In short: Named only as a competitor — the fee benchmark: "I'm talking like Vanguard expense ratios. We're going to come after Vanguard."
38:59The plan, the intention is by the end of the year to basically have a low-cost, low, and when I say low expense ratio, man, I'm talking like Vanguard. [clears throat] — And people, oh yeah, it's low. I'm talking like Vanguard expense ratios. We're going to come after Vanguard. Whether we will succeed [laughter] is its own question, but we're launching every line item in the classic pie chart that somebody could conceptualize.
In short: Historical exhibit Colin adds to the list: "the invention of passive investing. The 1970s is also the launch of Vanguard by John Bogle." Kofinas adds that it drove the institutionalization of retirement investing, "at least in the US, not so much in Europe."
Vanguard, founded by John Bogle in the 1970s, popularised index or "passive" investing: buying the whole market cheaply instead of picking stocks. Colin adds it to his list of 1970s financial inventions that reshaped how Americans save for retirement. It is a historical example of finance reinventing itself, not an investment view. Vanguard is privately owned by its funds.
26:33about junk bonds, LBOs, Bloomberg terminals. There isn't just one form of financial innovation. So flesh that out for me a bit if you can. — Yes. Oh, by the way, one that I forgot was the invention of passive investing. The 1970s is also the launch of Vanguard by John Bogle — and the institutionalization of finance and the development of investment frameworks that now define largely how people invest their retirement savings which have also come to replace savings as the primary mechanism by which people
In short: The "Vanguard put": index buyers "will show up to buy those shares regardless of valuation." And the sunshine trader's side of the deal — "Google Vanguard partners with market makers to facilitate liquidity… they are effectively opening up their kimono."
Vanguard is the biggest index-fund company. Green coins the "Vanguard put" — like the old "Greenspan put," a safety net — because index funds will buy a stock once it joins an index regardless of valuation, giving early investors a guaranteed buyer to sell to.
He also notes Vanguard partners with market makers to handle its huge, predictable trades, effectively giving them a look at its order book. Vanguard is owned by its funds' investors, so there is no stock to buy.
11:05And so it's similar to a Greenspan put, right? We can call it the Vanguard put. Vanguard will show up to buy those shares or investors who have referenced the NASDAQ 100 will show up to buy those shares regardless of valuation. Ultimately that creates a time race that basically says are we expanding index participation fast enough to offset the insider selling and the mechanics of how they worked with NASDAQ to magnify the float so that there's actually roughly a 3:1 increase relative to the float dynamics facilitates that exit. Anyone looking at
In short: Named as the firm John Bogle founded to popularise index investing, and as the source of the piece's key anomaly: "In the UK, for example, Vanguard's UK All Share tracker has made 66% over five years, trouncing the average UK equity fund's return of just 32%." The post treats that gap not as proof that active managers are bad but as evidence that flows, not skill, are setting relative performance. No stance on the firm.
Vanguard is the firm John Bogle built to sell index funds — funds that do not try to pick winners, just hold everything in a market at very low cost. The original argument was straightforward: most professionals fail to beat the market, and their fees make it worse, so simply owning the average is better after costs.
It appears here as evidence of something Bogle did not anticipate. Vanguard's UK All Share tracker returned 66% over five years while the average UK fund managed 32% — a gap far too wide to be explained by fees. The piece's suggested explanation is that money flowing into index funds mechanically buys the shares those funds hold, pushing them up, while money leaving active funds mechanically sells the shares those funds hold, pushing them down. Each flow then improves or worsens the measured performance that drives the next flow.
No view is offered on Vanguard as a business. It is the illustration of a market in which, on the numbers quoted, index money now owns 60% of assets while doing only 10% of the trading — so the marginal price is increasingly set by buyers and sellers who never look at the price at all.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.