Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.

Recs

27

Charlie Munger's Thoughts on Investing, Politics, and Life

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A  ) (NYSE: BKR-B  ) Vice Chairman Charlie Munger may be 88 years old, but he's still as witty, wise, and irreverent as ever. He sat down for a long interview with CNBC last week before the company's annual meeting in Omaha. Here are some of the highlights.

On Berkshire's future: "I've never been more comfortable about succession or duration of culture than I am right now. Our new investment people [Todd Combs and Ted Weschler] show enormous promise. ... I have enormous confidence in the continuation of the culture."

On 2008: "The panic that came as a predecessor of the Great Recession had common themes [with the past] that are always the same. The crazy greed, the crazy leverage, the crazy delusions. I think we were very lucky that the outcome wasn't worse. If it were a just God it would have been worse than we got."

On gold: "I think gold is a great thing to sew into your garments if you're a Jewish family in Vienna in 1939, but I think civilized people don't buy gold. They invest in productive businesses."

On humility: "[Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan] Greenspan to his credit has since recognized that he was wrong. He's the only one who's done that. Everyone else has managed to look at this enormous [failure] and leave the previous ideas intact. That's a common human way of handling things. No matter how bad the evidence, you just keep your previous conclusions."

More on Greenspan: "[Greenspan] really overdosed on Ayn Rand. And in fact everybody else did, too."

On Berkshire's investments: "I love the portfolio we've gradually developed at Berkshire. We have a wonderful portfolio of businesses if you average them out. By and large they are doing productive and useful work -- it's not outsmarting the computer systems in the trading markets."

On Buffett's purchase of IBM (NYSE: IBM  ) : "I was perfectly OK with it. It's a very Buffett-style play. It's simple. They announced what they were going to do and why they thought it was going to work. You could see how entrenched IBM was in many places, including the Burlington railroad. I think our business experience helps our investment judgment, and vice-versa. ... We've always said that what we like best was owning a wonderful business outright, and second best we like good ideas in securities. That has never changed."

Asked if he tweets: "No, I don't use the cellphone."

On manufacturing and competiveness: "It's just amazing what happened to American manufacturing. I have a brother-in-law who made draftsman stools for years in a little factory right here in Omaha. When the Chinese got good at making draftsman stools, it was impossible for that business to continue. I don't think that was evil or anything else. I think that kind of creative destruction happens in capitalism with free trade. It's very painful for the people who get hit by it. It's painful for Kodak when the technology changes. I don't think you should look for a villain. What happened to Kodak is just a natural outcome of completive capitalism. It's awful for Rochester and it's awful for a lot of people, but it's probably good for the greater system of the world."

On Buffett's support of President Obama: "I'm in the other party, but there's plenty to regret in the Republican Party. But there's plenty to regret in the Democratic Party. I am not enthusiastic about our politics now where the nutcases in each party have come to power and hate each other. I remember a more bipartisan world with affection.

I think [Romney] is by far the best of the Republican nominees. So does Warren. I think, considering how poisonous the political atmosphere in the country is, it's amazing that we have two people as outstanding as those we have. ... There is a lot of merit in both these people."

Asked if a new president will change business: "Everybody likes to think that there's a holy war that matters terribly. I don't think it matters that much. I think it's the nature of democratic capitalism to have a social safety net. That doesn't go away when the Republicans get in office, and the Democrats aren't allowed to go as crazy as they would like to when they get into office. The system has worked at least moderately well in preventing really extreme bad governmental conduct."

When reminded that the country faces big challenges: "We always do. Think when we had the Cold War when we had those intercontinental missiles aimed at one another. There's always some big problem that we're coping with. I just think that comes with the human condition."

On the stock market: "Averaged out we're pretty agnostic about the market at Berkshire. We just try and swim better than the tide and take the vicissitudes of the tide as they come. But I do not think that the civilization is going totally to hell or anything like that. ... I'm not nervous about the basic portfolio of Berkshire as part as our insurance operation."

On individual investors: "The ordinary investor who actively is trading with the help of an ordinary stock broker is going to get a result which is way worse than the market provides. I just think the people who listen to CNN and want to be do-it-yourself investors averaged out are going to be losers. ... If you don't know very much, you should buy an index. Knowing enough to make alternative conduct safe is something that is always going to be a minority sport."

On people looking for alternative investments after being burned by stocks: "That's a natural thing to do. What we've always tried to do is to be just the opposite. In other words when everybody is totally discouraged and think the world is going to hell, that's when we like to be buying."

On China: "China has grown at a rate that for a country that big is unprecedented in the previous history of the world. So that's a huge development, and it's enormously important to the world. With that many people start getting ahead year after year at that kind of a percentage rate it affects the whole world. I think we have no sensible alternative except than to be very friendly with China, and I think they have no sensible alternative than to be very friendly with us. ...

Anything that is extreme as [China's growth] will eventually stop. China will not grow in real terms at 10% per annum for another 40 years. They would own the world! ... I would bet that with fluctuations China continues to do very well with its policies. I would argue that in some important respects they have been smarter than we have. Their set of policies, created by a nominally communist government, have actually been very intelligent in driving the welfare of their people ahead at a rapid rate. It's a huge achievement, what they've done ... considering where they started -- in a communist bureaucracy with widespread starvation -- and without any big wars, to have transformed a nation that big by a combination of population control and bringing in free-market business principles, it's one of the most remarkable human achievements in the history of the world."

On Singapore: "I regard what happened in Singapore as the best example of successful governance in the history of the world. To take a handful of people in a malarial swamp and turn them into a meritocratic civilization as well as Singapore has is a huge achievement. I think China to some extent has copied Singapore. And I think they deserve some admiration."

On legacy: "Ask Warren how he wants to be remembered. He wants to be remembered as a teacher. Who in the hell is saying that from the top of a company, from a record like Warren's? Why wouldn't I like being associated with that ethos?

I have a little different twist. I have less ambition than Warren about being a great teacher. I am trying to emulate my great-grandfather. When he died, they said about him, 'Nobody envied the success, so fairly won and wisely used.' It's a simple philosophy. And wouldn't Wall Street have worked better if more people had tried to imitate my great-grandfather?"

On Wall Street: "I think it's better. I would say the majority of what was wrong has not been fixed. ...

Take the rapid trading by the computer geniuses with the computer algorithms. Those people have the social utility of a bunch of rats admitted to a granary. I never would have allowed the rats to get in the granary. I don't want the brilliant young men of America devoting their life to being rats in someone else's granary. It's not my way of the right way to run the republic. If you let me write the laws, it wouldn't happen. ... I wouldn't allow anyone to make money in short-term trading. I might have Tobin taxes. I would do something. I think if we change the incentives a lot of this regrettable behavior will go away. ...

I've always felt it did more bad than good to have this enormous liquidity in stock markets . It makes those markets a perfect casino for gamblers. If you had the right tax incentives, the gamblers couldn't win on short-term trading. I don't think we need all this liquidity and all this gambling frenzy. But I'm the distinct minority."

On businesses relying on cost-cutting instead of growth: "Everybody always wants to do growth. It's when that avenue looks difficult that people go to cost containment. I have a friend with a moving business, and he used to have 330 employees, now he's got about 240. They used to be employees with perks; now most of them are independent contractors. He did that because he had to in the Great Recession, which enormously affected the moving business. He didn't shift to cost containment as some kind of strategy -- life was forcing it on him. A lot of that has happened in business, but it's not because they prefer it. Everyone would prefer to build new plants based on anticipated demand and do growth. This other stuff is stuff they do as a second choice. Berkshire has always tried to keep a culture where we act like we are having a recession when we aren't. So cost containment ... we're already there." 

On plans: "I have a deep distrust in master planning. People get to believing the plan because they created it. What is needed is the kind of propensity to disbelieve by changing your previous conclusions. And we're very good at that, thank God."

Asking if his friend will ever go back to the old way of business: "No, it's never going back. He squeezed the cost out. That's one of the main troubles of the economy, that everybody has done what my friend in the moving business has done. It's perfectly logical. That's the way capitalism works. ...

I think you can argue that there is some duty to be a little optimistic, meaning that the successful corporation to some extent should be a shock-absorber in the civilization and take a little pain before it translates it into the workers' paychecks. And I think most businesses do operate that way. They do act as a shock-absorber. But they also have to change their cost structure to adapt to the competitive reality. People have no alternative."

On his outlook for America: "I think there's more sin than there used to be. But if you went back far enough you would find a lot of sin. My favorite saying is about Jay Gould and Russell Sage. They said of those two in Congress, 'When they're talking they're lying and when they're quiet they're stealing.' We've come a long way from that. ... We tend to idealize the past. A lot of what was very regrettable is now gone."

Jeff Fischer and team have demystified options. And they can rack up income like $1,030... $2,626... and $3,228 on a schedule you can set your watch by!
That's why we're glad to announce every single one of their closely guarded strategies is available to YOU during May and June – 100% FREE, no strings attached! Just enter your email address in the box below...

Fool contributor Morgan Housel owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway. Follow him on Twitter @TMFHousel. The Motley Fool owns shares of International Business Machines and Berkshire Hathaway. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Berkshire Hathaway. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.


Read/Post Comments (26) | Recommend This Article (27)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    As a Jewish American I'm personally offended that you would highlight this man's thoughts.

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 11:50 AM, olaus wrote:

    There is no issues with his comments he is just talking from history.

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    Also, calling Indian and Chinese people is uncivilized is unacceptable. This racist should not be given a voice on this site.

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 12:24 PM, kahunacfa wrote:

    On Gold: I am a civilized person. Starting in February 1969 in Honolulu, Hawaii I bought a KugerRand or three every year. Gold then was at the Official US price of $32 per Troy ounce.

    Then a few years later as the Government's Gold holdings at Ft. Knox, and other locations was being rapidly depleated by demands from World Central Banks, the price of Gold was allowed to Float with the Market by Executive Order by President Richard M. Nixon <He said, later "I an NOT a Cook as he boarded Air Force One for the last time with his wife Pat Nixon.

    Charlie Munger is simply WRONG about Gold and a lot of other things. The Berkshire Class A and Class B stock is another wrong thing -- though it serves WEB's interests well.

    Kahuna, CFA

    Venture Capital

    General Partner

    2012 - 2019 or 2020

    .

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 12:39 PM, DoctorLewis4 wrote:

    Charlie - I love the guy and think he's great. He also has a track record - look it up. Keep buying gold if you like - but give me a good business to invest in any day. And unless I'm mistaken, Berkshire has made lots of people lots of money over the years.

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 1:41 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    Who cares about his success at business? He's a racist, he shouldn't be praised.

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Calimesa wrote:

    I can't believe you guys calling Charlie a racist. How is he a racist when he's pointing out a fact that in 1939 Austria when the only real asset most people had was gold and the clothes on their back and Jews were being persecuted that sewing gold into their clothes was the only real way for them to get away? He's not saying they are uncivilized, that was a different time. His comment of uncivilized people don't buy gold is about today, how gold isn't the only asset available to people, and how gold isn't 'productive'. Haven't you been paying attention. 1 ounce of gold doesn't produce anything. Yes the price may go up but the fact still remains that 1 ounce of gold today still be 1 ounce of gold 30, 50, 100, 1000+ years from today. See what Warren said about gold.

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 2:50 PM, ishfaque wrote:

    quite the redneck, Mr Munger

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 2:59 PM, ViktorST wrote:

    Franky, are your comments based on something not in these quotes?

    If they are not, I think you might have misunderstood Munger's points. Also, Singepore =! India

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    I don't understand the controversy here. Indian people buy gold. Chinese people buy gold. Munger called them uncivilized. He's a racist.

    If he had stopped his argument at, 'gold is not a productive asset' then OK. But he insisted on taking it a step further.

    Maybe he doesn't know that Indian people buy gold. If this is the case then he isn't a racist, but it would make him ignorant on the topic of world finance. Either way, not a man to be praised.

    Maybe he misspoke. If this is the case then a simple apology would be acceptable. Please forward me this if it exists.

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 4:40 PM, CoreAndExplore wrote:

    That's a very distorted interpretation of Munger's comments Franky. By "uncivilized" it's pretty obvious, especially given the context of the discussion, that Munger is inferring "unsophisticated," and only with respect to adhering to gold accumulation as an investment philosophy. There is not cultural, racial, or nationalist tone in Munger's comments here. Is Munger saying that the general Indian population is truly uncivilized for hoarding gold? No, for two important reasons: (1) most Indians are not buying gold for investment purposes, but rather for decoration, jewelery, etc. and (2) his term "uncivilized" refers to an investment philosophy, not a group of people, so to ascribe a racial/cultural meaning to it is misguided at best and downright inflammatory at worst.

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 5:09 PM, johnnywitt wrote:

    You know what Franky, I don't think Mr. Munger gives a Rats Ass what a Race Baiter like you thinks and neither do I.

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 5:25 PM, midnightmoney wrote:

    While I would have to hear Munger say he was antisemitic before I'd believe he was, it is a pretty unfortunate juxtaposition of terms. I can forgive somebody for saying something in the heat of conversation. Quoting him here as if the comment were somehow valuable is another matter, though it has got us all up in arms I suppose.

  • Report this Comment On May 09, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    Coreandexplore - you may be right, probably are.

    Until he clarifies his position and apologizes I have no reason to assume he intended his ramblings in the way you interpret it. If he meant unsophisticated, he should have said unsophisticated.

    Jonnywitt - ok. He and you don't have to care about racism. He's filthy rich, let's assume you are as well.

    Motley Fool should probably care about not posting the thoughts of a racist as worthwhile commentary. Maybe they do want this image (I doubt it).

    Again, if Munger apologizes or at least clarifies his position then ignore my previous comments.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 10:49 AM, sikiliza wrote:

    Munger is just too funny.

    Take the rapid trading by the computer geniuses with the computer algorithms. Those people have the social utility of a bunch of rats admitted to a granary.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    TMF writer Christopher Barker responds to Munger's unfortunate (and so far unapologetic thoughts)

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/05/10/a-civilized...

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 11:58 AM, kabrink wrote:

    Franky you're going overboard nor does that TMF article bolster your argument. Nothing in anything I've read says or proves that Munger is a racist of any sort. But, whatever, I'm guessing you're one of those reactive people that would call me a racist simply because I disagree with obama's policies because you can't articulate any other defense of them.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    Um, thanks for assuming kabrink.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 6:19 PM, oretex wrote:

    Ouch! As a female engineer with a daughter who is a physicist, slighting women with this sexist comment stings:

    "I don't want the brilliant young men of America devoting their life to being rats in someone else's granary."

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 10:19 PM, tr0dy wrote:

    Dick Nixon was a good cook!

  • Report this Comment On May 14, 2012, at 1:05 PM, The1MAGE wrote:

    I attempted to find the racist comments in this article, And I just don't see it.

    I see a dislike of the idea of investing in gold. It looks like that comment was somehow twisted into something about India and China, even though I saw nothing here that connected the two.

    I do know plenty of people that do buy gold, I am not one of them, and none of them as far as I know are Chinese, Indian, or Jewish, and his comments did cover them as easily. Gold buying is popular in America right now, so he is calling Americans Uncivilized here, and I cannot see that as racist.

    Making a comment that something is what Jewish people did to escape Nazism also does not sound racist, just that this was his only justified reason to buy gold.

    I am aware of a conversion of assets to diamonds also during that time because of how convenient it was to transport a families net worth out of a country. An excellent way to move money historically, though right now I would simply call my broker and transfer everything to foreign accounts if I similarly needed to get out of a country. So much easier today.

    If their is racism here, I would like it spelled out for me. If it is not here, but elsewhere, that also needs to be pointed out as to exactly where it is. (And is the job of the accuser to present such evidence.)

    I have ran into people who use the term racism every single time anyone disagrees with them on any subject. Not saying that is what is going on here, but it is an unfortunately common action of people who are in a weak position for debating. (I have been accused of racism for agreeing with a statement made by Martin Luther King jr, because it didn't support a persons opinion.)

    Because of how this term is used, I mostly see it as a weapon to psychologically beat people into submission, and therefore must be justified every time it is used.

  • Report this Comment On May 14, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    The1Mage:

    Here is my logic as the accuser(feel free to constructively criticize it):

    1)

    Munger claimed that people who invest in gold are uncivilized.

    2)

    Chinese and Indian people heavily invest in gold (this is true, do some research, or ask me to provide further evidence, but it is such an apparent fact about the current financial world that I can't believe this would be a controversial statement).

    Therefore: Munger is calling Chinese and Indian people uncivilized (note: sure he is also calling white people who invest gold uncivilized, but an absurdly disproportionally larger number of these ethnicities invest in gold compared to whites).

    Assumption: Calling an ethnicity uncivilized is racist (I'm sure we agree on this)

    Therefore: Munger has made a racist claim.

    Note: I'll reiterate AGAIN. Maybe he misspoke. Maybe he was ignorant of the fact that Chinese and Indian people invest in gold heavily. A simple apology clears this up. He hasn't apologized as far as I know it.

    I get it. You don't think my logic is air-tight. Let's be honest though. If someone said, "people who wear hoodies are uncivlized" it would be a national news story. Yes, white people wear hoodies as well black people... nonethless you would consider it racist. If someone said, people who refuse to eat pork are uncivilized.... Muslim and Jewish kosher people would not be thrilled. The ONUS is on him to clarify his comments. Or not, he can ignore my petty claims. And I'll assume he's a racist and that's that.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2012, at 11:09 PM, The1MAGE wrote:

    Frankie, I still find this a big jump to a conclusion here. He did not specifically mention the Chinese, or Indians, nor did he specifically exclude the white people doing the same. He only mentioned the act of buying gold itself.

    Everything else is looking like a fishing expedition.

    You assume he knows who is buying gold, but if he has no interest in gold as an investment, why would he research this? You can't just assume he knows this.

    Then I have to ask is it the Chinese and Indian people buying up gold, or the governments of China and India? I have heard of the government of China buying gold, yet haven't heard of the Chinese population buying gold. (And I haven't researched this.) These are two different things. Commenting about the actions of a government is not the same as commenting about the actions of the people.

    While I don't have proof, I am also convinced he actually meant unsophisticated, not uncivilized.

    I wouldn't touch gold myself. It's like buying an empty apartment building, raw land, or a stock in a business that doesn't actually do anything. You hope it will go up in value, but that is a guess. Whereas an actual functioning business, or a filled apartment building brings an income in. The apartment building may never increase in value, but it will still bring in those rents.

    A good analogy is would you rather invest in the golden eggs, or the goose that lays them?

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2012, at 8:48 PM, kyleleeh wrote:

    @Franky

    Let me use the same logic you're using so you can appreciate how flawed you're argument is.

    Franky thinks Munger is racist to claim that gold investors are uncivilized.

    Munger is a senior citizen.

    Therefore Franky thinks senior citizens are racist.

    ...see the flaw?

    Personally I think it's pretty racist of YOU to claim that Gold consumption has a correlation to ethnicity. China and India consume a lot of gold because they are the two most populated nations on the planet, not because their ethnicity gives them a predisposed inkling towards a particular asset.

    Also purchasing gold for ornamental purposes is an indulgence not an investment. It's great when luxury items hold or increase in value, but to think that capital gains is what motivates people desire for gold jewelry is simply not true...people are not buying jewelry in the hopes of getting rich off it.

  • Report this Comment On May 19, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Estrogen wrote:

    Frank(l)y,

    Munger appears to be a very ethical, rich, and generous business man. He has donated millions to Stanford and Michigan universities as well as others.

    First I've heard him called a racist. At 88, as far as I've heard, he has acted in a very non racist and ethical manner.

    Having said that, I've been fooled many times in the past. I'd be very surprised if this is one of them though.

    Estrogen

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Calimesa wrote:

    Hear Hear, The1MAGE & Estrogen

    Frankydontfailme and people like him have big problems; always looking for negatives, blaming the other guy, playing the race card, playing the gender card, not taking responsibility for their actions, etc. Such uncivilized reactions...oh excuse me make the unsofisticated.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1882205, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/19/2013 9:20:05 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 2 days ago Sponsored by:
DOW 15,354.40 121.18 0.80%
S&P 500 1,667.47 17.00 1.03%
NASD 3,498.97 33.73 0.97%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/17/2013 4:04 PM
IBM $208.44 Up +3.75 +1.83%
International Busi… CAPS Rating: ****
BRK-A $169400.00 Up +2097.00 +1.25%
Berkshire Hathaway… CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement