number where they were able to get the admiral share classes.

>> Well, there may be some rational answer to that, but I don't have it for you. >> I was wondering if there was any legal reason that you're aware of, but it seems like they're using the investor class, so I don't see any reason why they couldn't use the admiral class.

>> Well, I take the credit or the blame for that if that's the way we run the life strategy funds, because I started them and the target date funds were, of course, just an outgrowth of the life strategy funds, and so that's probably a question I didn't ask. You know, I'm usually so good at asking all the tough questions, so what can I do?

Apologize? I don't know. We'll get an answer. >> Great. Great. Thank you. This question is from Jay Willis. It says, "Should an investor attempt to factor in the effects of quantitative easing into their investment plan, or is it more likely to be a short-term event unworthy of consideration?" >> Well, the answer to the first part of the question is clearly yes, but I have no idea how to do it.

I mean, there's a point at which you have to accept the flaws and foibles of the market for what they are, and this very low yield, even negative yields somewhere around the world are there, and you may not like it, but that's the marketplace. I don't know what you would do if you take quantitative easing into account, honestly, and I would also say that it can't go on forever, and interest rates can't stay this low I don't think forever, although I would have said it had gone on long before this, gone back up long before this, and there's some questions that even the "Great Bogle" doesn't know the answer to, and so I look at this with the same kind of mystery you do, but I don't know what to do about it, so I'm roughly 50/50, have bonds and stocks, mostly index funds, communities in my personal account, and corporates and taxables, treasuries, bond market, in my intermediate term, bond market fund, not the total bond market fund, and that gives you a little advantage in yield, and I just do it, and I don't pay a lot of attention to it.

I mean, I don't think I look at my portfolio, I know I don't do it once a year, I mean, I know roughly what's in there, I don't even know any more than that. I think sometimes we complicate simple things, I mean, the idea of rebalancing, for example, is okay, if you know what you're doing, and knowing you're sacrificing all the time your higher-yielding asset, but you're reducing the volatility as markets go up, that's good in the one hand and bad in the other, but to do it too frequently, to do it every time as a one-point change in the ratio, it's just silly, it doesn't matter.

So it's simplify, simplify, simplify. I think that's a quote from Thoreau. What do you think about the theory, though, that because of the low interest rate environment, that a lot of people are going out and investing in the market, in equities instead, to try to get a return, and that when the easing eases, that a lot of those people will be bailing and going to higher-yielding things.

Do you think that's a correct analysis or not? First of all, at the margin, it's hard to even express these things. Would I recommend a wholesale shift that way? That'd be insane. Would I recommend maybe a marginal change to capitalize on your feelings? I'm not much of a believer in that, but I don't see any reason you couldn't do 5% in high-yielding stocks, higher-yielding stocks, or the-- what do we call-- high-dividend yield fund.

I thought that was a good idea. That didn't happen to be mine, but I thought it was a good idea. And the same thing with bonds. When interest rates go up, bonds are going to go down. But stocks are going to go down, too, because the interest rate, the premium, equity premium, will have to shrink.

I mean, if it stays the same, bonds will move hand-in-hand. Stocks will move hand-in-hand with bonds, just that that number is going to stay stable. It doesn't stay totally stable, and sometimes it's very counterintuitive, but that's kind of the right way to look at it. So there really isn't a good haven.

And my own view is that reaching for yield is a very risky thing to do. It looks fine. You get the income. And then all of a sudden, it stops. And you've gone too far out in the limb, to use the metaphor, and the limb snaps off. So what I say is you should never use high-yielding bonds.

5% of your bond position, maybe even 10%, won't kill you. It won't change your monthly check very much. But as compared to shifting entirely into high-yielding bonds, which I don't think is a good idea. I mean, I'm a diversification guy. And I'm a believer in, finally, the investor has to accept the rate of return that's available in the marketplace.

Doing otherwise means you're accepting greater risk. And I'm just conservative, simple. And it's worked for me for the better part of 65 years. And could it have worked better, by the way? Yes. I've been down 50% in equities ever since 2009. But I didn't go down. I got a little nervous when the market went down 50%.

Anybody does. So there is, as Gus mentioned, actually your own investor tolerance for these things. But stay in the mainstream, or using the analogy I use in Little Book of Common Sense investing, have a funny money account, 5% of the total. And play games over there, do whatever you want, anything you want.

Buy new issues, buy real estate, whatever you want to do. And with 95% in your serious money account, that's what you're going to send your kids to college on, that's what you're going to retire on, that's what you're going to have a long life with. That's going to be the basis of any sound investment program.

All this implies, by the way, that normalcy, as we know it, kind of continues. This is a risky world we're in, a very risky world. We've talked about the risk of Russia, the risk of China, the risk of nuclear war, the risk of some idiot in North Korea, heaving a bomb across the Pacific Ocean, and a certain candidate who says we'll just take him out, which is probably not the worst idea ever.

And maybe one of his only good ideas, by the way. Oh, I don't want to get into politics, I've had enough of that. And disease comes along, global warming is there, economic weakness around the world, over-leveraged world. This is a risky time, and the stock market seems to ignore it.

Can it continue to do that? Well, like everything else, that all depends. All depends how it comes out. But we're very much out of balance here in the U.S. and all over the world is even worse in terms of the amount of borrowing, the amount of that Federal Reserve balance sheet, never been looked like this before the last five years.

And I'm not so sure what to make of all these things and which of these risks come home to roost, but anyone investing today just has to be aware of the big risks out there. In my Common Sense on Mutual Funds book, the first sentence says something like, "Investing is an act of faith." Truer words were never said.

An act of faith that our nation will prosper. An act of faith that our corporations will continue to earn money and have it grow and pay dividends. An act of faith that our investment intermediaries will give you your fair share of the market returns that are developed from that.

And this is all faith. There are no facts here. It's based on the past. But the past is, as I said the other morning, talking about a completely different subject, the past is rarely prologue. So we live in an uncertain world, and anyone that doesn't understand that should do I don't know what, but not save, because as I said before, the one way to be sure you end up with nothing is to save nothing.

And that's the only certain proposition that I can think of at the moment. So I'm not sure that's a very good answer, but I think we should all be aware of just the systematic risks, the broad risks that lie out there, let alone the risks that lie here in the U.S., which you're all well aware of.

>> This question is from Lady Geek, who's here and who's one of the mainstays in the Bowheads Forum. Do you think the fiduciary standard will have the intended impact as you first envisioned it to be? >> The answer to that is absolutely. That is going to make much bigger change than anybody now envisions.

You know, it's fine right now, this is a curious anomaly, it's limited due, it comes out of the Department of Labor, what have they got to do with the fiduciary standard? Where's the SEC here? And the Department of Labor, so it only applies to retirement plans. So we have this, I think I touched on this the other day, this awful anomaly of you've got a client here with a retirement plan and a regular plan, you have to honor your fiduciary duty with his retirement plan, but you can go rip him off on his regular plan.

Obviously, that's not going to happen. More likely is that if you have a client that has only a retirement plan and another client that has no retirement plan, which is the standard account, is any broker with a half a brain going to treat the other client less favorably? I don't think so.

So I think the system will actually, free financial enterprise system, capitalism, will work to iron this out. And so the fiduciary standard will spread either intuitively or by practice, probably before the SEC gets around to saying, which they should do, that a fiduciary duty applies to all anyone that touches other people's money, as I said the other day, including financial institutions that are managing all that money.

Can you imagine them not having a fiduciary duty in law? I can't. And so that will come, probably a long time, probably hard fought. But it's interesting to say, we really don't want to put the customer first. Or as I said in one of the articles I wrote, yeah, I'm putting my own interests first and the customer second, but the difference is really small.

It doesn't seem to me like something you want to say to your customer in the morning. So but it's going to spread, as I've written at some length and as I used the other day in my Adam Smith quote, it's going to happen even without a fiduciary rule. People are going to have to serve the investor.

Producers are going to have to assume responsibility for consumers, giving them the best deal in town. They'll go out of business. And so we're going to see a lot of change in this business. And indexing is going to put a lot of pressure on people. And you can't really get to indexing enthusiastically until you get to mutuality.

And it may be before my days end, there will actually be another mutual company or two. I tried to do a couple, tried to persuade the Putnam directors, a complete disaster. They wouldn't do it. And look at them now. Oh, my God. I mean, they used to be the fifth largest firm in the industry.

Now they're probably 30th, 25th, I don't know where. And terrible performance, high cost. They brought in, interestingly enough, a guy from Fidelity Marketing to run the new Putnam. They should have brought in an investment guy. They need help everywhere, and they're not going to get it. They're probably going to go out of business.

That wonderful name that was one of our big competitors in the '30s and '40s. So the industry is going to change, and they may not like it. Although I will say, this is a editorial comment, that I kind of hoped, given that I've completed 65 years of service in this industry, including two years as chairman of the board of the Investment Company Institute, that maybe, just maybe, somebody down there would say, you know, let's bring old Bogle down here and have him make a little farewell speech.

Not going to happen. Now, why is that? Think about that for a minute. The most successful company in the industry's history created that. The most successful strategy in the industry's history, he created that. Well, he hadn't done enough. But do you think the SEC is going to be shamed into covering non-retirement accounts?

They're going to have to do it. They're going to have to do it. I think they're getting too bureaucratic, and Mary Jo White has a lot of conflicts of interest. I think she's a good person, but handling the kind of conflicts she has, and coming in the-- and she had no connection with the mutual fund industry, which is a dominant industry that they regulate.

And I mean, this is a, I guess, $18 trillion, roughly, industry. And they got this big guy out there that I hope they're watching, who has about $3.5 of those $18 billion, 20%, about right. And so, they aren't, I don't think, strong in the investment division, investment management that covers mutual funds, doesn't have the strong leadership, and I've been through a bunch of leaders down there, and worked with a lot of them, really quite successfully, I think, getting what I needed done.

I'll tell you a little anecdote, since we have a little time. I once went to see the director of the division named Mary Ann Smyth, and they always used to ask me, "Where are your lawyers?" And I said, "I don't travel with lawyers." You know, I got eight lawyers in the room.

And I always followed the principle, "He who travels fastest, travels alone." And so, I was down there, and I was about an hour early, naturally, for a meeting with her. I was trying to straighten out the name of the, I think it was the bond fund, they didn't like bond index fund.

And so, I'm sitting down there, and they had a Roy Rogers, or something like that. Is that a place you eat? Yeah, that's what it was. And I was kind of looking, I was thinking maybe about the cheeseburger, and it has an awful lot of calories. And up next to me comes Mary Ann Smyth, looking for her hamburger.

So she said, "Why don't you come up, and we'll have lunch together before the meeting." You know, you don't get that kind of stuff if you're a bureaucrat, if you really have an entourage with you. And we really got along fine. And I didn't quite make my point, I said, "Okay, if we can't call it the Vanguard Bond Index Fund, we'll call it the Vanguard Bond Market Index Fund, oh, that'll be fine." Every name has a funny derivation.

I've seen all this. It's really strange, and it's really wonderful. Many events have been very painful for me to endure. In retrospect, every one of them is memorable, because of the fun it was, the memories it gave me. You know, they say victory has a thousand fathers, and defeat is an orphan.

But I kind of revel in my defeats. I said to you the other day, if I hadn't been fired from Wellington, there would be no Vanguard. Think about that. A world without Vanguard, I mean, I can't imagine it. But that's only me. You'll have to figure that for yourself.

>> Nor a world without Jack Bogle. This question is from BoglerDude. He said, "Is there a valuation level where it would make sense to invest internationally?" >> Well, sure, but we just don't know what it is. I mean, these questions are fine, but tell me how to figure that out, and then tell me what you're going to do in the way of market timing.

I mean, then the valuation level is high, so you get out, and then it's low, and you get back in. Who can do all that? The international problem is no different from the same problem you have in the US. You don't want to put your money in the stock market when it's overvalued.

But you put it in every day, and half of the time, well, it's overvalued probably 10% of the time, undervalued probably 25% of the time, and has a good growth potential most of the rest of the time. You're playing odds. And the one thing you have to do is protect yourself against your own weaknesses.

And thinking you can decide in and out values and when to do it is, I think, superhuman. And as Gus pointed out, well-known fact, that if you're getting out of the market, somebody else is getting in. And one of my favorite stories is I heard somebody say there's said to be, I think it's $300 billion sitting on the sidelines.

When that money comes in to be invested in the stocks, you're going to really see quite an explosion. And I said, wait a minute, wait a minute. If they spend that $300 billion on stocks, how much do you think will be left in the saving reserve? And he said, zero.

I said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, you don't understand. Somebody is going to sell them those stocks, and it's going to be the same $300 billion in the reserve account as there was before it all happened. It's just a different $300 billion. There's no way around the fact that the market is kind of this circular thing.

So if you're doing one thing and the market is doing another, it's a closed circuit. And so you're then betting against somebody else, as Gus said this morning, too. And I just, I think to the extent you can get the idea that the market is a casino and you can bet and win is about the same as thinking that the casino is a casino and you can just bet and win.

The more you bet, the more you lose. And every study that's ever been done, talk about intuitive, says the more you trade, the worse you perform. Of course it is. Because buyers and sellers aren't equal. They're equal to each other. But the man in the middle takes his hunk.

And that will eventually, I think, put pressure on people who are using ETFs for such less than noble purposes. The fringe element I talked about the other day that made no sense at all except marketing sense. And Gus certainly got Arnott right up there by saying he's got a great marketing message.

And these ETFs are about marketing. ETFs are about financial buccaneers. Not all of them, but most of them. And so they're another kind of big if in the future of indexing, too. Well, Jack, given your views on, your opinions on international investing, can you give us a little background, a history of how Total International came about?

Well, I started the International Fund because I thought there was a definite place for international in the mutual fund industry among investors who wanted international exposure. And did I think it through in the same way I do today? I mean, I didn't think whether it would help them or hurt them.

I thought it was a viable option. And it really is funny that we started off-- before we got to the International Index Fund, we started the International Eyes, the old Ives Fund, that fund that failed so badly. And we divided it into an international portfolio of 50% and the US portfolio of 50%.

And the year after we did that, the international portfolio went up 100%. Brilliant. No. Market timing. Luck. And, I mean, that's 100% in a year. It's amazing. And you can check it in your little prospectus or something. You check me, Mike. I'm pretty sure I'm right. And but it was a very large number.

But it's a legitimate option for those who want it. I just don't think everybody should have it built into their investment objectives. And I think you should understand what you're doing and what you're getting. And one thing I say about internationals-- and this is all such common sense. I mean, I feel like I'm revealing the secrets of the world behind a curtain.

But before you do anything on the international, look at the International Index. Well, the largest company in the International Index is Great Britain. The second largest is Japan. And the third largest is France. Britain, Japan, and France-- they're probably, let me take a guess, at 23% or 4% of the total International Index.

I don't think Britain is doing so well. They don't even know what they're going to do about the so-called Brexit. They're still struggling with even-- they've never even voted to actually do it. The parliament is going to have to do that someday or go back for another vote, which I think is highly unlikely.

But they have a troubled economy. They have this total question about the exit from the European Union. They have the likelihood that if they do that, Scotland will break off, and the United Kingdom will only have one kingdom-- Britain. And so it doesn't seem like the best of the place you'd want a big hunk of your money.

Now, I could be wrong, and that valuation's maybe good, but kind of when you look at it in this way, Japan, my god, they've got the worst demographics in the world, the lowest ratio of probably about one to one of workers to retirees, raising the question of what happens to the last in the US?

What happens to the last Social Security recipient when the last employer dies? This would be a problem, and then there's-- they get a tsunami periodically, and a very, very structured economy, and a very, very structured culture. I'm just not so sure that's going to be a good place to invest, struggling economically a lot, one prime minister after another, and they don't seem to be able to find the answer.

And then there's France. They don't work in France. Well, that may be a little hyperbole, but they sure take the summer off, and it doesn't seem like-- >> And they strike a lot. >> Yeah. And Germany seems to be doing a good job. They're fourth, but I only wanted to make my point by using the three bad ones.

But you are owning countries, and to accept the index without knowing what's big, S&P 500, for example, we all know how totally dominated it's been in recent years by the Googles and the Alphabets and the whatevers, and Microsoft a little bit now, things like that, as compared to the conventional leaders, Exxon, not having a very good time either for a whole lot of reasons.

So we don't really know how to deal with all that, except that these are very highly valued stocks compared to-- maybe not compared to their prospects, but compared to the leaders years ago. But it's still, just to come back to our friend Norman, I mentioned this before, but I'm going to mention it again, OK, they've had 19 years to do it, and they can't do it.

He and Jeremy Siegel together, a little higher reward and a little lower reward, respectively, a little higher risk and a little lower risk, respectively, and a sharp ratio risk-adjusted return that's a little lower than the S&P 500. They haven't proven anything, and they've had 19 years of business between the two of them to prove it.

And that's not good enough for me, but they prove it in advance. This is a great business. You can prove anything in advance. But will it happen? Read the articles in the Financial Analyst Journal by the professors, and they've got these formulas-- oh, head over heels, and they're incomprehensible to me.

But they come and they go. It's just not a profitable thing to do. Bill Sharpe, by the way, said, "Smart beta is stupid." That was his contribution to the debate, which is good enough for me. This is an interesting question from Nyssa Prius. He said, "What can you tell me about the process of picking ticker symbols?

Who chooses them? How are they negotiated? Is there a market among mutual fund companies in ticker symbols? Why did Vanguard pick BND for the total bond ETF, leaving bond available for PIMCO total return? Did Vanguard marketing think BND was better?" I think that's above my pay grade. I have absolutely no idea, but I do think one of the more interesting things that happened in our ETFs is they were originally called vipers, to contrast with the spiders.

And after about three years, somebody said, "Aren't vipers dangerous?" Well, it shouldn't have taken them three years to figure out that vipers are dangerous. We all know that. So I just don't know the answer to that question. I'm sorry. No, I'm not sorry at all, actually. It wasn't your fault, right?

So that's why you don't know the answer. This question is from Chris001122. As one of the best financial geniuses of the 20th and 21st centuries, do you believe the United States can ever begin to stop our dependency on debt? If you believe we should, what are some ideas you might have to help balance our budget and begin reducing our debt?

If any single person could help solve this, I believe you might have some good ideas on this. Look, I am not a financial genius. I have never been a financial genius, and I have no aspirations to being a financial genius. Does that make that clear? With that, let me say a couple of things.

First, we've struggled to pull ourselves out of this ghastly mess from 2008, 2009, almost failure of our financial system, almost entirely by monetary policy, Federal Reserve. We have done nothing in fiscal policy. We could have raised taxes to help or cut taxes to help, and we have done neither in any material way.

There have been a few tax increases, I think, in that period, not enough to hold the balance. We're going to have to have -- every economist is going to tell you, at least they told me this in 1949, that the best way to deal with crises is to have fiscal and monetary policy work together.

We have not done that here. How do we get out of it? How do we start to cut that debt down? Well, first, a massive, say, tax increase, huge tax increase to start running at surpluses would be an economic disaster for the country. The way it's going to have to work is if we continue to get growth, and I think we might be lucky enough to get 2.5% or 3% growth in GDP, we can work the ratio of debt to GDP down just by not letting the debt grow, and if the GDP grows and the debt doesn't grow, just by holding it steady, you won't do a lot of damage to the economy, and the ratio will gradually come down.

It is large, and I would say historically alarming, but I think in today's circumstances, it's something that you have to be conscious of taking it down by maybe some combination of rising taxes, although the demands of our budget, all these things about having college free for students and helping the people that need help in our country of whom there are many and who deserve help, who we must have, we must help, we're going to have some kind of a revolution around here, which is the last thing anybody wants, to balance all these things in a federal budget in an affirmative, quickly changing, sharply changed dynamic is simply not going to happen.

The Federal Reserve has balance sheets, I think it's $6 trillion or something, never anything like that before, how is that going to come down? I don't know the answer to that question, and how do we have in a political system that we are almost stymied every time we do something in government, nothing much happens down there, how are we ever going to do even the small things I'm talking about, a more intelligent tax system that can raise a little more taxes, enough to pay for the things we have to spend money on, or that I believe we have to spend money on, and it's a conundrum, but there are answers statistically, but what will actually work, what you can actually implement is really a problem, because we don't implement very much, nor do we have much of a consensus.

We have two Republican parties at the moment, and probably two Democratic parties, it looks like that from the primaries anyway, and it may even get worse, so we have a lot to answer as Americans. They say we get the government we deserve, and I think that's accurate, we being broadly defined as everybody, but I constantly remind people, I was chairman of our Constitution Center then in Philadelphia when it was being built, and everybody used to say democracy, I said we are not a democracy, we have never been a democracy, we are a republic, for whom a republic, for which it stands, that's what we've always been, where the voters elect their most able representatives to represent them.

We don't, I think we're slipping a lot, you could argue that democracy is responsible for what's going on in the Republican party and the Democratic party, almost in the Democratic party too, and Brexit, British thing, was basically a plebiscite, where everybody got an equal vote, where they had a flying clue as to what leaving the European Union would mean to Britain, and obviously most of them didn't, so you get issues about feelings, issues about emotions, issues about who talks the loudest, and get your ear last, and that's how you vote, and none of that is healthy, so I worry about that, and I don't see clear answers in front of us.

You could argue we never have seen clear answers about the problems we face, but I think this nation has always had the strength to finally do what's right, as Churchill said, Americans always do what's right, but only after they've tried everything else. Jack, this is an area I think you've mentioned many times before, but not necessarily to this crowd.

It says, "Hello Mr. Bogle, I've learned so much from you, your teachings, your experience via interviews and writings, I invest only in total stock market, and automatically reinvest all dividends and capital gains. My bond investment is totally my government pension, and social security benefits. I don't think I need a bond portfolio.

What is your opinion?" Well, in the abstract, she's exactly right, but you can't do anything in the abstract. You would have to know what the value of her stock portfolio is, relative to the income she's earning from her two pensions, social security, and I think you said government pension, and so in the abstract, if they're, let me say they're 80% of her wealth, she's absolutely right.

On the other hand, if they're 10% of her wealth, she should probably have a bond position. I've always thought that you ought to take into account, and I've said this many, many times for many, many years, you should always take into account your fixed income side of your equation, social security, corporate pension, and bonds, and then stocks on the other side.

It's not easy to do that, statistically, because social security value, you know, the typical value of, I think the capitalized value of social security for a typical investor that's at retirement is around $300,000, $325,000 a year. Make a note of that, Mike, and see if I'm right. Is that about right?

Well, thank you. You're going to go far in this company. We have a yes man. But that's basically, it's not a bond position because you don't own it, your heirs don't get it, it stops when you die, but in terms of your financial stability during the remainder of your life, it acts like a bond, and a bond with a cost of living hedge.

I mean, is there anything better? And probably not. Maybe it's too good a deal. There are those that say the benefits ought to be cut back. I saw an idiotic op-ed in a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal saying why are we paying all these investors 8% if they wait until 60.5% to 72.5% or whatever it is to get their social security, which I did too, and they didn't seem to have the slightest understanding that the reason it's 8% is that these people die off every year and never get a penny.

So actuarially, the 8% is probably not excessive at all, but it looks like it, and I couldn't believe the journal would publish it. Maybe they don't read these things before they publish them, except mine. I had a really nice exchange with the journal, and the guy that runs that column, we have kind of a laughing stock together, and so he handled me very well when the dean of Harvard Business School said the stock market adds value to the society, and it subtracts value by definition.

So we had a little interchange, and I wrote a short letter. Short, and I wanted to write, but I wanted to make sure it got in. And if you've got to take on somebody, for God's sake, take on somebody like the dean of the Harvard Business School, right? >> This question is from Lynnette.

She says, "Congratulations on a life well lived. What is your schedule, and how do you have the energy, passion, and drive to continue to work at your age?" >> My schedule is completely out of control, and I have the passion and drive to do it, because I really don't have any alternative.

I don't know what to say about that. I think anybody, including my wife, who looks at what I do and the intensity with which I work, would think I believe accurately. I've lost a couple of cylinders in my brain, and that may well be true. But we're all different, and I love what I'm doing.

I love the people I work with, my little team of Mike and Emily. I'm happy, very happy, to be totally accepted at Vanguard again. And I love the letters from the shareholder I get every day, even though I spent last weekend answering 32 letters while my wife's back was turned.

And she's an unbelievably good human being, and I would be nothing without her. She's tolerant. She's patient. She's a great mother, a great friend to so many people. And we're very lucky to have a family that's pretty much together, all 31 of us, as I said the other day.

So I guess we just honor the expression "press on regardless." Sometimes it's hard for me, I'll be honest with you. I don't leave home for work until 8 o'clock in the morning, and it's kind of like sloppy duty for me. But by the time you get to 3 or 3.30 or 4 in the afternoon, I'm too tired to keep going.

I'll be honest. Michael knows this. So I go the hell home and take a nap before dinner. And if I can tell you a little family story, when I get up from my nap, which may last over an hour, my wife does not say, "You lazy lout, I need help around here." She says, "Did you get enough sleep, dear?" Somebody asked me in my -- I was introduced somewhere in my 50th anniversary, the time of my 50th wedding anniversary, obviously 10, 15 years ago.

And one of the questions from the audience, which are usually quite shameless, there's often a shameless question, about the third question that came up was, "What's the secret to being married for 50 years?" And I said, "I never thought about it before." And I gave an answer, I've got to tell you, that I couldn't improve on.

Right in a second, I gave an answer that I couldn't possibly improve on. I said, "Two rules, one, marry a saint, two, never forget the two most important words in the English language, yes, dear." You can all use that when you get to 50 years. It worked, because now I'm at 60.

>> This question is from Quiet Prosperity. We know staying the course is what will give us the best chance of reaching our financial goals, but given our emotional makeup as humans, are there any practices, advice you could give on how to help fight off the potentially dangerous emotional decisions we are prone to make when the noise gets tuned up or turned up?

>> Well, I'm subject to all those emotions, too, and I'm not some superhuman human being. And what I do, when you get a 50% market decline, you really get kind of worried, and you get kind of worried about not so much your own account, because I've got half of it, probably a little more than, a fairly safe bond account that's actually going up when the market's going down at that time from those interest rate levels.

And so I don't really have a lot to worry about, but I still worry and still get knots in my stomach. So what do I do? I get out my first book and read it again. And you reinforce your beliefs, and it's a little hyperbole in that answer, but it's pretty much accurate.

It's really -- it sounds good when I say I get out my first book and read it again, and that was really a book ahead of its time. Dr. Samuelson said, "John Bogle has changed an industry in the optimal direction, but very few can this be said." And this is before the development of indexing or anything else, and there was one smart guy.

Talk about a genius. Paul Samuelson was certainly that. But it's basically, going back to original principles, what got me to invest in the first place. What I expected. Did anybody warn me the market could go down 25 or 30% or even 50%? You know, it's going to go down, typically.

We don't know any of this, but it's a useful thing to think of. The market will probably go down 50% every 25 years, once every 25 years, and over 20%, probably six times in every 25 years or eight times. So when it happens, you say, "Well, there's one. Only five to go," or something.

Or that's the sixth time, that's the last one. It doesn't work that way, but it's just going back to first principles and trying to figure out why you're investing, what you're doing, and are you doing it the best way you can. Have you been safe enough? Have you gotten your fair share of market returns?

These basic principles are so idiotically simple that one wonders, how could it have taken 80 years, roughly, no, 75 years, I guess, for somebody to start a mutual fund? How could that have happened? How could it take until 1975 for someone to figure out that indexing works? It seems inconceivable.

I must be the stupidest guy in the world, because I should have thought about it years before, and someone should have thought about it years before that. It's all so simple, and I do think that is the way, and that it's proving to be the way, and whether the market goes way up or way down, I don't think there are doubts about the value of indexing.

Maybe the value of equities is another question, but the value of indexing to get your fair share of the stock market returns is eternal, and it will continue to change this industry, and it will continue to destroy this industry as we know it. I'm a disrupter in the hell of it.

Don't you think that it would be good to remind people, especially the people who are still working and have the 401(k)s, that they're buying low instead of bailing out, that this is a good opportunity for them, because their money's going in on a regular basis? Sure. There's no question about this, that people seem to like it when they put their money to work at ever-ascending prices and hate it when they're putting their money to work at ever-descending prices.

Well, that's so backward. You should be hoping exactly the opposite. The problem with that, I mean, the syllogism is almost exactly correct, but the problem is that probably, let me guess, that 35% or 40% of Vanguard shareholders are accumulating -- maybe 60% or not, I don't know the exact number, maybe it's 65% -- have done all the investing they're going to do.

So it's always hard to speak to the 35%, let's say, when the 65% is hurting. So your point is well taken. Low prices -- you go to the grocery store, and all the prices are down 50%, you're going to buy everything you can get your hands on. So this is a two-part question from Long Invest.

It says, "I have two questions for you about good enough. My first question is about good enough portfolio. Is there anything wrong with investing in the three-fund portfolio recommended by Taylor Larimore, composed of total US stock, total international, and total bonds, without ever adding other mutual funds to it all lifelong, regardless of age and market conditions?" I mean, I'm not so sure.

A lot depends on what you mean by how much you have in the non-US portfolio, and to each his own on that. And you could say the same thing about a two-fund portfolio, half bonds, half stocks. You can say it about a one-fund portfolio, the balanced index fund, 60/40, rebalanced every day, never more than 60, never less.

So these are equally good options. But with the three-fund portfolio, I don't mean to stake my name and reputation on not thinking international is the greatest idea. But if you think about it, the way the markets are, they equalize. They're a medium for arbitraging the present and the future.

I don't see any reason international stocks will do that badly. I just don't see a high superiority for them. It's not so much negative as it's just not a rousing positive. And I think, Mel, what I'll do, because I don't want to run over my time, but I just have a couple of final words.

Would it be okay if I said them? Is that okay? Sure. Well, first of all, thank you all so much for coming. It's been such a delight for me to see all of you, to shake hands. I don't see how 220 people can take 2,000 pictures, but I guess it's possible.

And the one thing I finally steeled myself to is you're not wasting any film, which is something I worried about, because I'm a well-known cheapskate. But it's been great to be with you. And as I mentioned, I think, before, and certainly to many of you, this is a happy time in my life.

What can you say about the 65th anniversary in the fund industry? What can you say about the 40th anniversary of one of the most creative ideas, stupidly simple as it is, in the industry's history, or maybe in finance history? What can you say about the 60th wedding anniversary? And for that matter, what can you say about the 15th anniversary of the bubbleheads?

You mean a lot to me. You always have, always will, your kindness and your generosity. And I'm a little embarrassed about being overrated, because I am just who I am. And I'm happy with who I am. I don't think I've found any way to improve myself. The old pump is working away.

The back's not doing so good. But so what? I think what we have here is a wonderful group, Taylor, Mel, Laura, the other leaders, other Mel, did a nice job the other day. And all of you together make a huge difference in the organization of this, which Mel has done such a great job at, and his associates, I know he says he got a lot of people working on this.

So this makes this a very nice way to celebrate as we come to the end of another year. I think what we have here is the magic of funds that are designed to serve investors with a fortuitous meeting of an investment organization, investment website designed to serve other investors, too.

And when you come to the end of the line, it's, I think, service to others, the most important things in your life. I will quote here William Penn who said, "Whatever good you have to do, do it now, for we shall not pass this way again." But I hope to pass this way again a year hence.

Thanks, everybody. Thank you, Jack. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And you're wasting valuable time. Thank you all so much. Please be seated. Jack, every year, it's tougher and tougher to try to find a memento to give you. I know your den is full. I know you've been through a lot.

I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot.

I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot.

I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot.

I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot.

I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot.

I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot.

I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. I know you've been through a lot. Jack, thank you again. Thank you very much. That's a wonderful momentum. You shouldn't have done it, but you did it, and I thank you.

Thank you so much again, Jack. We hope to see you again next year. Thank you, Jack. Thank you, Jack. Thanks again. (audience applauding)