 I have a part-time colleague Jack for some reason but you're my financial bureau and in your book enough you talk about the irresponsibility of board of directors giving bonuses and the CEOs of the management company writing the bankruptcies. Why doesn't a janitor with full proving the board of directors and send the investment out to the company? Well, first of all, I can't speak very well to the case on that. I'm understanding it. There are some cases where we've dealt with the compensation of the managers. How widespread that is, how right it is, and my guess is it's not very much so. Because I saw that it was great and we didn't look as good as I would have liked to look at the worst part, most of our competitors. And I've got a little embarrassing somebody may find the board with a certain, I don't really know. But that has to come. And when it's a parody, that's funny. This has always been a funny mix of a perfection of business. And if any part is going to end, it should have been as far as I was able to. So although that implementation may have been a month far, to get over to the professional side and out of the business side, you're always going to have to minimize it. And most companies in the industry are exactly out of the business side and they don't care about the professional side. It's all bringing money, it's building assets out of management. It's making a lot of revenues. Most of these companies are publicly held. I think companies are kind of future investors. I'm asking insurance companies so far and investing. And they're in the making of their capital, not your capital. So, of course, governments use maximum that cost. They have their clients, for example, or they go on an issue that Canada shareholders don't like this in this conversation they have here, you know, the difference between winning and losing a landslide is 55% this day. So let's be generous and say you're on the other side of that. And you're at a 25% of your shareholders. You just don't want to do that. Better keep a low profile. I won't stick your head out and just shut off. So those are very satisfactory. I always thought that the Vanguard, in large measure, got through the board again, truly again in years, but being outspoken and critical, raising it down. I think a lot of people have been great at that because they thought I was raising an element that I like to raise. Oh, I do like to raise that. But the fact of the matter is when I was asked to come, I think I was always commenting on what a certain act meant, a certain amendment in terms of the good or bad of an usual on shareholders. And so when the press called, that's what I said, and they called everybody else in the industry, they were thinking it was a good or bad for our company. So they need to stop it and make it a smaller one here last month. So they always do that and they get an answer out of it. And there's those things that are like this, just slamming it into each other. So I would, I'm going to vote, this is going to be a problem later. The Vanguard has said, well, damn it, we're going to be, we're going to raise the clock before it goes. And we're going to put these proxy proposals in and say, no more, we're going to get it. And he, maybe, will ask about that in the future. So I'm going to open the name of my field. And I should tell you, I would, that a lot of autographs are open. And I don't think I've ever had a plain place to get an envelope running in the records about, you know, can't you stop saying things. And there's what I've been saying, that I didn't know I didn't really, I wouldn't disagree with any of them. I don't think that's ever been the case. And I said, well, I think I don't know what the position is at all. I had this kind of, oh, I don't know. I don't know what that little group constantly shows. It was going to be very popular there. And he was absolutely, you know, the rest was good, but he has a little telemarketer right there. You couldn't see it, but I could see it. And this was going to be a little practical for the government's sake. And I think we were talking about, you know, the chair of the board and all that. And, you know, Lou was a man who was well-prepared for that in the papers. And he said, yeah, I don't understand. You disagree with Neymar at that point. And I said, no. And he loved the signage. And you should have seen what he said. I wasn't going to say that, it's not that I disagree with Neymar. I disagree with Neymar. It's that Neymar disagrees with me. And we got a few more questions for the panel to stop by. It's very smart. But then I don't mean, I know how hard the world is. I know that you can't give up on marketing. But indeed, you have to minimize the little things for marketing reasons, particularly for the part of our world. And so it's, you know, it's fragile, it's flawed. But, you know, yes and no, you don't know. I think they're going to say, they're doing something. And there's also a thing that I might have to deal with. I'm going to start working on my own scenes. Well, I'm sure they're talking truth. But nothing's happening. Nothing's happening. Maybe we should work in front of the scenes. I don't know. Jack, we have a question from a good friend of both of our officers at Taylor, who's with us in spirit. So, dear Jack, could you please do us your thoughts about re-balancing? Okay, well, I'll say something I've thought about. I don't have an unquittable answer about re-balancing. I do know that the fact is that it's not re-balancing. Too bad. The fact is that it's not re-balancing. It's a very strategy to re-balancing. Instead of doing this, stocks have a higher amount of money in the long run over your lifetime. And then whenever you re-balance trading on a higher yielding asset, it will yield an asset, not complicated. And so, that's what the data says. It also says something else when you do. It's interesting. And that is when re-balancing and not re-balancing loses from balancing and never re-hear us when it does lose. So, on the other hand, so that net says, don't bother. I guess I'd say for most investors, don't worry about that. If you feel like re-balancing, do it. It's not going to be devastating. It's an intelligent to do. It just may not be the best small turn strategy, but on the other hand, it may be a short turn strategy. It may not be as different from what you would do. And so I'd say, you know, if you want to re-balance, just follow a couple of rules. Don't worry about it often. I mean, people are re-balancing a month. I just don't want to go to the final. That means you can assume by a year, 52% stocks are 49% or 53% or 4% and that will stop you from indexing your own or mining your own. And so, you know, maybe re-balancing a month a year, I would say only to put this thing down. That's a bit, if you want to be a 50-50 and you get a 10 of a year and a 50-48, honestly, how long can you do it for? On the other hand, quarter of a period of time, you want to be a 50-50 and you get a 50-50 or 60 and you want to re-balance. You re-balance on that basis. So I don't want to ease the answer. I think only investors feel that or maybe we will leave those non-investment problems behavioral problems. So it was pretty much a night. As I mentioned, I don't do it. On the other hand, I re-balanced for me in the last 15 years because it's lost at a 67% a year. It stopped at, or 15 years or very probably a few percent of it's real amount. And so all of a sudden I'm 80 months and I'm happy that short-term media news, short and go-to-long, right? Shorting the index and go-to-long, indexing my retirement budget. So it's kind of queues his own. Okay, if you have a question raise your hand with a jack-of-the-line and you can actually all of you right back. Hi, Jack. Thank you. That's right. I'm sure you're right. Well, I'm going to get on the chart. I can go to 1535, 2723. 2727? Yeah, I'll say 2727. 2727. 2727. I don't have 25. I'm going to say you're free to read and write. You're right. It's the most important call. You're free to write, I think. You may have come in better. You know, do yourself a job. You're right on the table. You're almost there, I think. And then you're going to go to the 90th magazine, which is how you're doing it. There's no easy answer to that. And, you know, I don't think I can say to anyone who crosses some kind of a research effort could not be hot. You know, for every single company we own, probably 4,000, 3,000 companies in our greatest portfolio, and you don't have to do that. What we do is we do a lot of research on the markets and the market companies that we can see and install at home. So one thing is, it shouldn't be that expensive, I mean, I think I'm at 50 million, it's a third of the base of the point. Like, God, for 50 million dollars, we would have second-biggest research department in the entire regional, run in 50 million dollars. Second-biggest, well, not the second-biggest. One of the biggest research departments that we're running, 40 million. It would be, that's one base of the point. We don't hear that much. So we have the resources to do it. But even more importantly, I try to organize. This is a funny story. I try to organize when I had this foundation for long-term investors, Polish long-term investors, trying to get together before the end of the month for the long-term managers, including Bill Miller, Chris Davis, and the Davis funds, to get together and do something together. We can jointly fund an effort to do the research on brokerage. And then people are on the way, okay? So, kind of a fail. But what made it kind of amusing is, I mean, this meeting came with this conclusion. Chris Davis is also in New York. It's that second-in-command. I'm going to organize that search. It's only two of us. I don't know where you're from. I said, you know, I understand what you're trying to do. But why do you leave it at the abyss, this invisible hand? And I said, for God's sake, don't show me your abyss, this invisible hand. Think about that. So, you know, those are the issues that are, I don't think it's a cause-to-shoot. That's what we all expect. I think it's more internship. More than see if you can get my partner in on my business. You can get a little longer investment. You can get a little longer investment. It'll come. It's going to come. Yes, sir. Two major challenges that we're going to be in the financial industry report. Now, if that's a correct election, it's correct. It seems to me we have not made any progress on one area and we're a little on the other. Do you have any comments about that right now? I'm sure the question you put in here is a small thought. This is a speaking at Orange and Noble. I guess trying to do some PR was both enough. And I currently spoke about how the industry has a potential to work and can't be used anymore. And the questioner says, we're going to get a little progress on one and on the other. And that's certainly true. And I would say we just won't back. Thanks to the screen. We're out of everything out there. But the now I'm going to print some dates. But now we have two. I'm going to print some new things with a book. I can't name a book. It's the best and the most accurate. The power of money and lobbying. It's just this custom. And I've heard about the soul of capitalism. I think that's what it was. No forwarded capital investment is the same return on capital as campaign and constitutions. You know, you get somebody like $1000. You get a what do you call grant? You call earmark. A other day earmark. That's not bad. Think about that. I mean, it's awful. And violence C3, which I mentioned, is another way of fighting it all. But it's vicious. And it's nasty. And it's self-serving. And you can't get any more on it. And I don't like the way the Congress runs. You know, all you need is some immediate crisis like this. Roger and Clarence, dope. And like you got, they're all jumping out of the air and speaking out there against dope. Well, isn't that great? I don't know. It's a big system. It didn't used to be a big system. So we need a lot of repair in the financial reform that we touched on. And that is at first we don't really know how much profit we're making. We get the regulations and I think that's really great today. That's a shoe over here that I see really going to be talking about bank capital requirements. And the providers of capital, who are not the fathers of the land we protect anymore. And if we get that done we'll have a huge impact on the financial system. But you know what we bailed out of all the state bank capital? Well man, that seems to be bailed out of the capital of the state. I just don't get that. So we won't know much from the regulations yet. But first of all, obvious will probably not even work out in a little regular career. They learn to be more of a position rather than outspoken members of the world to create a significant body. Really. And so it remains to be seen. And I think the act probably is better than nothing. Not a lot. I would prefer to have the banks out of the investment banking business bring back last year. Some tell us in the South Wales and I don't care. Just use your common sense. Chuck, here's a question that was asked by a lot of foreign people. And it says one of the most controversial discussions on this forum in the last year is about Mr. Boulton's suggestion to include pensions and social security as part of the bottom of the issue. It wouldn't be enlightening to have him laugh at it on this. This question could be illustrated in a simple example. Should a 50-year-old with a $300,000 portfolio and 300,000 social security members be 100% done? Okay. Let me say I was like, one, I don't think they wanted to have a 50-year-old with a 60-year-old. And the answer is statistically and mathematically. If you want to be able to have a 60-year-old and you have a bag of social security as long as it's good and will be good, then fix some social security related to the market needs of the game of the day. I think to many, that's the most important example of the most important site in the world, but each of those bags is politically charged and eventually some have to have them. But that's considered social security and there's money to it. It's going to pay for its journey of the year. The main thing is that it's going to get a little guilty about it, but I paid for them. I invested as late as it was going to come out of money. So the idea of retirement to me is not to spend over a long enough time on capital value, but to spend a lot of time on income. What income can be produced? That's why I give that thing a spot for the better people in the world. I've been saying this in the first place, but it's both unusual about this time in 1993. I give that to a useful person for the quality of the market. But also, you know, what's most unusual is a bit of press and all of that. It's about recent care. We have the biggest cut in dividends from the National Association. And the second is about in the history of the index. On the way back, we came back to where it used to be, and that's the system. And somebody takes that figure to that, and maybe off-short. We got to Yale back to under-years anyway. So, you got income screen, social security takes care of that. So from an hour to midnight it's probably going to be 50. You'll see no resolution, the 100% stop, 50% of your assets, 100% stop, there are more 50% of your capital assets. I knew that was the most security. Now, it's not just an hour back. It's behavior on that, because your stocks are going to add 57% and your income may not be going to be changed, but you're going to pack and get all the stops to do that. You're going to look at those two different numbers. This isn't interesting. I haven't done much work on it. Why isn't we thinking in terms of performance? There's going to be a balance fund, the 50% being stocked in funds. So we have that fund that goes kind of like this. We also have, well, apparently 50% of the fund in that fund, two separate funds, where the performance is just the same, but it's not going to stop spending any money. We didn't get all of your balance funds. So we have to basically really rate these behavior. I don't think people are going to actually do that, because we have no one to give us a tip. I don't want to say Social Security has a zero. In fact, the way the question reads, I'm saying you should value Social Security 100%. Maybe you should say, well, Social Security is half of my income. So you're going to balance over three quarters of the total. But there aren't easy answers. Even when you get the major, if the math is clear, if you want to give it to Social Security or a good quarter of a pension, it's very much the same thing. Well, I was going to say, can you name a quarter of a pension? You know, they are deeply endangered, but also work pretty much. And then they go into the grocery store and they have the money. And so I say, think about that, they have a rule of thumb, and now something that, quote, great, unquote, says, do this, do that, and what do you do after any sort of tax development? I don't think it's going to be long, really. Do you think that you're going to mention several times about the dividends and the reduction of dividends, couldn't that be attributed to the more capitalistic tax rate situation? It should be. And it should be for, maybe an obvious reason. And that is, most of the dividends will never get taxed. Think about that, 70% of all the money is managed by institutions lodging down for our tax table. We're up in the pensions for our tax, corporate pensions for our tax, and tax mutual companies. So don't let that little bit of remains overwhelm your common sense. You know, it's a long exercise. And I think the word I look, investing into the soul, I know, right, I think the word did do me a healthy amount of common sense. And it did do me a brain. It did do me a specific head to brain. But the word I think about, the word I'm just talking about is common sense. And I look through conventionalism and say, why should that be, and where do I need to know, what's going on out there? Not like I said, but what's going on out there that this is all written about? What do you do about the speech? Why do you do that? And so it shouldn't be a big deterrent. And then you should also realize we're a major of the usual companies, not the forum, not a tax deferred ad, or something like that. These funds don't run, first of all, when you're working with a tax deferred investor, this is a crazy thing. And I'm running here with a tax deferred investor, you know, a tax deferred investor. And that's why I love the idea of having tax managed funds. And you did it in 1993, I think. And it's the way around money. You need to be able to trust officers, don't worry. You've got a lot to know. Well, I like your tax tax. You can get some useful money. It's in the gross taxes system, you know, stocks. And so it shouldn't be a big deterrent. You can think about it. It's never taxed already, so it's taxed. And it's well managed if you run up a major of the portfolio. They don't care about taxes. They get paid on free tax returns, not free tax returns. And so they're running those portfolios, as if there's no difference. And then there's this, so it's huge to run up a great model. You just want to not worry about taxes. You've got to take 40% of the dividend income themselves, consuming it. Consuming it before you get it. So when you look at 60%, you have a monitor. And obviously they don't care at all. So when you go out to get it, I don't think it passes for the reason. I think taxes on dividend are probably going to go up very significantly. But we'll see what we now have. And so many questions that have been done. We now have a situation where whatever you believe, nothing happens by the end of the year. Taxes on dividend are going to go up 39%. They do nothing. So you have to think that some people want to do something about that. It's important. But I think probably the Democrats will be willing to. Then you can do inheritance taxes which I should have said that there are no property inheritance tax. I think we shouldn't have. You can do that a lot of money. And you can go out and do inheritance taxes. And then you're also up to about that. But Andrew's already wanting to be able to basically disquiet tax on the state's over-certainment money. 90% tax. What good is it that you're moving your children to be able to survive? And he's done okay. But he left it all in the library as well. I think that's the only property you want right there. He needed a TIA friend to start. He did a lot of useful things. He made a lot of money back then. He wanted to support. But that's the kind of attitude. It's pretty rare to have a Mr. Gay scene. It doesn't have a lot of money in Mr. Gay's room. It doesn't go off. And Warren Buddha. And I think today we're off to go out and sit in this room and do others. In this small way I am too. And we've had a great society. It's great market. It's great economy. It's great country. We really don't have anything? We rarely used to be. We've been born in America. We used to be in America. And someone told me that all of a sudden I said, well I think that's wonderful. I don't need too many people. And so it was successful. And I said, I didn't want to sit out there. And I said, I don't want to sit out there. How do you arrange to be born in the United States of America? And that's the way I feel. I'm happy to be here. I'm happy to have the opportunity. Your thoughts on the future of the U.S. dollar and the impact on us as investors? Is there a high population? There are some questions that are too big for me. There are so many financial forces. So many dollars. It's really weakening. We should be like them. Because we want them to be the one on the Chinese currency to be strengthening. We want a weak dollar. We have one on. And I guess a dollar came out to be nearly a euro. I think it was around $7 or $10. I don't know if it was about $1.60. And then back to about $1.20. Now it's about $1.35 or $40. And I don't see how you predict anybody. It's hard to believe that it's the wrong dollar. I don't think that's consistent with the wrong dollar. But I don't think anybody can do anything about it. And this is all going on. There has to be a lot of doubt. And James A. was saying that there's a great problem. And at least he didn't bring a little reality to the world. But it's a great problem. We are not the strong hands in the world. We are all very weak financially. And eventually we will be weak in a lot of other ways. So obviously we can only run so much debt so far. For the interest of all of us in the world. And why is that? Because that's going to seem like a bargain. And yet the Chinese are basically the world's level. They own two trading, more debt. And China owns some brand numbers, two trading, I'm not sure. But it's a big number. And the value of the law is going to go down in interest rates. So they're right. You know what that felt like for today. I wish I had the answers. Mark was very unpredictable. I wasn't surprised. The Euro crisis didn't get you the worst. And I think it might get worse again. Greece, some might have been a lot worse. Spain, what are they calling the pigs? Portugal, Italy, Ireland. Are we great in acronyms? This is a great fun for your wife. So I really don't know. I think you have to try to protect yourself. The answer is by the table, it's kind of what you do. And I guess you go short, not short selling, but short maturity. I don't believe in short selling. It might be a good idea. I don't remember when it was. The timing is wrong. So you're short, you're worried about that kind of thing. You're going to gold, you're going to commodities. And I wish you well. But I wouldn't do that until I'm some gold. And I just see all the protection I have done. I won't believe you in other things. Think about today. Do you ever spend time thinking about all the millions of people that you have you've provided value to in terms of setting up Vanguard for the benefit of the investors. Do you ever think about that? And if so, how does it make you feel? Well, first of all, there's a question. And that is that last thing I think about are the beds of the right finish of New York Times or Los Angeles. Did you do it neat? Yes, I did it neat. And I guess on Friday, we kind of fight the first four days that we want to do. I would order a drink of that. I don't want to see you off. I don't know what you'll think about that. There's too much in front of me to worry about this time. And people say you must have heard me very proud of you. I guess in a certain peculiar sense I am. I don't know. The idea that I think about is going to be too much in front of me. I don't know what I'm going to do. But you know, there's this. I think it's always good for you looking out and looking into what it is to be concerned with the affairs of the world. That's kind of so jumpy. I'm watching the way you said to the police things. And I don't know. I guess it would be not for interest action. And in some way some of the people in New York are probably interested. But I don't seem to use them. And you know, if I had accomplished something in our time I'd say I'm not. I can see how he would be very proud of the theory of all good. But I look at myself and I think in what I've done, it wasn't obvious. I can't come up with anything. I don't need to talk about this a little bit more. I don't need to talk about the tax management fund or whatever. I'm a big animal. I don't know how much more I should get for using your head. It's pretty easy to guess. In the battle for the soul of capitalism, you can talk about the true cost that will make some expensive funds. Things like transaction costs and shelf space and bid-ass spreads and all those things there if you're not interested. That's a good question. We're all using the Accent ratio. And we include it in the Accent ratio. You're paying for that. Anything that adds to the Accent ratio or your fund services are in the Accent ratio. What is not in the Accent ratio are basically two things. Two additional costs. One is the probability of transaction costs. And since we don't know exactly what they are in this industry, I'm guessing they're precisely what they are. One percent of your turnover. So turnover cost you, you're 100% turnover cost you 100%. If you don't think about it, it's 100%. If you're over 50%, if you're over 35%, it's almost 50%. We don't know that. But I would use it because I'd rather be generally right about it. Precisely wrong. And the other is sales charges. If they're in 12B, 1B, that will be in the Accent ratio. But if they're not, they're running sales charges. And then of course taxes are already out. That's a huge thing. If you're going to run your money in tax evasion, one of the most important things you do is pay for your bank card. But if there was all the same thing, capture as much of the market return as you possibly can. So that's why you use the number of run-to to 200% of your loan cost. That would impact the equity fund. The equity fund would weigh in at least that ratio to 1.4. But in fairness, it would weigh in to be almost at 1%. For wages by loan assets. We're picking it up for 15% or 6% of the mutual run industry. So, you know, all these averages, we have a lot of people who approve the point, and I see that I have a lot of people who do that. But I use the number that's around 1% and 2%. Easy to get there. Rather than 10% to 1%, I use the same amount. Is there one more question on this? I'm a new bowler that I'm very much impressed with. You had talked about corporate governments in the United States, essentially incurred it with a bit of a mess. When one goes overseas to invest, it's probably somewhat worse than maybe the transparency in some developing nations. Having said all that, what you see the role of institutions in the United States being, I remember, is a vanguard in how we produce the risk of those kinds of intermittent failings in their investment. If you're talking about that, the role of your U.S. The role of the U.S. I think we have an imaginary group, it's not a member of another aspect of it. It's trying to do a lot. It's improving the gardens of the world. As far as I know, U.S. is my group, because it takes a lot of work. It's just the end. We're so short-term folks, I have to understand that governance matters to nothing. Zero. Daily fluctuations or monthly fluctuations, we can hear these fluctuations a lot. Just that I can count. But it's everything in the long run, in the rest of the morning, because the idea of gardens is to me, and it's very simple, is this corporation being run, big corporations, is it being run in the interest of shareholders? So we should be saying, we thank our individual, my industry and video institution, and we should be saying, we want to ensure that we come first, we're exactly at bay, we're stacking it to work with our friends, we're getting in on mergers, but then we're talking bigger and I'm getting paid more than they fail. I mean, 60% of those mergers do fail. We should be thinking more about both of that. Dividends to me, and I've often said, this is not my garden, this is your family. I don't see why we don't have higher dividends today to the institutional investors who have held the stock for over three years. So dividends to the office, to the office of 25 cents, to the office of 20 cents, to the office of 30 cents, once you get to that lawyer period. And dividends matter a lot in the institutional decision. Not as much as they should but in the future that we assume so much of and we don't want to talk about dividends. And the ICI hasn't never reflected on that for three years. Ever been hinted on the idea of such a thing is that dividends to the percentage of the income and expenses to the percentage of the dividend income and that I'm getting nice letters from them. And I'm getting any nice letters from Mr. Hanson Keating. What I'm not in an ICI is street fighting stuff. The only guy I really love is Lord and my son. And probably also that's what we've got out there. And I should say this from that totally. I didn't know it was going to go back but I told him after the op-ed I told him I was going to leave for about an hour. And I said what he said, I love your op-ed. And actually I agreed 75% of it. And I said we don't stand in line. I said, you know, that's great. You can agree more than 75% I don't feel like I've done my job. So but then I see the thing. He said he wasn't talking about his company, he was talking about the industry, he better believe he wasn't talking about his company. And that's been fun. Got a huge op-ed performance record. Four years since, five years since. It's an 100% time. It's the first performing fund in the entire category. I guess it's not even fun. You know, it's very boring to be in the group for five years and overall. It really is. You can try to be there. I guarantee you, you cannot get there. And what would you do? And someone said I think it was my grandma's phone and I worked it out with a good guy right out where they were and I said that he's not still versus luck. That's one of the differences is that if you decide you want to fail if it's all luck you can't do it. Right? That's the whole skill. It's pretty easy to fail. You know, that word started to come in if you wanted to fail I can't tell you how easy it would be. But if you want to fail on the investment business it's just as difficult really to think about it. It's just as difficult to fail except you make it easier because of the water cost and then that turns out to be the difference here. So I don't know I want you to skill on this some and skill on luck you can't have a good front record with that skill on luck. I mean, when you think about Bill and Orr everybody's here all right. Good money manager, not an hour of Bill and Orr but he was with a lot of the day more than five or seven years in a row and then there's an 100% out of three just after all the money came in. I mean, it's a vicious business. It's a hard business. And I respect money managers who are trying to do a good amount of job because it is such a hard business. And I know that and I respect what you're trying to do but they're going to do that by investigating on this. Okay, we're going to hear many of them before we do and we'll get this whole plan to be single and good money to give you this to a head start this occasion Jack and it's going to be out and we're going to be all sitting in the lines and we're going to be all sitting in the lines and we're going to be sitting in the lines and of course our investment being out here and going out here and your right to work is you're going to be doing some things and that's what's going to be back up and give us the results and we all thank you so much for that I'd like to read the description instead of Jack, we'll go our friend in hands over over there over there go ahead and fill it out there to understand and I should thank you for those of you who remember I was seven years ago I got a view of a great normal amount of work about that things right above painting of the American flag that I have a very nice one that constitutes Britain's right to the flag and that's over in my fireplace and I thank you all very much