Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charlie Munger has died

berkshirehathaway.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 454 posts

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#231

Post by FredPret »

bluGill wrote: post #165
FredPret wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people buy exciting stocks, not cheap stocks (cheap relative to intrinsic value). Value stocks are by definition boring and unknown. Think iron ore mines, regional banks, house builders, carpet makers, and other yawn-fest-profit-machines.

Value stocks can be well known. Fortune 100 companies sometimes are great values.

If it's well known and great value, it's got to be boring. For the most part, they're just completely unknown though - most people could name maybe 5 public companies, nevermind 100.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#232

Post by Bud »

x86x87 wrote: post #127
KerryJones wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it depends on what you mean by sharp. Quick? No, physical capabilities. His understanding of companies/markets/etc still were considered quite sharp by most investors I know.

Still didn't get bitcoin.

[dead]

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#233

Post by ta988 »

Kaibeezy wrote: post #179
kypro wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agreed with his reasoning on this and don't think it was motivated by greed at all. Firstly it would have been cheaper for the students. But secondly and more importantly, the buildings did have windows, it was only the dorms themselves which didn't, but the reasoning for this was that were primarily built for sleeping so he argued they didn't need windows. And not requiring windows meant that each student…

Speaking as a person with an architecture degree, it is, in my opinion, plainly a completely stupid idea. I cannot imagine one person I have ever met with similar professional training who would consider it anything other than completely stupid. As a person who hasn’t paid any attention to his corner of the finance sector, this horrible dorm was my introduction to the man. My immediate conclusion was that he rose to…

I don't see any explanation of why in your opinion it is stupid, I would be interested to know one architect view on that.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#234

Post by StanislavPetrov »

nradov wrote: post #131
truculent wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Value investing is “an investment paradigm that involves investing in stocks that are overlooked by the market and are being traded below their true worth”. Correct me if wrong, but I don’t think index funds come under that paradigm.

I think the larger point is that public capital markets have become steadily more efficient. There are no "value stocks" anymore because nothing is overlooked by the market, those old opportunities have been arbitraged away. Modern computing systems have made it practical to look at every stock every day, so all stocks now trade at their "true worth" because all publicly available information gets instantly priced in…

"If you're not on the inside, you're on the outside!"

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#235

Post by nradov »

DennisP wrote: post #150
nradov wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the larger point is that public capital markets have become steadily more efficient. There are no "value stocks" anymore because nothing is overlooked by the market, those old opportunities have been arbitraged away. Modern computing systems have made it practical to look at every stock every day, so all stocks now trade at their "true worth" because all publicly available information gets instantly priced in…

The efficient market hypothesis has been dogma for about half a century, but there's a lot of academic research showing that value and various other factors outperform anyway. There are all sorts of structural and psychological reasons they might persist; e.g. a short-term bias among fund managers, who tend to lose investors if they underperform a few quarters. The research does say that value doesn't work quite as w…

There is no reliable evidence that value investing still outperforms the market on a risk-adjusted basis. Everyone knows the trick now so the trick no longer works.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#236

Post by dirtyhippiefree »

bobobob420 wrote: post #187
totaldude87 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation is important when you are not writing a single word on your own , credit where it's due

[flagged]

You’re rubbing elbows with the people actually doing things in some of these news stories.

Credibility matters…bro…

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#237

Post by oefrha »

robocat wrote: post #213
talldatethrow wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a copy paste of a blogger that wrote an article about why you shouldnt give up, because charlie didn't either. Are you the author? It feels weird to take 95% of someones article and just post it. https://www.joshuakennon.com/if-charlie-munger-didnt-quit-wh...

Suggestion when quoting: put two spaces in front of each paragraph - turns it into monospace and looks a bit like a pullquote e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439315

No, that looks horrible on mobile. It looks horrible even on the largest iPad when I have the Safari sidebar enabled.

Don’t use 

 when line breaks should be automatic. Use standard > for block quotes.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#238

Post by iambateman »

talldatethrow wrote: post #171
missedthecue wrote: post #166

In 1949, Charlie Munger was 25 years old. He was hired at the law firm of Wright & Garrett for $3,300 per year, or $42,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars. A few years later, in 1953, Charlie was 29 years old when he and his wife divorced. He had been married since he was 21. Charlie lost everything in the divorce, his wife keeping the family home in South Pasadena. Munger moved into “dreadful” conditions at the Univer…

Is this a copy paste of a blogger that wrote an article about why you shouldnt give up, because charlie didn't either. Are you the author? It feels weird to take 95% of someones article and just post it. https://www.joshuakennon.com/if-charlie-munger-didnt-quit-wh...

This is a great point but given their comment history and 7000+ karma, my money is on this being the original author taking an opportunity to repost their own writing.

Hopefully the benefit of the doubt is well offered here because obviously lifting 100+ words of someone else's writing is poor form.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#240

Post by nradov »

spfzero wrote: post #147
nradov wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the larger point is that public capital markets have become steadily more efficient. There are no "value stocks" anymore because nothing is overlooked by the market, those old opportunities have been arbitraged away. Modern computing systems have made it practical to look at every stock every day, so all stocks now trade at their "true worth" because all publicly available information gets instantly priced in…

As a counter-argument, you usually need to read a lot into the reported numbers, for example read the 10K notes for multiple years in the past. That's the only way to know that the 3B in assets showing up on the balance sheet for "goodwill", to use one easy example, are not really worth 3B. There are many more-nuanced factors that work alike. The reported numbers are what the accountants think might fly under GAAP, a…

A 20% rise in a stock doesn't constitute evidence of market inefficiency. In most cases that increase is due to new information becoming available.

If you say that value investing still works then where is the evidence?

Post reply on HN