Scorching Hot Take - Is Munger Really All That Venerable?
I'm sure I will get hate for this, but has been on my mind. Would love to hear what the forum thinks.
Who cares what Munger thinks about successful investing or his life advice if his net worth only got up to $2.6bln? Imagine working until almost 100 (!) just to have less than Paul Tudor Jones or Richard Branson while living a verifiably lamer life.
Don't think most people would be interested in doing what he did even if they knew how much they stood to make at the end of it all. Maybe I'm young but seems like a scam. RIP Munger though.
"Wealth is the slave of a wise man. The master of a fool."
Then why be an associate in private equity if you are worried about becoming a slave to money? Most people in this industry are here for that alone. By his own admission in some of his past interviews, Munger got into investing because he wanted to become wealthy and be free. Seems like there were better ways to do that. Of course this is hindsight but the point probably stands for people learning from his example.
Hope this is bait. You’ll never even sniff anywhere near that amount. And the guys that hoard money like the greedy fuckers they are? They’re part of the problem of the world. Munger tried to be a part of the solution. He was truly someone to admire. Learn a little about him maybe.
I recommend you buy a copy of Morgan Housel's The Psychology of Money, right away.
You are welcome.
This got MS how? Truly worthwhile for any finance professional.
Your headline got my attention because I would have loved to have read a well constructed argument, but yours is trash. I think munger and Buffett are true value guys who have brought a lot of transparency to investing for the layman.
What I cannot stand is the shills on LinkedIn and Twitter trashing “EBITDA” saying shit like “What I’ve learned from Charlie Munger is that NET INCOME IS MUCH BETTER THAN EBITDA!”. No, you retards, both buffet and munger are cash flow guys lmao
Literally none of those memes say net income is better than EBITDA they just say EBITDA (which is also usually adjusted) is a bullshit profitability metric which is largely true lol
People don’t understand how Charlie and Warren speak. The simplify their messages and speak in aphorisms. For example, the truth is EBITDA is crap a lot of the time but not because of the concept and usefulness. It’s because management messages the hell out of it. You see this play out in M&A when there are disagreements on true EBITDA.
Such a stupid troll post with some really bad assumptions. Charlie was not solely focused on pursuing wealth. He had varied interests and made time for his family. He figured out life and should be a role model anyone in business. People forget that you can’t buy happiness, but I would add to that a sincerely fulfilling life. While you can’t always be happy or fulfilled in every moment of your existence, your pursuit of wealth shouldn’t come at a holistic cost to either. Moreover, by all accounts he was a gem of a human being professionally and in his personal life. One of the big reasons he “only” had a couple billion net worth is because he was focused on philanthropy early on unlike some billionaires who decide to start donating at the end of their lives.
If it isn’t clear, him and Warren did not operate in the same manner. And that’s not a knock on Warren - to each either own.
bro only respects billionaires that are chads as well; simply being a normie billionaire is not enough 🥶
Ye fr. Dont think he even spent a second in PJT RSSG fka Blackstone R&R
Do people think of Charlie as a true investor? Or more beta bc he was not factor hedged and not idiosyncratic, instead exposed extra to the quality and value factors that did well, hard to say how much was luck or skill
I think this is a troll parody post but I can't tell ...
When people say they hate pod shop hardos, this is the reason.
IIRC pretty sure he started donating much earlier in his life
This is the answer. He owned almost 2% of Berkshire at one point. Doesn't include his other holdings. Ended at $2B.
This isn't scorching it's just stupid, he and Warren are 2 of the indisputable best investors of the past century lol
I'm all for giving the man his due respect. He was one of a very few people who could truly think outside the box but how good was he actually as an investor? Numbers talk in this business. From what I could gather he generated 20 percent cagr for 13 or so years in his partnership where he held 5/6 positions that were extremely volatile. So if his positions were up 70 percent one year they'd be down 30 percent the next. This volatility is also eventually what got him killed when his fund was down about 90 percent in 1974 and investors pulled their money. At berkshire his best investments have been costco and byd. Is all this really enough to call him an investing legend?
yea agreed, 20 percent a year for 13 years is only ~10% higher per year than the market. and prob lower sharpe/idio vs. real investors who are stockpicking instead of riding a factor
If u subscribe to that ideology chase coleman has been a much better investor than charlie.
But then didn't really expect anything more from a college kid
This logic misses the point.
Fama French’s paper came out in 1992. The “concept” of factor investing wasn’t around and there certainly weren’t ETFs or derivatives available to hedge such exposures for the majority of the market’s history (let alone sufficient liquidity to do such hedging without prohibitive transaction costs).
So using a beta / idio framework is ignoring historical context. Like by that logic, I can take any of your best American hedgies and drop them in Indonesia to trade stocks and they’ll be just as good - something I am happy to bet money on.
Munger is an historical artefact in investing, as important as any political figure/statesman given what his presence in the market has consequently led to (which ironically is the framework you are citing).
Given he failed to go top BB and top group (GS TMT or MS M&A) to top PE (BX or KKR), Im going to have to agree he was a schmuck
His returns pre partnership w/ Buffet were on par (both at 20% LT CAGR). More importantly, you rarely see guys of that wealth and intelligence be that happy and fulfilled...that's the extraordinary thing. Look at Bill Ackman, does he seem like a happy guy? Give me Munger any day, all day
That is a pretty good take. I could get on board with that
At least Ackman looks good (no homo)
IMO, if either of the two of them is a charlatan its Buffet hands down! Would highly recommend what Druckenmiller has to say on Buffet, the part on Buffet starts at minute 10:
Quia repellendus facere rerum omnis qui. Sapiente ipsa ratione incidunt ut enim iste id. Et qui non cum. Sit rerum et praesentium voluptas aut sit labore.
Rerum doloribus et quas dolorem impedit est. Corporis aut quisquam illum doloribus. Autem deserunt eaque enim natus voluptatum aperiam. Possimus sed est voluptatem modi.
Voluptas a deleniti et quasi sint sit. Qui qui ut et aliquid nihil sit. Cum dolor quia sed architecto. Voluptatem debitis harum illum maiores nihil cumque. Officia minus impedit vel eos suscipit qui.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Provident corrupti tenetur possimus deserunt. Facere nesciunt cum hic et voluptatem nostrum unde. Eos sapiente nihil molestiae eum.
Temporibus rerum recusandae aut est fugit laborum. Error eius quia fugiat suscipit optio vel sunt voluptatem. Earum dolores aut iste sint autem. Qui voluptatibus consequatur velit eveniet nisi. Quam ipsam qui qui magni qui dolor ut.
Tempore est dolorum nesciunt cupiditate. Iusto magni quasi cupiditate suscipit beatae velit. Quas repellendus dicta facilis velit. Harum deserunt animi sed quo cum sed. Rem quia dolores voluptatibus totam aperiam.