Charlie's path to wealth

[schin]

Could someone shed some light on Warren and Charlie's comments about working at a law firm and how being an investor led to his wealth?

 

I get creating a hedge fund early on helps and earning money (carry) from your partners capital is a form of leverage... But, Ron Olson of Munger Tolles Olson has several billions too. I would assume working at a law firm wasn't that terrible for him.  He actually introduced Li Lu to Charlie... so, you would get to bump into some interesting people at a firm.

 

I know there are terrible lawyers out there......but, being a partner of a law firm is not a bad living... I mean... being any general partner in accounting, law, venture fund... is not necessarily bad.  All have long hours, but that's the sacrifice, isn't it? Moreover, MTO's culture is molded by Charlie -- he would be prudent and walk away from certain deals, right? Or choose not the partner with certain companies and individuals... I would think Charlie would maximize integrity over profit at his firm. 

 

Lastly, outside of BRK, Charlie would have made his money in real estate too.. So, with a lawyer salary and GE profits; alpha from RE with nature leverage; wouldn't Charlie been well off nonetheless. One might assume Charlie would be closer to a Sam Zell, real estate investor than Warren in an alternative universe.

[nwoodman]

2 hours ago, schin said:

Could someone shed some light on Warren and Charlie's comments about working at a law firm and how being an investor led to his wealth?

 

I will leave it to more intelligent participants to answer your question directly.  However, I did enjoy the body of your post especially the examples.  My feeling it was a conscious decision by Charlie in terms of the problems he enjoyed thinking about and solving.   I doubt going from $20m to $2bn for Charlie made that much of a difference in terms of lifestyle anyway.  From what I can gather though he thoroughly loved giving it away and getting to use both sides of his brain. What an amazing man.  

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, schin said:

Could someone shed some light on Warren and Charlie's comments about working at a law firm and how being an investor led to his wealth?

 

I get creating a hedge fund early on helps and earning money (carry) from your partners capital is a form of leverage... But, Ron Olson of Munger Tolles Olson has several billions too. I would assume working at a law firm wasn't that terrible for him.  He actually introduced Li Lu to Charlie... so, you would get to bump into some interesting people at a firm.

 

 

Ron Olson is only as rich as he is because of his stake in Berkshire Hathaway.  So while Olson and Munger would have been very successful in another universe solely as lawyers and real estate investors, it probably wouldn't be anywhere near what they are worth today due to Berkshire.  Cheers!

[gfp]

6 hours ago, schin said:

Ron Olson of Munger Tolles Olson has several billions too.

 

3 hours ago, Parsad said:

Ron Olson is only as rich as he is because of his stake in Berkshire Hathaway.

 

Why do you folks think Ron Olson has a several billion dollar net worth?  That would certainly be news to me.

[oscarazocar]

17 minutes ago, gfp said:

 

 

Why do you folks think Ron Olson has a several billion dollar net worth?  That would certainly be news to me.

 

Olson's publicly filed/known holdings are $88 million in Berkshire Hathaway stock.

[villainx]

7 hours ago, schin said:

but, being a partner of a law firm is not a bad living... I mean... being any general partner in accounting, law, venture fund... is not necessarily bad.

 

Not only not bad, but overall, really great.

[John Hjorth]

The latest [March 17^th 2023] Berkshire DEF 14/A contains the following information :

 

Charlie :

 

A-shares : 4,170

B-shares : 643

 

Ron :

 

A-shares : 145

B-shares : 27,742

 

[Source : Link , p. 11].

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Hint : Try to ask Google about Berkshire director Ron Olsons net worth  Answer : At least 15.2 B USD [<- !] [source likely Gurufocus - it creates wonders to apply A-share prices to B-shares! ]

[schin]

1 hour ago, oscarazocar said:

 

Olson's publicly filed/known holdings are $88 million in Berkshire Hathaway stock.

 

https://www.gurufocus.com/insider/8793/ronald-l-olson

 

This is what I googled...but, other links have it in the millions... either way.... It's still a lot of money... and putting it into an S&P would still support the "gaggle" of children that Charlie has.

 

Again, my questions is.... it's great that Charlie found financial freedom and something he loves to do..I have near heard of something being an investor and say, I rather be a lawyer...

 

Or I am an investor and I love being micro managed by a private equity firm.... but, being responsible and providing for your family as a lawyer is not necessarily a bad outcome for something who wants to make good money.

[John Hjorth]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

The latest [March 17^th 2023] Berkshire DEF 14/A contains the following information :

 

Charlie :

 

A-shares : 4,170

B-shares : 643

 

Ron :

 

A-shares : 145

B-shares : 27,742

 

[Source : Link , p. 11].

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Hint : Try to ask Google about Berkshire director Ron Olsons net worth  Answer : At least 15.2 B USD [<- !] [source likely Gurufocus - it creates wonders to apply A-share prices to B-shares! ]

 

1 hour ago, schin said:

 

https://www.gurufocus.com/insider/8793/ronald-l-olson

 

This is what I googled...but, other links have it in the millions... either way.... It's still a lot of money... and putting it into an S&P would still support the "gaggle" of children that Charlie has. ...

 

@schin,

 

Please always apply publicly available primary sources, to avoid confusion and banal, but important errors [, like here].

[longterminvestor]

"I can't help you with a simple solution to getting rich with soft white hands" - C. Munger

 

[villainx]

1 hour ago, longterminvestor said:

"I can't help you with a simple solution to getting rich with soft white hands" - C. Munger

 

 

 

haven't seen this one before.

[longterminvestor]

3 hours ago, villainx said:

 

 

haven't seen this one before.

 

[villainx]

On 12/5/2023 at 9:58 AM, schin said:

Again, my questions is.... it's great that Charlie found financial freedom and something he loves to do..I have near heard of something being an investor and say, I rather be a lawyer...

 

@schin, I'm not sure I understand your question, or your question is not clear.

 

Unrelated, I was listening to a podcast (Animal Spirits) that was discussing Munger's interview with Becky Quick.  Munger said something along the lines that he would have started investing earlier, or just generally be better, smarter, harder working at it, which would have made much more wealth.  The podcasters implied that Munger was envious of greater wealth generally or envious compared to Buffets' wealth.  When any simple understand of Munger would be so far from the case.  If anything, my understanding is that Munger was very generous to his family and charitable giving.  That he otherwise would have many times his net worth today.    

[John Hjorth]

On 12/5/2023 at 7:44 AM, schin said:

Could someone shed some light on Warren and Charlie's comments about working at a law firm and how being an investor led to his wealth?

 

I get creating a hedge fund early on helps and earning money (carry) from your partners capital is a form of leverage... But, Ron Olson of Munger Tolles Olson has several billions too. I would assume working at a law firm wasn't that terrible for him.  He actually introduced Li Lu to Charlie... so, you would get to bump into some interesting people at a firm.

 

I know there are terrible lawyers out there......but, being a partner of a law firm is not a bad living... I mean... being any general partner in accounting, law, venture fund... is not necessarily bad.  All have long hours, but that's the sacrifice, isn't it? Moreover, MTO's culture is molded by Charlie -- he would be prudent and walk away from certain deals, right? Or choose not the partner with certain companies and individuals... I would think Charlie would maximize integrity over profit at his firm. 

 

Lastly, outside of BRK, Charlie would have made his money in real estate too.. So, with a lawyer salary and GE profits; alpha from RE with nature leverage; wouldn't Charlie been well off nonetheless. One might assume Charlie would be closer to a Sam Zell, real estate investor than Warren in an alternative universe.

 

Personally, I think you think about this in a wrong way. [Your post is to me - in several dimensions - unordered and thereby a bit messy.]

 

Being what Mr. Buffett earlier has called "a helper" is actually not just 'a breeze'. It's actually a very demanding way to make a living.

 

There exists a saying among lawyers, accountants, consultants etc. going like this : "If we did not have all these clients, we would have no problems going to work !"

 

It spans from dishonest clients trying to play you to get involved in something, that you do not want to participate in, whatsoever, to really dumb [but lucky] clients to ask you for missions impossible [, not even trying to understand and comprehend the difference between what's legal, and whjat it is not.]

 

If you think about it from that angle, you will have no problem understanding how Mr. Munger perceived his work situation, you will have no problem understanding why why he left this craft, making him independent of of all kind of folks, starting with criminals, idiots, boneheads, alt the way to incompetent mediocrities.

 

Good clients aren't low hanging fruits. Good clients you have fun with while working and interacting with them and for them, while both you and your client are making money!

[schin]

On 12/7/2023 at 3:22 PM, John Hjorth said:

 

Personally, I think you think about this in a wrong way. [Your post is to me - in several dimensions - unordered and thereby a bit messy.]

 

Being what Mr. Buffett earlier has called "a helper" is actually not just 'a breeze'. It's actually a very demanding way to make a living.

 

There exists a saying among lawyers, accountants, consultants etc. going like this : "If we did not have all these clients, we would have no problems going to work !"

 

It spans from dishonest clients trying to play you to get involved in something, that you do not want to participate in, whatsoever, to really dumb [but lucky] clients to ask you for missions impossible [, not even trying to understand and comprehend the difference between what's legal, and whjat it is not.]

 

If you think about it from that angle, you will have no problem understanding how Mr. Munger perceived his work situation, you will have no problem understanding why why he left this craft, making him independent of of all kind of folks, starting with criminals, idiots, boneheads, alt the way to incompetent mediocrities.

 

Good clients aren't low hanging fruits. Good clients you have fun with while working and interacting with them and for them, while both you and your client are making money!

 

Charlie was a founder in his own law firm.  He created a great organization and luckily he found his ideal partner in Warren Buffett and BRK. My stance is he create a world class organization as a lawyer and in that perch, he would have provided wonderfully for his family.  He would still be at his 1%. Charlie could have still allocated money with his salary and partner bonus in real estate and investments and made a lot of money.   He went from being top 1% to top .5% -- which is great. Did he need to do that? He liked it better, I guess. That's a luxury. Charlie is an architect... why didn't he create an architectural firm. That was another one of his passion with investing?

 

Also, Charlie was CEO of Daily Journal, Wesco, and CORT.  All roles that would have provided for his family wonderfully..... Top 1% to .5%.

 

As for being around good clients and bad clients.... You get that bad clients and bad beats? Even working with Warren, they had to deal with Salomon Brothers and he got pulled into a SEC hearing for Blue Chips...... Also, the whole Haslam/Pilot investment. 

[schin]

On 12/6/2023 at 5:57 PM, villainx said:

 

@schin, I'm not sure I understand your question, or your question is not clear.

 

Unrelated, I was listening to a podcast (Animal Spirits) that was discussing Munger's interview with Becky Quick.  Munger said something along the lines that he would have started investing earlier, or just generally be better, smarter, harder working at it, which would have made much more wealth.  The podcasters implied that Munger was envious of greater wealth generally or envious compared to Buffets' wealth.  When any simple understand of Munger would be so far from the case.  If anything, my understanding is that Munger was very generous to his family and charitable giving.  That he otherwise would have many times his net worth today.    

 

@villainx - Charlie and Warren are always thinking about decision trees and probabilities.  My earlier statement is saying Charlie would have been able to provide for his family in a number of ways and all would have been fine. 

 

1) He could have continued as partner for his law firm and done well.

https://www.law.com/law-firm-profile/?id=218&name=Munger-Tolles-%26-Olson-LLP#:~:text=According to the National Law,2023 Am Law 200 ranking.

 

2) He could have focused on real estate like he did. Also, he is so passionate about architecture, he could have create a real estate/architecture firm too. He would have been financially independent there too.

 

3) He met Warren and felt comfortable with being Robin to Warren's Batman... which is great... that's what makes him a great man... Warren was LeBron and Charlie was Dwayne Wade. Or Warren was Michael Jordan and Charlie was Scottie Pippin (but, likes Jordan...lol)

 

I'm just saying all decisions would have gotten his family in a great place. In hindsight, we see he made a great choice partnering with Warren.... but, that was not without risk.

 

This is not suppose to be a negative post on Charlie. I'm just saying Charlie had multiple alternatives and all would have lead him to financial independence. I do not know why he was so negative to law.... it's not perfect nothing is... but, he was always connected to it with Daily Journal and other areas of his life.