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

431–440 of 454 posts

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#431

Post by corethree »

raffraffraff wrote: post #323
whywhywouldyou wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, exactly, are you talking about? The OP is referencing the fact that the wife got _everything_ in the divorce. I'd be curious to understand why "facilitat[ing] his success in some way over the better part of a decade" entitles her to everything he ever made.

Is "everything" the family home? In a divorce it's much more about the kids than it is about the wife. The kids get stability in a divorce. Where possible kids live in their home with their primary carer, don't have to move to a new school etc. Why is the wife the primary carer? It starts because the husband can't get pregnant or breastfeed. It's supplemented by the likelihood that he's already the highest earner, wh…

>Why is the wife the primary carer?

Totally agreed biology IS a factor here. The problem is biology doesn't come with a label and sometimes it's not clearly designed for a singular concept.

There's no Label on exactly which parent is supposed to be the better care taker and maybe there's not supposed to be a clear answer here. But there is this:

https://archive.ph/Zv9rp

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#432

Post by [deleted] »

corethree wrote: post #431
raffraffraff wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "everything" the family home? In a divorce it's much more about the kids than it is about the wife. The kids get stability in a divorce. Where possible kids live in their home with their primary carer, don't have to move to a new school etc. Why is the wife the primary carer? It starts because the husband can't get pregnant or breastfeed. It's supplemented by the likelihood that he's already the highest earner, wh…

>Why is the wife the primary carer? Totally agreed biology IS a factor here. The problem is biology doesn't come with a label and sometimes it's not clearly designed for a singular concept. There's no Label on exactly which parent is supposed to be the better care taker and maybe there's not supposed to be a clear answer here. But there is this: https://archive.ph/Zv9rp

[deleted]

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#433

Post by DennisP »

axlee wrote: post #430
DennisP wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Value stocks have always had periods during which they underperformed, and the time since 2009 has definitely been one of them.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#434

Post by corethree »

barry-cotter wrote: post #320
whywhywouldyou wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, exactly, are you talking about? The OP is referencing the fact that the wife got _everything_ in the divorce. I'd be curious to understand why "facilitat[ing] his success in some way over the better part of a decade" entitles her to everything he ever made.

It’s probably an exaggeration. He wasn’t literally living on the street. Also, his wife was still taking care of two children.

She got the house. Usually for American families that's the majority of their wealth. A huge majority. A split would mean selling the house. But that didn't happen.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#435

Post by pfannkuchen »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #331
pfannkuchen wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what you mean by direct comparison here. I believe the official government inflation stats do consider the relative cost of things, otherwise they would be totally nonsensical for the reason you mentioned.

Well then they're clearly getting it wrong, as this shows; you cannot support a family and buy a house on a single $42K income in 2023. Any statistics that suggest you can are just plain wrong.

Yeah they are definitely wrong, it’s just wrong in a more subtle way.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#436

Post by corethree »

kamaal wrote: post #318
whywhywouldyou wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, exactly, are you talking about? The OP is referencing the fact that the wife got _everything_ in the divorce. I'd be curious to understand why "facilitat[ing] his success in some way over the better part of a decade" entitles her to everything he ever made.

Your parent comment argument is a flawed argument, of course. By definition everything that ever happens, happens from cause-effect conditions. So if you end up winning, everything that happened that led to it, in some way is responsible. But that's splitting hairs. I have seen these situations even in other relationships. There are these cousins, or uncles who would have dropped you to an interview, or lent you some…

Exactly. Especially in modern times. Women have equal rights now... which is hugely deserved.... but they don't have equal responsibility? That later part no longer makes sense.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#437

Post by Animats »

callmeal wrote: post #367
Animats wrote: post #34

One of the greats of investing. And a value investor. It's all about the profits, not the growth. Munger is gone, Bogle is gone, Buffett is 93. Who takes up the mantle of value investing now?

>Bogle is gone I found this out the hard way when I saw an email from vanguard saying they would be charging me $25/year/fund unless I signed up for e-delivery AND moved all my accounts over to their brokerage. Vanguards death by a thousand nickle-and-diming-cuts has begun.

Yes. I got that too. I don't want their brokerage, just their funds. I'm paying the $25/year fee. I want separation of functions, for security reasons.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#438

Post by pjscott »

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.

There are other dormitories on campus. One size doesn't fit all, but you've got to work on the margin.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#439

Post by ac29 »

corethree wrote: post #295
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.

This doesn't happen any more. Back then you could find companies with a cap that was LESS than the money they had in the bank. Those were no brainer deals. This strategy was actually pioneered by buffets mentor Benjamín graham. By just blindly following a formula you would do value investing by calculating NAV vs market cap. Buffet took it one step further. He calculates another type of value called intrinsic value a…

> This doesn't happen any more. Back then you could find companies with a cap that was LESS than the money they had in the bank. Those were no brainer deals.

Plenty of companies trade at a discount to book value. I found over a thousand with a stock screener.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#440

Post by mrazomor »

andyferris wrote: post #429
mrazomor wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From your experience, what's usually done when new projects start?

What I've seen, people focus on the business requirements and only the obvious risks. That's for the regular projects.

I have seen Munger's proposal in practice. In form of intentionally breaking production (in a controlled manner) to uncover unknown issues (similar to Netflix's Chaos Monkey), and in form of think tanks with senior engineers who take time to think about potential reliability issues.

What Munger describes is exactly the latter approach. From my experience, it's done very rarely. And never in some companies. While Munger advocates to do it for every project.

Post reply on HN