3 ms·
I am not sure he threw an exact figure but it is his money regardless of what percent of the investment it represents. He gets to call the shots of how his mone
by anyfactor 5y ago
I am not sure he threw an exact figure but it is his money regardless of what percent of the investment it represents. He gets to call the shots of how his money get used and he doesn't need to have it authorized by a board. He isn't controlling the plan but he has some rightful authority over the plan.
- smnrchrds 5y agoAnd the university doesn't? The protests are directed at the university, asking it not to fund this project. The architect who resigned in protest resign from UCSB, not from Charlie Munger's employ.
- anyfactor 5y agoFunding a project is very straight forward. There are three things to cover 1. Who pays 2. What do they wants 3. What is the impact. Munger pays some money and he wants the building to be built in a certain way. University pays some money, and they have many direct and indirect things they want from it. Also the university is accountable to many more people than Munger. Munger is just person with limited/no accountability and he is very exact in his demand. On the other hand, the university is accountable to the trustees and the students. There is a value for simple and exact demands with money being handed over to someone with a goal. If you take a step back and see this entire engagement as an investment with social goals and not a billionaire donating money the nuances the whole ordeal becomes very clear.