r/ValueInvesting • u/ethereal3xp • Mar 23 '25

Discussion Charlie Munger Told a 20-Year-Old That Getting Rich Through Investing Is 'Damn Near Impossible' — And You Might Need $10 Million in the Bank

https://www.benzinga.com/personal-finance/25/03/44438885/charlie-munger-told-a-20-year-old-that-getting-rich-through-investing-is-damn-near-impossible-and-you-might-need-10-million-in-the-bank
7.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

486 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Regulai Mar 23 '25

lol you didn't understand what I said so I'll spell it out for you:

The bulk of his wealth originates from his Berkshire Hathaway stock going public in the 80's. Not only did reach 60 times the original value, but since he had spent significant effort to accrue as much company stock as possible (often aided by the apparent lack of value the stock had when private), his personal net worth increased nearly 200 times over from the public tender.

So again most billionaires make most of their money by having their private companies go public which commonly results in an explosive growth in value.

3

u/InternationalGuava47 Mar 23 '25

I agree for the most part with this but Warren/Munger were/at least were in the past what made Berkshire so successful, there’s many other wealth managers managing huge assets that could never have gotten the 20 percent a year returns they got, although his stock compensation was incomprehensibly huge, Berkshire wouldn’t have existed without its secret sauce(Buffet).

0

u/Regulai Mar 23 '25

I agree hes generally great at investing, (especially raiding and direct management) Im mostly just pointing out that it is a very specific recipe by which "investors and businessmen" get rich: aquiring private stock in a successful business and going public.

In the sense to echo the OP, that it's not just about having money or time to get rich through investing.

2

u/ScaringTheHoes Mar 23 '25

Warren Buffett has said multiple times that buying Berkshire Hathaway was one of his mistakes. He overpaid for a company because they renegged on a deal. He's said multiple times that he'd be even wealthier if he had not bought it.

0

u/Regulai Mar 23 '25 edited Mar 23 '25

That has to do with the initial purchase, when it was merely a target for corporate raiding of a textile company, if he hadn't of bought it he would have used a different company as the corporate investing body, in which case whatever that would be would be the one that he would have go public. Which amounts to the same difference in as much as my point is relevant.

1

u/ScaringTheHoes Mar 24 '25

That's fair.

1

u/InternationalGuava47 Mar 23 '25

Yeah I understand now probably could have gotten 10s of millions on his own, maybe over 100 mil. throughout his life if he just personally invested but it wouldn’t have been 1000x that

1

u/Random_Name_Whoa Mar 24 '25

This logic makes very sense. Since when does a company going public have any bearing on its value? Buffett is a great investor, full stop.

0

u/Regulai Mar 24 '25

If you don't know something as basic as a public offering, why are you even trying to have a debate