You've got to take in to account that Vanguard doesn't actually do much - just buy stocks on your behalf and charge 0.12% for doing so. If it stopped doing that because some other operator was doing it for 0.08% it wouldn't be a big deal.
The bigger deal would be if the general market collapsed for some reason but that would affect everyone, not just Vanguard.
Ok. I'm curious why you're telling me this. What's your motivation?
There's certainly no point in arguing with me, since I'm both reasonably poorly informed and aware of it; I have made no bones about the fact that my post was unserious. Yet you leap to the defense of what should, after all, be a very unexciting thing. And you aren't alone in doing so.
That, like this breathless article, is mildly troubling to me. These institutions should engender no loyalty, embody no attributes; only then does the market actually work. Evidence of those tendencies suggests the distorting effect of human psychology. And in tone it is too much like what we saw before the collapse for my liking.
Well I've known Vanguard for about 30 years and am a fan as it's saved the investing public many billions over that time, certainly if you compare them to normal fund management companies even if just buying and holding shares directly is probably cheaper still.
But I was just pointing out they offer a rather dull, value for money service and are not going to collapse Enron style. They could decline Sears style however.
The bigger deal would be if the general market collapsed for some reason but that would affect everyone, not just Vanguard.