Charlie Munger on Opportunity Cost

At the 2023 DJCO meeting, Munger was asked about the bank stocks in the Daily Journal securities portfolio. The question was pointed: Berkshire had unloaded its bank stocks, and if those positions were not good enough for Berkshire shareholders, why were they good enough for Daily Journal shareholders? Munger's answer was structural. He might have different ideas than Berkshire, he said. If you owned marketable securities within a corporation located in California, you paid huge state and federal taxes if you sold things at a big gain, and that affected the willingness to sell. He then made a striking disclosure: those bank stocks he had bought on the bottom tick in the foreclosure crisis. Literally, Munger said, it was the bottom tick. They were practically all gain now, so he would immediately give the government forty-some percent of everything he sold out of those bank stocks. They were producing dividends that were almost tax free. Based on what he would get if he sold them and the return he was getting out of the dividends, he said, it's not so bad for us. The answer was that Daily Journal was not in a normal position. All factors considered, they were willing to hold them for a while. The decision, in other words, was not a vote against the underlying thesis. It was a vote for tax discipline. The big disadvantage in having a huge layer of federal corporate taxes and state taxes between the company and any money it made - in a state like California, especially - was that it trapped gains inside the corporate shell. Munger was telling the room that tax friction is a real input into hold-versus-sell decisions, that the bottom-tick buy had produced a position where the after-tax math of selling was inferior to the after-tax math of holding, and that the rational investor factors that into the decision rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

At the 2020 Daily Journal meeting, held as the COVID crash was still unfolding, Munger reiterated his hold-not-sell philosophy by reference to Costco. He was, by his own description, no good at exits. He didn't even like looking for exits. He was looking for holds. He told the audience to think of the pleasure he had got from watching Costco march ahead - such an utter meritocracy, doing so well - and asked why on earth he would trade that experience for a series of transactions. He would be less rich, not more, after taxes. The second place was a much less satisfactory life than rooting for people he liked and admired. He condensed the philosophy into a single line that became one of his most quoted precepts: find Costco's, not good exits. The grammar was deliberate. The hard work was upstream, in identifying the kind of business that compounded intrinsic value over decades - a Costco, a See's, a Coca-Cola - and then holding it. Once you owned something like that, the sell decision was a different and far less important question. The trap was the investor who kept trying to find clever exits from positions he had never properly chosen in the first place. Munger paired the holding discipline with a spending discipline. The secret of his and Buffett's early compounding, he said, was controlling costs and living simply. They had tiny little bits of money and they always underspent their incomes and invested the difference. You live long enough, Munger told the room, you end up rich. It is not very complicated. The line was characteristically Munger: take an obvious truth, refuse to dress it up, and dare the audience to argue with it.

At the 2018 Daily Journal meeting, Munger returned to the theme of opportunity cost. The point he made to the audience was that Berkshire's discipline about saying no was not a virtue of caution but a virtue of focus. If they had one thing they could do more of, he said, they were not interested in anything that was not better than that. The rule simplified life a great deal. Anything that did not clearly exceed the next-best use of the marginal dollar was, in Munger's framing, a no - and the no was the active investment decision, not the absence of one. He tied the point to activity itself. It is amazing, Munger told the room, how intelligent it is to spend some time just sitting. A lot of people are just way too active. The observation was directed at the modern investor's bias toward doing something - anything - in response to market moves, news, or peer behavior. Munger's prescription was the opposite. The intelligent posture was to think, read, and wait, and to act only when the proposition in front of you was unambiguously better than the next-best alternative. He closed with the too-hard pile callback. Most of the propositions that came across his desk went onto the too-hard pile and stayed there. He did not feel guilty about that. The pile was the working part of his investment process. Every once in a while an easy decision came along, and he made it. That, Munger said, was his system. The audience was meant to take it as an actual system, not as false modesty - the discipline of refusing to invest in things you do not understand is, in Munger's view, the single most underrated competitive advantage an individual investor can have.

-6- investment decision making. If you happen to have a rich uncle who will sell you his business for 10 percent of what it’s worth, you don’t want to think about some other investment. If the opportunity cost is so great, considering everything else, you should forget about it. And most people don’t pay enough attention to opportunity cost. Bridge players know about opportunity cost. Poker players know about opportunity cost. But in an MBA faculty members and other important people, they hardly know their ass from a plate of hot squash. Questioner: When you try to arrive at a valuation number using the discount rate, does it mean that between the two rates–– Charlie Munger We don’t use numeric formulas that way. We take into account a whole lot of factors. It’s a multi-factor thing. And there are tradeoffs between factors. It’s just like a bridge hand. You have to think of a lot of different things at once. There’s never going to be a formula that will make you rich just by going through some horrible process. If that were true, every mathematical nerd who gets A’s in algebra would be rich. . . . So you have to be comfortable thinking about a lot of things at once, and correctly thinking about a lot of things at once. And we don’t have a formula that will help you. And all that stuff is relevant. Opportunity cost of course is crucial. And of course the risk-free rate is a . . . factor . . . Questioner: Do you use the same rate for different types of businesses?

quality disparity in book value’s intrinsic merits has, in recent years, continued to widen in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for investment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations. The Board of Directors recently increased Wesco’s regular dividend from 381 ⁄2 cents per share to 391 ⁄2 cents per share, payable March 5, 2009, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on February 5, 2009. This annual report contains Form 10-K, a report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and includes detailed information about Wesco and its subsidiaries as well as audited financial statements bearing extensive footnotes. As usual, your careful attention is sought with respect to these items. Shareholders can access much Wesco information, including printed annual reports, earnings releases, SEC filings, and the websites of Wesco’s subsidiaries and parent, Berkshire Hathaway, from Wesco’s website: www.wescofinancial.com. Charles T. Munger Chairman of the Board and President February 25, 2009

deferred income taxes of $322 million, subtracted in determining its net worth. This interest-free “loan” from the government is at this moment working for Wesco shareholders and amounted to about $45 per Wesco share at yearend 2007. However, some day, parts of the interest-free “loan” may be removed as securities are sold. Therefore, Wesco’s shareholders have no perpetual advantage creating value for them of $45 per Wesco share. Instead, the present value of Wesco’s shareholders’ advantage must logically be much lower than $45 per Wesco share. Business and human quality in place at Wesco continues to be not nearly as good, all factors considered, as that in place at Berkshire Hathaway. Wesco is not an equally-good- but-smaller version of Berkshire Hathaway, better because its small size makes growth easier. Instead, each dollar of book value at Wesco continues plainly to provide much less intrinsic value than a similar dollar of book value at Berkshire Hathaway. Moreover, the quality disparity in book value’s intrinsic merits has, in recent years, continued to widen in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for investment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations. Last year we reported that Wesco had held more than $1 billion of cash equivalents and fixed-maturity investments since early in 2003.

This interest-free ""loan'' from the government is at this moment working for Wesco shareholders and amounted to about $42 per Wesco share at yearend 2006. However, some day, parts of the interest-free ""loan'' may be removed as securities are sold. Therefore, Wesco's shareholders have no perpetual advantage creating value for them of $42 per Wesco share. Instead, the present value of Wesco's shareholders' advantage must logically be much lower than $42 per Wesco share. Business and human quality in place at Wesco continues to be not nearly as good, all factors considered, as that in place at Berkshire Hathaway. Wesco is not an equally- good-but-smaller version of Berkshire Hathaway, better because its small size makes growth easier. Instead, each dollar of book value at Wesco continues plainly to provide much less intrinsic value than a similar dollar of book value at Berkshire Hathaway. Moreover, the quality disparity in book value's intrinsic merits has, in recent years, continued to widen in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for investment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations. Wesco's consolidated balance sheet reÖects total assets of $3.0 billion as of yearend 2006. Of that amount, more than $1 billion has been invested in cash equivalents and Ñxed-maturity investments since early in 2003.

the government is at this moment working for Wesco shareholders and amounted to about $36 per Wesco share at yearend 2005. However, some day, parts of the interest-free ""loan'' may be removed as securities are sold. Therefore, Wesco's shareholders have no perpetual advantage creating value for them of $36 per Wesco share. Instead, the present value of Wesco's shareholders' advantage must logically be much lower than $36 per Wesco share. Business and human quality in place at Wesco continues to be not nearly as good, all factors considered, as that in place at Berkshire Hathaway. Wesco is not an equally- good-but-smaller version of Berkshire Hathaway, better because its small size makes growth easier. Instead, each dollar of book value at Wesco continues plainly to provide much less intrinsic value than a similar dollar of book value at Berkshire Hathaway. Moreover, the quality disparity in book value's intrinsic merits has, in recent years, continued to widen in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for investment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations. Wesco's consolidated balance sheet reÖects total assets of $2.7 billion as of yearend 2005. Of that amount, more than $1 billion has been invested in cash equivalents and Ñxed-maturity investments since early in 2003.

Of course, so long as Wesco does not liquidate, and does not sell any appreciated securities, it has, in effect, an interest-free ""loan'' from the government equal to its deferred income taxes on the unrealized gains, subtracted in determining its net worth. This interest-free ""loan'' from the government is at this moment working for Wesco shareholders and amounted to about $32 per Wesco share at yearend 2004. However, some day, parts of the interest-free ""loan'' may be removed as securities are sold. Therefore, Wesco's shareholders have no perpetual advantage creating value for them of $32 per Wesco share. Instead, the present value of Wesco's shareholders' advantage must logically be much lower than $32 per Wesco share. Business and human quality in place at Wesco continues to be not nearly as good, all factors considered, as that in place at Berkshire Hathaway. Wesco is not an equally-good-but-smaller version of Berkshire Hathaway, better because its small size makes growth easier. Instead, each dollar of book value at Wesco continues plainly to provide much less intrinsic value than a similar dollar of book value at Berkshire Hathaway. Moreover, the quality disparity in book value's intrinsic merits has, in recent years, continued to widen in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for invest- ment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations.

Instead, the present value of Wesco's shareholders' advantage must logically be much lower than $32 per Wesco share. Business and human quality in place at Wesco continues to be not nearly as good, all factors considered, as that in place at Berkshire Hathaway. Wesco is not an equally-good-but-smaller version of Berkshire Hathaway, better because its small size makes growth easier. Instead, each dollar of book value at Wesco continues plainly to provide much less intrinsic value than a similar dollar of book value at Berkshire Hathaway. Moreover, the quality disparity in book value's intrinsic merits has, in recent years, continued to widen in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for invest- ment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations. To progress from this point at a satisfactory rate, Wesco plainly needs more favorable investment opportunities, recognizable as such by its management, prefer- ably in whole companies, but, alternatively, in marketable securities to be purchased by Wesco's insurance subsidiaries. Our views regarding the general prospects for investment in common stocks are unchanged one year after Warren BuÅett wrote the following, in his 2002 annual report to shareholders of our parent company: ""We continue to do little in equities.

working for Wesco shareholders and amounted to about $28 per Wesco share at yearend 2002. However, some day, parts of the interest-free ""loan'' may be removed as securities are sold. Therefore, Wesco's shareholders have no perpetual advantage creating value for them of $28 per Wesco share. Instead, the present value of Wesco's shareholders' advantage must logically be much lower than $28 per Wesco share. Business and human quality in place at Wesco continues to be not nearly as good, all factors considered, as that in place at Berkshire Hathaway. Wesco is not an equally-good-but-smaller version of Berkshire Hathaway, better because its small size makes growth easier. Instead, each dollar of book value at Wesco continues plainly to provide much less intrinsic value than a similar dollar of book value at Berkshire Hathaway. Moreover, the quality disparity in book value's intrinsic merits has, in recent years, continued to widen in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for invest- ment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations. To progress from this point at a satisfactory rate, Wesco plainly needs more favorable investment opportunities, recognizable as such by its management, prefer- ably in whole companies, but, alternatively, in marketable securities to be purchased by Wesco's insurance subsidiaries.

Business and human quality in place at Wesco continues to be not nearly as good, all factors considered, as that in place at Berkshire Hathaway. Wesco is not an equally-good-but-smaller version of Berkshire Hathaway, better because its small size makes growth easier. Instead, each dollar of book value at Wesco continues plainly to provide much less intrinsic value than a similar dollar of book value at Berkshire Hathaway. Moreover, the quality disparity in book value's intrinsic merits has, in recent years, continued to widen in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for invest- ment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations. To progress from this point at a satisfactory rate, Wesco plainly needs more favorable investment opportunities, recognizable as such by its management, prefer- ably in whole companies like CORT, but, alternatively, in marketable securities to be purchased by Wesco's insurance subsidiaries. The thing that should interest Wesco shareholders most with respect to 2001 is that we found no new common stocks for our insurance companies to buy. We are not excited by general prospects for common stocks. The Board of Directors recently increased Wesco's regular dividend from 311 /2 cents per share to 321 /2 cents per share, payable March 6, 2002, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on February 6, 2002.

equally-good-but-smaller version of Berkshire Hathaway, better because its small size makes growth easier. Instead, each dollar of book value at Wesco continues plainly to provide much less intrinsic value than a similar dollar of book value at Berkshire Hathaway. Moreover, the quality disparity in book value's intrinsic merits has, in recent years, continued to widen in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for invest- ment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations. To progress from this point at a satisfactory rate, Wesco plainly needs more favorable investment opportunities, recognizable as such by its management, prefer- ably in whole companies like CORT, but, alternatively, in marketable securities to be purchased by Wesco's insurance subsidiaries. The Board of Directors recently increased Wesco's regular dividend from 30¥ cents per share to 31¥ cents per share, payable March 7, 2001, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on February 7, 2001. This annual report contains Form 10-K, a report Ñled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and includes detailed information about Wesco and its subsidiaries as well as audited Ñnancial statements bearing extensive footnotes. As usual, your careful attention is sought with respect to these items. Charles T. Munger Chairman of the Board March 5, 2001

Moreover, the quality disparity in book value's intrinsic merits has, in recent years, been widening in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for invest- ment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations. The Board of Directors recently increased Wesco's regular dividend from 29¥ cents per share to 30¥ cents per share, payable March 8, 2000, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on February 9, 2000. This annual report contains Form 10-K, a report Ñled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and includes detailed information about Wesco and its subsidiaries as well as audited Ñnancial statements bearing extensive footnotes. As usual, your careful attention is sought with respect to these items. Charles T.2000

plainly to provide much less intrinsic value than a similar dollar of book value at Berkshire Hathaway. Moreover, the quality disparity in book value's intrinsic merits has, in recent years, been widening in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for invest- ment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations. We are not now pessimists, on a long-term basis, about business expansion. Despite present super-ebullient markets for entire businesses, making it hard for Wesco to Ñnd attractive opportunities, we do not believe that such opportunities will never come. On January 13, 1999 Wesco increased its regular dividend from 28¥ cents per share to 29¥ cents per share, payable March 10, 1999, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on February 10, 1999. This annual report contains Form 10-K, a report Ñled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and includes detailed information about Wesco and its subsidiaries as well as audited Ñnancial statements bearing extensive footnotes. As usual, your careful attention is sought with respect to these items. Charles T. Munger Chairman of the Board March 8, 1999

Instead, each dollar of book value at Wesco continues plainly to provide much less intrinsic value than a similar dollar of book value at Berkshire Hathaway. Moreover, the quality disparity in book value's intrinsic merits has, in recent years, been widening in favor of Berkshire Hathaway. All that said, we make no attempt to appraise relative attractiveness for invest- ment of Wesco versus Berkshire Hathaway stock at present stock-market quotations. We are not now pessimists, on a long-term basis, about business expansion. Despite present super-ebullient markets for entire businesses, making it hard for Wesco to Ñnd attractive opportunities, we do not believe that such opportunities will never come. On January 28, 1998 Wesco increased its regular dividend from 27¥ cents per share to 28¥ cents per share, payable March 11, 1998, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on February 11, 1998. This annual report contains Form 10-K, a report Ñled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and includes detailed information about Wesco and its subsidiaries as well as audited Ñnancial statements bearing extensive footnotes. As usual, your careful attention is sought with respect to these items. Charles T.1998