Speaker 1: Welcome to Inside Active, a podcast about active managers that
Speaker 1: goes beyond sound bites and headlines and looks deeper into
Speaker 1: the processes, challenges, and philosophies and security selection. I'm David Cohne,
Speaker 1: I lead Mutual fund and active Research at Bloomberg Intelligence.
Speaker 1: Today my cost is Eric Baltoonis, Senior ETF analyst at
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence. Eric, thanks so much for joining me today.
Speaker 2: Great to be here, David, Thank you so.
Speaker 1: Eric, as most of you know, is author of the
Speaker 1: Bogel Effect, so it's safe to say you not know
Speaker 1: a lot about Vanguard. Most Bogel's thoughts on active funds.
Speaker 2: He was an anti active. A lot of people think
Speaker 2: that he definitely was pro index, but if when you
Speaker 2: read his books, he's got over ten books, he highlights
Speaker 2: act to funds in all of them, especially the Wellington Fund.
Speaker 2: He looked at that as his firstborn child, and he
Speaker 2: saved that fund from near extinction. I won't go into
Speaker 2: the details, but he loved that fund, and he loves
Speaker 2: some of the other active funds they started. I will
Speaker 2: say when you read about how his pride in those
Speaker 2: funds and why he thinks they were able to beat
Speaker 2: their benchmarks and have better returns. He does kind of
Speaker 2: move it back to Vanguard's mutual ownership structure and they
Speaker 2: would bring the fees down, and so I call it
Speaker 2: Bobo metrics, you know, like sabermetrics. He didn't necessarily think
Speaker 2: that any human had such superior skills to predict the future.
Speaker 2: But he thought, if you can get the fees really low,
Speaker 2: you can decrease the turnover and diversify some of the active,
Speaker 2: you stand the best possible chance to outperform. And so
Speaker 2: he was more anti high cost and high turnover, not
Speaker 2: necessarily anti acting in his books and his writings show that,
Speaker 2: but that kind of got drowned out by how much
Speaker 2: he talked about passive for sure.
Speaker 1: Well, we're definitely going to get into more about active
Speaker 1: at Vanguard. So i'd like to welcome Daniel Reyes, Global
Speaker 1: head of Product at Vanguard. Dan, thanks for joining the podcast.
Speaker 3: David, thank you for having me here.
Speaker 1: So I'd like to ask our guests, you know, how
Speaker 1: they got their start in business. So I'd love to
Speaker 1: hear how you chose a career in investing in what
Speaker 1: led you to Vanguard.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so, David, I'm at Vanguard. I I've had a
Speaker 4: pretty non linear career here. I actually started in our
Speaker 4: human resources team as a compensation analyst at Vanguard, but
Speaker 4: I studied finance as an undergrad and so Vanguard was
Speaker 4: always a name that I had heard of, But I
Speaker 4: didn't fully appreciate the Vanguard's story, the ownership structure, all
Speaker 4: that's embedded in kind of what's popular and known about
Speaker 4: Vanguard now until I actually got here. So I got
Speaker 4: to Vanguard in the HR team, went back to business school,
Speaker 4: studied finance and investments again, and then came back in
Speaker 4: an investment centric career.
Speaker 3: So I came.
Speaker 4: I came through a team that did advisory services for
Speaker 4: small endowments, foundations, pension funds. I worked on our fixed
Speaker 4: income trading floor, on our rates desk. For a little bit.
Speaker 4: I worked in our personal investor business. I've been fortunate
Speaker 4: to lead our education savings business of the five twenty
Speaker 4: nine business, but for the last several years really focused
Speaker 4: on investments per se, first in our investment strategy team
Speaker 4: here in the US, and then between twenty seventeen and
Speaker 4: twenty twenty one, I actually was really lucky and got
Speaker 4: the opportunity to go lead our Asia Pacific Investments team,
Speaker 4: so moved out to Melbourne, Australia where we've got a
Speaker 4: sizable crew population out there Cruz what we call employees
Speaker 4: here at Vanguard, and then at the end of twenty
Speaker 4: twenty one move back to the States to lead our
Speaker 4: product team. So very non linear in the sense of
Speaker 4: how my career has progressed here at Vanguard. I'm sure
Speaker 4: as you've talked to Vanguard employees over time, you've heard
Speaker 4: this theme where you know, Vanguard's really really great about
Speaker 4: giving people the opportunity to rotate throughout the organization and
Speaker 4: learn different parts of the business.
Speaker 3: So I'm no different that in that way.
Speaker 1: That's great. So you know, I've actually been covering Vanguard
Speaker 1: my whole career, so I'm quite familiar with their active funds.
Speaker 1: Can you explain how active management fits in at Vanguard
Speaker 1: and you know, how active and passive can work together.
Speaker 4: I think from a philosophical perspective, you know, are many
Speaker 4: of our roots right when Vanguard was first started. Our
Speaker 4: roots were with Active Product as well to Wellington Fund
Speaker 4: amongst others, being one of the things that originally started
Speaker 4: with Vanguard. And so from Vanguard's inception, we've always had
Speaker 4: this idea that Vanguard Active, if delivered in a low
Speaker 4: cost way, can play a really really meaningful role in
Speaker 4: a client's portfolio for investors who have the tolerance to
Speaker 4: take that on. I think that oftentimes people talk about
Speaker 4: the notion that active and passive, and it's often framed
Speaker 4: as passive versus active, But in many instances, David, the
Speaker 4: way that we think about active at Vanguard is that
Speaker 4: it's an and decision right for investors who have the
Speaker 4: tolerance to take on the inevitable ups and downs of
Speaker 4: outperformance that active will bring, and they've got that risk tolerance,
Speaker 4: that the two can be really blended together, provided that
Speaker 4: they're grounded in this common principle of low cost.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: Low cost is one of the things that's inherent to indexing,
Speaker 4: and in many ways, when you give low cost active
Speaker 4: strategies access to low cost active strategies, you're lowering the
Speaker 4: investment manager's hurdle for outperformance to deliver alpha after.
Speaker 3: Fees, you know.
Speaker 1: Moving on, I do want to touch upon product development.
Speaker 1: How do you decide when to launch new active products?
Speaker 4: I think the the product development process David, for active
Speaker 4: product is the same as the process for any product
Speaker 4: here at Vanguard, and when we think about product, we're
Speaker 4: always grounding it in Vanguard's investment philosophy, right, which really
Speaker 4: centers around this concept of keeping your costs low, focusing
Speaker 4: on balance, being really clear about your goals and whatever
Speaker 4: your strategy is, right, being disciplined about executing it against that.
Speaker 4: That's the backdrop for all product that we think about
Speaker 4: at Vanguard, and then when we come to the actual
Speaker 4: product decision. You know, Vanguard is a big fan of
Speaker 4: these frameworks that we've got to. We've got a framework
Speaker 4: that we call our Product design Principles where we effectively
Speaker 4: ask ourselves for questions, and this is applicable for active
Speaker 4: in general. The first thing that we ask David is
Speaker 4: does any product that we're thinking about have an enduring
Speaker 4: investment merit?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 4: What we mean by enduring is can we envision that
Speaker 4: this strategy would be on the shelf and available for
Speaker 4: investors for decades to come.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: Within that that investment principle, we think about whether or
Speaker 4: not a strategy has a plausible economic rationale to deliver
Speaker 4: positive real returns. Right, That's another question that we ask ourselves.
Speaker 4: Within that, the second question that we ask ourselves is
Speaker 4: does it fulfill the long term needs of the targeted clients?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 4: Who are we designing this product for? And does it
Speaker 4: have a plausible role in a well grounded portfolio instruction
Speaker 4: framework doesn't necessarily have to be the way that Vanguard
Speaker 4: builds portfolios, but it could be. Is it a reasonable
Speaker 4: portfolio construction framework? Then we'll think about offering an active,
Speaker 4: active strategy. There After we clear those two hurdles, David,
Speaker 4: then we think, hey, is there a reason that we
Speaker 4: can deliver a compelling advantage over competitors? Do we feel
Speaker 4: like Vanguard bringing a product in this space can be
Speaker 4: a best in class product? And then finally we'll ask
Speaker 4: ourselves is it feasible to launch the product? What are
Speaker 4: sort of the barriers? Operational hurdles, regulatory hurdles. Those are
Speaker 4: the four basic questions that we ask ourselves, and it's
Speaker 4: important to point out that we ask them in sequential order. Right,
Speaker 4: So we ask ourselves the investment question first, and if
Speaker 4: we can't clear the investment question, there's no point in
Speaker 4: talking about the client the client question or or the
Speaker 4: you know, the business question about whether or not we
Speaker 4: can offer a compelling, compelling product in this space. Because
Speaker 4: it has to be grounded in our thoughts on investment
Speaker 4: principles and philosophy.
Speaker 2: I'd like to jump in here real quick, Dan if
Speaker 2: I could, so everything said makes sense. There is a
Speaker 2: market for active, especially low cost active. However, I don't
Speaker 2: know if you've noticed, but it seems like people won
Speaker 2: in the ETF format more and more versus the mutual
Speaker 2: fund format, especially on the equity side. How how are
Speaker 2: you guys dealing with and planning on adapting to that?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Eric, you're you're certainly right in the trend towards
Speaker 4: active strategies in an ETF rapper, and we've historically had
Speaker 4: a couple of active strategies in our ETF rapper if
Speaker 4: you think about our five factor products, and then we
Speaker 4: had an ultra short product that we launched several years
Speaker 4: ago in an ATF rapper, And more recently you've seen
Speaker 4: more active ETFs from us on the fixed income side,
Speaker 4: right we had Core and a Core Plus launch at
Speaker 4: the end of twenty twenty three. We're doing the new
Speaker 4: we just announced the new community products as well too,
Speaker 4: and we're naturally turning our attention to what does this
Speaker 4: mean for active equity strategies and so it's a body
Speaker 4: of ongoing work that we have right now. I think
Speaker 4: the clients. What we're hearing from clients is they're certainly
Speaker 4: preferring the ETF rapper. If you just look at flows
Speaker 4: and where flows have gone, you know, first part of
Speaker 4: the year, and overmwhelming proportion have gone into the active
Speaker 4: ETF rapper, and active equity ETFs are certainly a part
Speaker 4: of that trend. Now, I can tell you Eric that
Speaker 4: as we think about active equity ETFs, you know, our
Speaker 4: early thinking is that we don't necessarily think that every
Speaker 4: single strategy that is active equity would lend itself well
Speaker 4: to the ETF wrapper. And I'll give you an example
Speaker 4: of kind of some of the things that we think
Speaker 4: about when we consider any active strategy. Right first is,
Speaker 4: you know, we have to think about liquidity in the
Speaker 4: ETF wrapper. You know, unlike a mutual fund where vanguardt
Speaker 4: has historically deployed closing a mutual fund. If we think that,
Speaker 4: you know, there are some flows that are coming in
Speaker 4: that are going to make it more challenging for an
Speaker 4: active manager to deliver the alpha. You don't have that
Speaker 4: lever to pull in an ETF wrapper, right Naturally, are
Speaker 4: active managers in an ETF where you're you're talking about
Speaker 4: daily disclosure. They're concerned about IP leakage. What am I
Speaker 4: revealing about the fund's strategy? What am I revealing about
Speaker 4: the strategy in the ETF rapper that I wouldn't necessarily
Speaker 4: be revealing in the in the mutual fund wrapper. And
Speaker 4: so we think about things like that, liquidity, ip leakage,
Speaker 4: the tax efficiency of different strategies in in an ETF wrapper,
Speaker 4: virtus versus a mutual fund are all things that are
Speaker 4: that are on our mind.
Speaker 3: Eric.
Speaker 4: I think it's particularly in in the ETF, in the
Speaker 4: active equity ETF world, our initial thinking is that it
Speaker 4: not everything's going to be you know, I use the
Speaker 4: term quote unquote etfable, right, They're going to be things
Speaker 4: that lend themselves well to the ETF rapper and other
Speaker 4: things that we would be more cautious about approaching them,
Speaker 4: you know, if we were to offer a product in
Speaker 4: that space.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, just those are very good reasons.
Speaker 3: I get that.
Speaker 2: It just seems to me that advisors, especially when it
Speaker 2: comes to large cap US equities and even mid and
Speaker 2: small to a degree and a developed market, I get,
Speaker 2: like you know microcaps and maybe emerging markets where capacity
Speaker 2: can be an issue. But it does seem like advisors
Speaker 2: don't really like they get all that, but they now
Speaker 2: expect managers to show what they hold. Every day on
Speaker 2: the ETS space has been interesting. The non transparent active
Speaker 2: ETFs try to protect their ip but like nobody bought them,
Speaker 2: and so Capital Group and others were got on board
Speaker 2: with transparency and you can see their ETFs start to sell.
Speaker 2: So I think they have the same issues. But the
Speaker 2: marketplace demand is a big variable, and the tax efficiency
Speaker 2: is also really powerful, and I think I don't empathize
Speaker 2: with your dilemma here. It's clearly you got two polarizing forces.
Speaker 2: My guess is you're going to have active equity ETFs
Speaker 2: come out soon. You probably can't break that news here,
Speaker 2: but I think you're gonna do it.
Speaker 3: I'm on record. It's good to know. It's good to
Speaker 3: know that's where you think we're eric. I appreciate that.
Speaker 4: I mean, to your point, advisors are expressing their preference right,
Speaker 4: and individual investors are expressing that preference.
Speaker 3: I think for us, when we think.
Speaker 4: About like an active equity ETF, we're going to be
Speaker 4: thinking about on an after tax basis, even with all
Speaker 4: those things that I talked about, does it offer comparable
Speaker 4: returns to the mutual fund wrapper and if and if
Speaker 4: the answer to that is yes, which is going to
Speaker 4: be different strategy by strategy, I think that's something that
Speaker 4: we would we would strongly consider moving forward.
Speaker 1: Actually want to kind of you know, still on the
Speaker 1: topic of active ETFs, but kind of a different question.
Speaker 1: You know, you have the newer core bond ETFs, and
Speaker 1: I know those are managed in house. Is active active
Speaker 1: fixed income and area where you see Vanguard, you know,
Speaker 1: continuing to launch products that are managed in the house
Speaker 1: as opposed to external managers.
Speaker 3: David, We've got a long history.
Speaker 4: I mean, we work with some talented external fixed income
Speaker 4: managers on a couple of strategies. You know, I think
Speaker 4: of our long term investment grade strategy, our Jimmy may fund,
Speaker 4: our high yield fund where we've got Wellington there. But
Speaker 4: we've also been simultaneously really investing in our in house
Speaker 4: fixed income capabilities on the active side as well as
Speaker 4: on the on the indexing side. Now, Vanguard's had some
Speaker 4: real success in being able to attract talent because the
Speaker 4: Vanguard story is a compelling story in the sense that
Speaker 4: if you're in fixed income and you're given the opportunity
Speaker 4: to build an active fixed income business, but with Vanguard
Speaker 4: fees as a lower headwind, right, really gives investors the
Speaker 4: chance to outperform regardless of market environments, you know, when
Speaker 4: they've got that smaller headwind with lower fees. It gives
Speaker 4: them the opportunity to be really judicious about when they
Speaker 4: deploy their drive power and not have to take on
Speaker 4: risks in order to stretch, you know, and outperform the fee.
Speaker 4: So I think that you know, the the product development
Speaker 4: that you've seen with us, even just with those four
Speaker 4: products that I mentioned earlier, is gonna is gonna that
Speaker 4: trend will continue moving into twenty twenty five and beyond.
Speaker 1: You know, And you did mention the external managers. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess you know. What I'm most curious about is
Speaker 1: what is the process of selecting those managers. Is it,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of typical of a manager search that
Speaker 1: an asset allocator would do, or is this something more
Speaker 1: of you have your own process.
Speaker 4: It's it's similar, but it's definitely distinct in that way.
Speaker 3: David. We we we.
Speaker 4: Like to often say that we don't typically date managers.
Speaker 4: We like to marry them, right. We we tend to
Speaker 4: have a long dating period and coording period as well too.
Speaker 3: That process.
Speaker 4: Right, when we're thinking about partnering with external managers, we
Speaker 4: will think deeply about what does their firm look like,
Speaker 4: what are the incentives of the investors at the firm,
Speaker 4: what does their culture look like, what does their leadership
Speaker 4: team look like, and what does the bench of talent
Speaker 4: look like? And we'll think about that even before we
Speaker 4: get into the specifics of like what's their process and
Speaker 4: their philosophy. Right, if you think about those things at
Speaker 4: the highest level, performance and the opportunity to outperform should
Speaker 4: be an output of all those things that I just mentioned,
Speaker 4: like firm culture, people, process, philosophy. We actually spend the
Speaker 4: vast majority of our time on those elements, David, before
Speaker 4: we even get to thinking about, okay, what are the
Speaker 4: returns look like? You know, for the last three to
Speaker 4: five years, and you know, we will sit with managers,
Speaker 4: conduct hundreds of search meetings throughout the year because we're
Speaker 4: always trying to make sure that we've got managers at
Speaker 4: the ready for any sort of opportunity that we might
Speaker 4: be thinking, say we're thinking about a product in you know,
Speaker 4: a certain space will go on and we'll we'll keep
Speaker 4: kind of a quote unquote lying in the water when
Speaker 4: it comes to working with managers and searching for managers
Speaker 4: on a continual basis.
Speaker 1: Okay, And I guess you know a continuation of that question.
Speaker 1: You know, some of the funds have you know, a
Speaker 1: bunch of different external managers managing different slices of the
Speaker 1: portfolio if they come up, you know, on the equity side,
Speaker 1: if all the managers happen on like one stock, how
Speaker 1: do you prevent it from you know, going beyond diversity
Speaker 1: requirements and you know, just making sure that you know,
Speaker 1: the portfolio stays diversified if there's a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: stocks that each of the managers all like.
Speaker 4: I think we try to get get at that process first, David,
Speaker 4: by having rigorous monitoring at the portfolio level to look
Speaker 4: at the you know, the exposures of the portfolio at
Speaker 4: the overweight and underweight level. But then when it comes
Speaker 4: to actually selecting managers, say, for instance, if we're talking
Speaker 4: about a growth fund, right, what we wouldn't do is
Speaker 4: go out and choose managers that we think have duplicative
Speaker 4: growth styles. Right, one manager might like high high growth
Speaker 4: companies and look for those companies that are going to
Speaker 4: be kind of your true outliers. Another company might approach
Speaker 4: or another subadvisor might approach growth, you know, with a
Speaker 4: growth at a reasonable price, more of a Garbie type,
Speaker 4: you know, growth philosophy. So what we're trying to do
Speaker 4: is pull together managers that have complimentary and not necessarily
Speaker 4: duplicative styles. So part of that goes into us thinking
Speaker 4: about what type of active fund do we want this
Speaker 4: strategy to be from the outset, and then thinking about
Speaker 4: the managers that might complement each other when we're pulling
Speaker 4: that together, and then we back that up with rigorous
Speaker 4: monitoring at the tail end of the portfolio.
Speaker 1: So is there, would you say, an oversight to some
Speaker 1: of the trades they make.
Speaker 4: In terms of actually, you know, like the the output,
Speaker 4: like when they're making the trades, that's not something that
Speaker 4: they run by Vanguard at the process beforehand. We'll know
Speaker 4: that they made trades, right, We'll know that that they
Speaker 4: made trades, and will part of our oversight duty and
Speaker 4: responsibility is to ask them why, what were what's their
Speaker 4: thesis on a particular company, How does it align with
Speaker 4: our philosophy and their process? Right, so we do it
Speaker 4: on the back end, but they're not. I wouldn't say
Speaker 4: that they're running trades by us before they execute.
Speaker 3: Them doing Okay.
Speaker 1: You know, if we, you know, continue talking about Vanguard's
Speaker 1: active lineup, how would you say it's evolved over time?
Speaker 4: I think I think you know, first and foremost you've
Speaker 4: seen you know, Vanguard. You think about some of our
Speaker 4: historical funds. We always think about funds that are been
Speaker 4: broadly benchmarked relative these big indices, and you know, lately,
Speaker 4: if you think about some of our active lineup, you know,
Speaker 4: I think that on the equity side, you've seen us
Speaker 4: launch things, for instance, like the Bailey Gifford Global Positive
Speaker 4: Impact Fund back in twenty twenty two, which had a
Speaker 4: very specific kind of need, It had very specific exposure
Speaker 4: there was going to or for instance, you know, another
Speaker 4: example on the equity side is the Global Environmental Opportunity
Speaker 4: Stock Fund in November of twenty twenty two. I mean,
Speaker 4: those were definitely catering towards investors who had a preference
Speaker 4: for ESG and also had a preference for active management.
Speaker 4: On our fixed income side, what you'll see more of
Speaker 4: now is, for instance, the core type strategies core bond,
Speaker 4: core plus that give the portfolio management teams the latitude
Speaker 4: to make that decision across different subsectors of the fixed
Speaker 4: income space. Right, they can make it decision to think
Speaker 4: about what their credit beta would look like. They can
Speaker 4: lean more into security selection if they feel like that's
Speaker 4: where they're they have the opportunities, or they can you know,
Speaker 4: think about moving the dial slightly on rates as well too. Right, So,
Speaker 4: on the fixed income side, the evolution has been giving
Speaker 4: the given the portfolio managers and the talented investors a
Speaker 4: little more latitude. And then on the equity side, given
Speaker 4: the breadth of the existing product strategy product lineup already
Speaker 4: giving some exposures, some targeted exposures for investors who have
Speaker 4: the particular preferences.
Speaker 1: So what would the future have in store? You know,
Speaker 1: you know, we know about what's happening with the ETFs.
Speaker 1: Do you see more mutual funds being launched as well
Speaker 1: on the equity On the active side.
Speaker 4: I think we'd think about both, right, I think we
Speaker 4: think about a strategy that we find compelling, and then
Speaker 4: if we think about the structure for instance, that would
Speaker 4: be a secondary consideration. So I'll give you an example
Speaker 4: of a you know, we you know, last year we
Speaker 4: launched an international dividend growth strategy in a mutual fund
Speaker 4: format because we were we've got a successful US focused
Speaker 4: dividend growth strategy and there was an international counter counterpart.
Speaker 4: We'll continue to do that type of work, and then
Speaker 4: if we think about the structure as a secondary consideration,
Speaker 4: that's what we would That's what we would see. Is
Speaker 4: kind of like the the evolution of our of our
Speaker 4: active offering.
Speaker 1: Okay, you know, I know, you know Eric mentioned you know,
Speaker 1: possible equity ETFs. Is that something you're thinking about, you know,
Speaker 1: in addition for you know, to the factor ETFs. Is
Speaker 1: that something you're always thinking about when you're thinking about,
Speaker 1: you know, what to launch next.
Speaker 4: Yeah, just like any other Just like any other trend
Speaker 4: that we see, you know, at vand GUARD.
Speaker 3: We're monitoring the trend.
Speaker 4: Very very closely, continue to evaluate it and think about
Speaker 4: whether or not the strategies that we offer would lend
Speaker 4: themselves to that ETF rapper. So it's something that we're evaluating.
Speaker 4: That doesn't necessarily mean we would or we wouldn't do it.
Speaker 4: But it is definitely on our radar at this point
Speaker 4: in time.
Speaker 2: Quick one here on just competition, you know, I know,
Speaker 2: you guys are the third biggest active manager by assets.
Speaker 2: Capital Group is one, Fidelity is year three, and then
Speaker 2: there's obviously many others below that. Who do you look
Speaker 2: to as your competition? How important is that to you
Speaker 2: when you're thinking about what winning is, because there's beating
Speaker 2: the benchmark, but there's also ranking high in lists, you know,
Speaker 2: so for like ten yr returns, your fund might be
Speaker 2: in the nineties percentile that is amongst those other competitors.
Speaker 2: I'm just curious how you guys view that.
Speaker 4: How do we define winning right in the space? And
Speaker 4: I think, in true Vanguard fashion, we define winning in
Speaker 4: the space as delivering good investment outcomes for clients right
Speaker 4: That in and of itself should be the mechanism that
Speaker 4: ultimately wants people or drives people to consider Vanguard as
Speaker 4: an active investor. We're much less concerned about who's number one,
Speaker 4: who's number two, and who's number three than we are
Speaker 4: about what value did we create for the investors. And
Speaker 4: at least in Vanguard's you know, frame of thinking, right,
Speaker 4: making money for the investors is the is the thing
Speaker 4: that drives the growth. All the stats that you see
Speaker 4: in terms of cash flow au M, at least in
Speaker 4: our view, are an outcome of trying to deliver really
Speaker 4: great investment results for your end clients.
Speaker 1: So I guess I actually have one final question before
Speaker 1: we go, Dan, if you had you know, if you
Speaker 1: think back of when you started your career, is there
Speaker 1: any advice you would give your younger self, you knowing
Speaker 1: what you know now.
Speaker 3: The advice, So I'll tell you the advice that I give.
Speaker 4: Vanguard has these programs where we hire you know, really
Speaker 4: talented employees, crew members off of college campuses, and David,
Speaker 4: they always ask me a similar similar question. I think that,
Speaker 4: you know, when I first started at Vanguard, the advice
Speaker 4: that that someone gave me is, you know, you build
Speaker 4: a trust with people at Vanguard. And I think this
Speaker 4: is true of any organization on small things, not necessarily
Speaker 4: on big things. The big things might be more exciting
Speaker 4: to work on, right, but if people can't trust you
Speaker 4: with small things, they certainly won't trust you with big things.
Speaker 4: And so whenever I'm you know, having a conversation with
Speaker 4: you know, a brand new crew member who wants to
Speaker 4: come and work on things that are really exciting. I'm
Speaker 4: always telling him or her, right like, build that credibility,
Speaker 4: build a trust with your colleagues by delivering on the
Speaker 4: little things, and then once you deliver on the little things,
Speaker 4: they'll start trusting you with bigger things.
Speaker 1: That makes sense. Well, I definitely think this is great,
Speaker 1: you know. Dan, thank you so much for joining me today.
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: And Eric, thank you for being my co host.
Speaker 2: Oh man, I had fun.
Speaker 1: Thank you well until our next episode. This is David
Speaker 1: Cohne with Inside Active