There are a few genuine people in this world, billionaires even. I have my disagreements with Charlie Munger, but he's never ********ting anyone.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Is 'Ungodly Well-Managed,' Billionaire Investor Says
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are a few genuine people in this world, billionaires even. I have my disagreements with Charlie Munger, but he's never ********ting anyone.
It’s naive to think he just came out and said “all is well” for no reason….
Again I disagree with Charlie on multiple issues, but there is nuance to his positions that you are ignoring.
1. The dorms have lots of windows, just not in the bed rooms. They have a lots of windows in the rooms shared common areas, including the top floor with views for miles. Is that a reasonable trade-off? We'll see.
2. BTC is a speculation with no intrinsic value that might not end well. Charlie understands the intrinsic value of actual cash generating businesses, he's not a trader. But he cares deeply about how well the average investor does, and hates anything or anyone who might mislead or defraud them.
3. Opening China to free markets lifted a billion people out of abject poverty, it's one of the greatest economic advances in modern human history. But it was also done by the same dictator who suppressed the student uprising at Tiananmen square, and the PRC is still running a dictatorship today. Is he a great leader in spite of his dictatorship? By some measures, sure. By the most important ones? Not in my opinion.
Charlie is both a grumpy old man and still one of the brightest people on the planet. His books on how to think clearly and eliminate bias from your thought process are classics. So you should at least read what he actually said, not a synopsis and give his viewpoints a reasonable chance before rejecting them. He's not always right, but he's right a good deal and almost always has strong reasoning for his opinions.
He didn't "just come out" and say it, he was asked a question.
He was being interviewed before the annual meeting of DJCO where he is chairman. Every year hard core value investors flock to go to the meeting so they can ask him questions since he's regarded as one of the wise old men of investing. Financial reporters will report on it, and they like to get a jump on it by getting their questions in the days before.
Neither Munger or Buffett pump or manipulate their own stocks. They give praise where they think it's due, but they usually hold their positions for years if not decades.
If Charlie could respond, I predict he would tell you to stick it up your pedantic bum. He is 98 years old and doesn't give two flocks.
He said it because Yahoo! Finance's Editor-in-chief Andy Serwer asked him in an interview about Berkshire Hathaway's large holdings of AAPL despite the company's traditional hesitancy to invest in tech companies.
Sure he was asked a question and Tossed out that very verbose answer with no ulterior motives at all. I mean really….
Let me put it to you another way. Say he didn’t think that about their management(and anyone with a brain can see he’s laying it on pretty thick) and, while owning a crap ton of the company, does he come out and say “well it’s not ran very well”?
No way in hell. Hell, he could get in hot water for doing so.
That word, hesitant, is very telling…
Have you ever listened to an interview session with Charlie? He usually does at least two a year, the DJCO meeting and Berkshire Hathaway meeting, and they are on the internet.
This was not a verbose answer by Munger standards. He's 98 but still sharp as a tack and if you ask him a question about something he's thought deeply about, you are going to get both barrels.
And Buffett and Munger have to have been thinking heavily the last month on whether they want to continue to hold Apple at these prices. It's been a great investment, but it's getting expensive. So top of mind it appears Charlie wants to keep it and one reason is Tim Cook.
If he didn't think that about the company, then he would come up with a different reason to justify Berkshire Hathaway's holdings in AAPL. There are a hundred reasons to invest in Apple right now; it's not like he couldn't come up with another one if what he said wasn't true.
If he and the rest of BH management didn't think Apple was well run, why would they continue to hold stock in the company? His duty is to maximize returns for Berkshire Hathaway investors, that's how any company works.
Lol ok so I’m confused. Now you are saying he would say something positive to protect the investment?
Why would they continue to hold stock? It’s still the worlds most valuable company(here and there); no investor should abandon ship at first sign of trouble. Some do.
Own BRK-B stock and have owned for almost 20years. But: I don't give either WB or CM credit for the Apple holdings...I think it belongs to Combs and the other top lieutenant (name escapes me at the moment). But, as in most organizations, the 'Top' gets the credit.
Apple has been lauded as "ungodly well-managed" by billionaire investor Charlie Munger, Yahoo Finance reports.
In an exclusive interview, the Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman told Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer:
Apple is now Berkshire Hathaway's largest stock holding, and the stake is a significant proportion of the value of the conglomerate holding company itself. In recent years, Berkshire Hathaway has sought to bolster its stake of Apple and other big tech companies such as Amazon. Munger emphasized that he is most impressed by Apple:
Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett often praises Apple's success and, as of September 2021, the company owned 5.5 percent of Apple with 907.6 million shares.
Last month, Apple became the world's first company worth three trillion dollars. At its last earnings report, Apple reported quarterly revenue of $123.9 billion, an all-time quarterly record for the company. On a category-by-category basis, the company also set all-time quarterly revenue records for the iPhone, Mac, Wearables, and Services.
Article Link: Apple Is 'Ungodly Well-Managed,' Billionaire Investor Says
Right and or that Tim Cook was going to run the company into the ground because he is a logistics guy and can’t run a multibillion dollar corporation. Mr. Cook has proven a lot of people wrong. Including me, at times, with Ives “thin is in” designs and of course the keyboard nee “thin is in”
Now Imagine owning 5.5% of a THREE trillion dollar company. You would probably say the are the best thing since sliced bread and help them burry the baby pandas.
Last edited:
I think I agree that Tim has built Apple and it's revenue in a way that Steve never could have. Steve would have been too slow to let the size of the phone increase, I think, and I think he wouldn't have been excited about the speakers that were developed, and even Apple Watch may not have come out when it did. Every product had to pass the Steve scrutinizing and that slowed some ideas down. What this did, though, is limit the number of ideas that were not good. Since Tim hasn't been as hard nosed in this sense he has let some products come out slightly half baked or slightly underwhelming. Are they great products still? Yes, but they maybe needed a little more attention before they came out.
The other thing Steve would never have let happen is the number of products. He didn't want a huge portfolio of products because he knew that he wanted Apple to be the special company that produces a certain level of product. Watering down products by letting the old version sell next to the new version or by making a cheap version would never have flown with him. Was that unnecessarily elitist? Maybe to some degree, but what it did offer is a more focused company. If they only made 7 computer configurations and 1 or 2 phones and a few other small devices, they did each one well. On the other hand, Tim has decided to conquer more of the market and now design and coding teams have to cover more work. Did the teams grow to help this? Sure they did, but even still they are doing more devices and it just can't infinitely scale. At some point the system breaks down.
While I definitely thing Tim is doing a good job, I think there is a part of Apple that has been lost since he took over. Maybe a balance of the two is needed and to some degree exits with Tim, but I think it needs to shift a little closer to Steve.
Also, let's remember who made this comment. It was definitely self serving.
Correct. I was really disappointed when they took the MagSafe off and I carried on with my 2011 17” MBP until it gave up the ghost. So I used our daughters iMac since she had just got a new 2018 MBP so I was really excited with the new 16” MBP with MagSafe so as soon as I could get it ordered it was ordered. Happy Mac user for sure.
But inferior means "less than" which would mean there needs to be something one the other side of the equation. For something to be inferior, it has to be inferior to something.
This is not how investing works. I'll turn it around for you.
Before buying 5.5% of a trillion dollar company, you'll make sure it's well managed. You won't just buy anything, and then say they're the best.
…I’m assuming that comment is satirical because otherwise it’s just asinine. That is exactly how investing works for a lot of people. I mean really, did you just say that? Remember selling your first car to someone else? Did you emphasis the bad or play up the good?
This is as no brainer concept and it’s being defended in the name of petty fandom. Pure and simple.
Oh and I’ll point out, even though I shouldn’t have to, that they DIDN‘T buy it at that valuation. It’s now at that valuation(or whatever it‘s at, I don’t know)hence why you’d protect it and grow it with many tactics including shining up a turd for lack of a better phrase. Not saying it’s a turd mind you…
That’s not true in my opinion; it can be inferior to an idea or need or want of yours. About anything. Apply that thought to a your search for a significant other for example.
Apple gives the people what they want if the people squeal loud enough for long enough or get the government to start poking around.
I almost gave up on the Mac when I was living with my 15inch 2017 Macbook Pro, with no magsafe, port-less donglefest, a touch bar no one wanted and a keyboard that was replaced twice and I just got sick of taking to Apple. They got me to buy a Surface Laptop which I still use today and love, because it worked.
I like Apple products, I have been a user since my first Apple IIE back in high school 37 years ago when I lived in the bay area. I own, multiple Mac's, iPad's, iPhones, Watches, airpods, home pods, Apple TV's, air tags and any car I buy has to have Apple Car Play. I sub to Apple TV+ and Apple Music Family. I have a @mac.com Apple ID.
I like Apple as a company less and less every year.
Tim is simply fantastic as his job. He has used his talents as a master of supply chain management, combined with the financial might of Apple to control price and flow of technology to Apple when Apple needs it and at a price Apple dictates for the most part. If they cant, then they just buy out some company and control it that way. This has made Apple a money printing machine under Tim Cook. No wonder shareholders like Berkshire Hathaway love Apple.
At the same time has successfully sold the privacy myth to Apple fans, while paying off the CCP 275+ billion to gain access to those markets because of the tremendous profit possibilities no matter the privacy consequences of those whom Apple will profit off of. (This is Tim killing baby pandas). He has successfully gotten blood from a rock. Again shareholders love him and Apple under him.
The exact reason he got Job’s nod of approval for the job. It was 10% ego on his part and 90% having someone to toe the line. That is a point that can not be argued if you simply look at the products since then. More of the same by any stretch of the phrase.
When Jobs returned he laid out the famous Mac four section quadrant, Home/Work, Portable/Desktop to refocus the product line. It didn't just simplify their marketing, it created economies of scale they were needing at that time.
But when he passed away there were four different laptop Macs, two different iMacs, the Mac mini and Mac Pro. And there were three different iPods, and three different iPhones (3gs, 4 and 4s) for sale, and the Apple TV. I don't think Steve would have changed much had he lived, he still would have greenlit the Watch, Airpods, the Beats acquisition to create Apple Music, etc. I think the only thing he might have killed or delayed would have been the Homepod.
There is zero evidence this ever happened, and lots of reasons to believe it never did.