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

421–430 of 454 posts

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#421

Post by mrazomor »

sdwr wrote: post #420
mrazomor wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't interpret it the same way as you. My understanding of Munger's intent: find the issues and risks that you are not aware of, by looking at the project from a different perspective. What Google X (and many others) do: do the most risky parts first, so you fail fast and minimize the wasted effort (save time and money by not doing the less risky parts first, in case the project is doomed).

Its exactly the same thing, in that it guards against wishful thinking by making you finish your dinner before you have dessert.

I don't see it that way.

Munger gives a tool to identify new (yet unknown) risks. Seeking what needs to be addressed so that the project doesn't fail.

The other thing is a tool to help us deal with the known risks (derisking the project, identifying the complete blockers). Checking if the project is doomed, and should not receive more investment.

I see it as two very different things from the project management perspective.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#422

Post by devoutsalsa »

neop1x wrote: post #390
andrewmutz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "value investing" is confusing because it is used in two different ways: The first way it's used is to describe buying stocks that are cheap relative to their current financial characteristics (price to book, price to earnings, price to FCF, etc). This approach is usually contrasted with "growth", which would refer to investing in companies with a compelling thesis and bright future ahead of them. A second w…

So-called "value ETFs" mostly don't contain stocks that I consider value stocks. A value stock's price at the time of purchase must be below the historical average market P/E multiple, with a reasonable growth rate expectation and analyst forecast. It should not have a high LT debt-to-capital ratio, and it should pay a stable dividend. If you look into those "value ETFs," there is a lot of garbage. Some companies fro…

Value investing is buying a dollar for less than a dollar.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#423

Post by Clubber »

joshspankit wrote: post #275
Almondsetat wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that since this guy died at 99yo it means that 30 years ago he was still an old 70yo man. Screws with my brain sometimes

My brain says 30 years ago was the 70s

If I still wrote checks, I'd struggle with the 19xx/20xx on the date.

As an aside, it does aggravate me that so many companies have reverted back to the 2 digit year after going through so much Y2K refactoring.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#424

Post by LanceH »

Kaibeezy wrote: post #387
Jach wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really dislike the "Light On Two Sides Of Every Room" pattern of Christopher Alexander, which is ideally accomplished with two externally facing windows on different walls. Windows compromise how I would like to layout the room's interior to my own preferences. I don't care what an architect envisioned for a generic human habitability, I want a space to feel habitable to me. Most of the time that means eliminating…

That is, of course, your completely legitimate individual choice. If there’s a window, you can block it. If, on the other hand, there is no window and you want one, this is more difficult to resolve. Alexander and his team absolutely expected people to adapt the patterns to individual preferences, and so stated right up front. As a matter of general preferences, “light on two sides” was found through diligent researc…

> If, on the other hand, there is no window and you want one

You rent a different apartment. I don't know what's so difficult about this concept with regard to his building and the need for some people to call it a hellscape. He's trying to offer a less expensive place for people to live for a couple years while they go to school.

A dorm room is not a habitat. It is just one room that someone will occupy for part of their day, mostly while asleep. He hasn't blocked out the sun.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#425

Post by fastasucan »

jesterson wrote: post #380
fastasucan wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Arguably the guy did nothing worthy of admiration. Hm, isn't that a purely subjective thing? And did he really did nothing worthy of admiration? Isn't it admirable to be great at your job? To write books that people read and enjoy, and draw inspiration from?

That’s why i put the word “arguably. Because it seems to be debatable and naturally i would like to hear the other side. Clever and smart scammer is extremely great at his job sending people into poverty. Absolutely great at the job. Is it admirable? I’ll leave the judgment to you.

>Clever and smart scammer is extremely great at his job sending people into poverty. Absolutely great at the job. Is it admirable? I’ll leave the judgment to you.

You did the opposite of leaving the judgement for me.

You wanted to argue that he did nothing worthy of admiration - so it would be interesting to hear the reasoning (if any) behind that. He lived 99 years, are you sure he did nothing worthy of admiration in his life? I know nothing about the guy but I can see on wikipedia that he was at the top of his class at Harvard. Isn't that potentially admirable? What about him providing free legal aid while being a student? Nothing worthy of admiration? Are you sure that none of his family members didn't find him admirable? His neighbours or colleagues?

Again, saying that he never have done anything admirable is a pretty strong claim that you have failed to argue for.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#426

Post by tim333 »

malwarebytess wrote: post #135

As smart and rich as this guy was, and I know very little of him besides his critique of cryptocurrencies, I wonder about his empathy. That dorm design... https://youtu.be/VKXOQ8duhRg

The reason for the design was to put the communal areas by the windows so people would come out and mix. It seems popular at the one they built https://youtu.be/LzsjKdGehb0

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#428

Post by andyferris »

phone8675309 wrote: post #283
pjscott wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Munger that was, indeed, the whole point. His dorm design focused on making the common areas nice places where people would enjoy spending time, while optimizing the dorm rooms for bed-related activities. It seems like a reasonable strategy.

Unless you’re an introvert in which case this design is maximally wrong.

Though I doubt introverts desire a roommate, either.

Ideally the common areas are plentiful enough that you can enjoy some solitude outside of the sleeping room (at least for some of the day).

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#429

Post by andyferris »

mrazomor wrote: post #421
sdwr wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its exactly the same thing, in that it guards against wishful thinking by making you finish your dinner before you have dessert.

I don't see it that way. Munger gives a tool to identify new (yet unknown ) risks. Seeking what needs to be addressed so that the project doesn't fail. The other thing is a tool to help us deal with the known risks (derisking the project, identifying the complete blockers). Checking if the project is doomed, and should not receive more investment. I see it as two very different things from the project management pers…

Don't you have to explore the first (theoretically) before designing and committing to the fail-fast stage?

It's an extension, not a distinct approach.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#430

Post by axlee »

DennisP wrote: post #151
axlee wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Value investing has very little to do with investing in ETFs/indexes. By definition, investing in an ETF can't be value investing, because value investing is about picking (yes, picking) stocks that are undervalued. And that implies going against the market. The complete opposite in buying into the market through an ETF.

There are plenty of value ETFs. They even have indexes.

VTV (to name the biggest one) has been consistently either tracking below or severely underperforming the S&P. If there is value to be found, that's not there.
Post reply on HN