Charlie Munger on Delayed Gratification:

I've also got the money-sense gene. The first 13 years I practiced law, my income from practicing law was $300,000 total.

At the end of that 13 years, what did I have?

1/

A house. Two cars. And $300,000 of liquid assets. Everyone else'd have spent that slender income, not invested it shrewdly, and so forth.

I just think it was, to me, it was as natural as breathing, and of course I knew how compound interest worked!

2/
I knew when I saved $10 I was really saving $100 or $1,000 ,because of the future growth of the $10.

It just took a little wait. And when I quit law practice it was because I wanted to work for myself instead of my clients, because I knew I could do better than they did.

3/
You only get a few opportunities, and you have to grab them aggressively when they come because even in the most favored life, they're really rare.

I always feel that the opportunities are rare. I only get a few and then I have to seize them aggressively.

4/
Now that lesson I just talked about, it is taught in no business school I know of. But…everybody who has any sense ought to know [that] at the start of life, and practically nobody does.

I just described reality the way it really is.

5/
If I took the 30 biggest transactions out of Berkshire in the past 60 years, what would Berkshire be?

Not much.

I mean we wouldn't be poor, but we wouldn't be rich either. Maybe once every two years we had a major opportunity. Not very many.

6/
Check out this great article by @jasonzweigwsj at

Charlie Munger, Unplugged

https://t.co/y3dhC3dKiu 7/
The fascinating fact is that Charlie Munger was financially independent in 1962, at the age of 38

That was before he even started his real estate and investment partnerships

And before he even started investing with Buffett

https://t.co/wugFD90QzN h/t @mymoneyblog

8/
This is the tweet that started this thread:

https://t.co/ggrqHXKOCM

9/
Happy 97th birthday to Charlie Munger

I like the following books about him:

Damn Right: Behind the Scenes with Berkshire Hathaway Billionaire Charlie Munger

https://t.co/oDD9Dv14AW

Poor Charlie's Almanack: The Wit and Wisdom of Charles T. Munger

https://t.co/fTr3ti8F3Y

10/
Check this thread on Charlie Munger:

The first 100,000 is the hardest

https://t.co/ZWGF3K49tc

11/

More from Dividend Growth Investor

More from Law

Hot take: Courts might be able to review the legality of this impeachment, even under current political-question doctrine. Here’s why and how the issue might arise:


Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.

Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:

According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.

The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).

You May Also Like

Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to


Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.

Mueller's team was 100% partisan.

That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election

They looked high.

They looked low.

They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.

And they found...NOTHING.

Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.

What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?

THERE WEREN'T ANY.

Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.