Value investor Munish Pabrai bought Micron in 2017 and sold it in September 2023, earning only about a one-fold return. Two years after selling, Micron’s stock rose more than 15-fold, costing him an estimated $2 billion in missed gains. In a recent Korean interview, he reviewed some of his most painful investment mistakes, admitting he violated his own principle of holding stocks forever. Pabrai had personally traveled to Seoul to engage in deep discussions with SK Hynix and Samsung management, believing in the oligopolistic structure of the memory industry. However, he sold his position in 2023 after Samsung announced capacity expansion, missing out on the surge in HBM demand. For investors currently holding Korean semiconductor stocks, he advises, “Don’t sell—the party has just begun.” He maintains a checklist of 213 investment principles, centered on no leverage, durable moats, and management integrity, and plans to donate all his wealth before his death in 2054.Article author and source: Wall Street Journal
Spending nearly $5 million on a lunch with Buffett, this Indian "Buffett" missed out on $2 billion in gains from Micron.
Mohnish Pabrai, a disciple of Warren Buffett and a globally renowned value investor, bought Micron in 2017 and sold it in September 2023, earning only about a one-fold return; after selling, Micron’s stock price rose more than 15 times over the next two years, resulting in an estimated missed profit of around $2 billion. He also sold SK Hynix too early.
On June 22, he reviewed his most painful trading mistakes on the Korean talk show Knowledge Inside: "Unfortunately, I violated my own principles and sold a company I should have held forever."
The pain of selling too early: Held for six years, sold just before the takeoff. Parbley initiated his position in Micron in 2017, and at one point, his stake reached as high as 77%. During the interview, when asked about the Korean stock market, Parbley expressed his regret.
Although he did not directly mention specific trading actions regarding Micron, Pabre discussed on the show that he had done extensive research—traveling to Seoul to meet with SK Hynix management, visiting Samsung executives, and having in-depth conversations with Micron’s Indian-American CEO. His core logic is that the global memory market will ultimately be dominated by just three players—Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron—with an oligopolistic structure that is stable, competition that is becoming more rational, and promising profitability.
He even specifically consulted Buffett and Munger on this. Papale recalled: "Munger and Buffett told me, 'We've studied soda bottlers worldwide—in 95% of regions, when only two remain, they both make huge profits. Only in a rare 3%-5% of cases, where the two are naturally bitter rivals, do they drive each other into the ground.'"
In 2023, Samsung announced an increase in production, and Park Bo-ra concluded that the supply-side logic had been disrupted, subsequently liquidating her position.
But by then, ChatGPT had already been released, and the surge in demand for HBM (High Bandwidth Memory) was on the horizon.
Two years after liquidating, Micron's stock price increased more than 15-fold.
I shouldn't have sold them; Micron wasn't his only regret.
SK Hynix also sold too early. In the interview, he directly stated: “I visited Samsung multiple times and held investments in SK Hynix. Unfortunately, I violated my own rule by selling these companies when I should have held them forever.”
His assessment of South Korea’s semiconductor industry remains clear: “SK Hynix and Samsung’s memory businesses are highly protected.” He explains that the memory industry once had as many as 20 companies competing fiercely and undercutting each other’s prices, all eventually going bankrupt—leaving only three. “It’s nearly impossible for new entrants to join—the patent barriers, engineering talent pool, and process complexity mean it would take 10, 15, or even 20 years to enter.”
For investors who still hold South Korean semiconductors, his advice is direct: "If you already own them, don't sell. The party has just begun."
This statement is, in a way, also meant for myself.
In 2007, Peter Teal bid $650,000 (at the exchange rate of approximately 7.6 at the time, equivalent to about RMB 4.94 million) for the opportunity to have lunch with Buffett—less than one-third of his budget of $2 million.
He said his only goal at the time was: "My entire agenda was to thank Mr. Buffett in person."
But lunch exceeded expectations. He told Buffett that his wife was truly enamored with Munger. Buffett immediately "accepted the challenge," claiming he would arrange a lunch with Munger so they could see that he was the better dining partner. Two days later, Pabre indeed received an email from Buffett’s assistant arranging the meeting.
At that lunch, I gave Buffett a 15 out of 10. One reason is that he got things done.
The relationship with Munger was established from then on, and Pabla visited his home with his family every three or four months.
Three bottom lines, 213 checklist items. Paibole has a checklist approach to investing derived from the aviation industry—after a plane crash, regulators review the causes and revise procedures; he likens investment losses to plane crashes, turning each loss into a new checklist item.
His list currently contains 213 questions. He has distilled three core points for retail investors:
First, no leverage. "The number one reason investors lose money is leverage—companies taking on too much debt, or investors borrowing money to buy stocks." He cites the founder of IKEA as an example: operating for 70 years without borrowing a single euro, "because we owe nobody anything, no one can stop us."
Second, the durability of the moat. It’s not just about whether a competitive advantage exists, but how long it can be sustained. He uses AmorePacific as an example: although the brand has recognition, there are many competitors and consumers continuously seek better products, making the moat unstable.
Third, the character of management. "Do they love money, or do they love the business? Loving money is fine, but don't be greedy."
For most people, his conclusion is simpler—“Buy an index directly if you’re one of over 99% of investors.”
After losing wealth, nothing is truly lost. In the final part of the interview, Pabole discussed his ultimate goal: to donate all his money the day before he dies—June 11, 2054, the date his AI estimated as his death. He said, “I don’t really care about money, because once your wealth surpasses a certain point, it no longer holds practical meaning. I’m playing a game.”
When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, everything is lost. Therefore, don’t worry too much about wealth, pay a little attention to health, and devote all your energy to character.
The full interview is as follows:
Had a $700 million Korean won lunch with Warren Buffett and received a precious giftKnowledge Insider blog, June 22, 2026Park Bae 00:00 As an investor, whether it's Samsung or SK Hynix, I would ask them: What will this company's cash flow be in 20 years? If an investor cannot answer this question, they shouldn't buy this stock.Parbleu 00:18I essentially follow Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger’s investment approach.There are three important items on their checklist, which basically mean...Parbale 00:43 Hello, thank you so much for having me.I am an asset manager currently overseeing approximately $1.4 billion in assets.Host 00:51 It’s an honor.Parbleu 01:05 From my perspective,that lunch was one of the best deals I’ve ever experienced—a true bargain.Looking back, everything that followed has only strengthened my belief in this. Imagine if we had lived in the time of Newton or Einstein and had the chance to sit down for lunch with them—two questions would arise: First, would we go? Second, how much would we be willing to pay? I believe Warren Buffett is fully deserving of being mentioned alongside them.Parbale 01:37 He is the greatest investor of all time and the best investor alive today, and he was willing to accept a "bribe" in the form of a lunch. My entire career has been built on his framework and what I’ve learned from him.By 2007, I had directly earned over $70 million by applying Buffett’s principles. So I felt it was time to pay my teacher a "tuition fee."I asked myself: How much tuition would be fair to pay a teacher who helped me earn $70 million? I thought 3% was quite reasonable, perhaps even on the low side. 3% amounts to about $2 million. Yet in the end, the winning bid was surprisingly low—$650,000, less than a third of my budget.Pabole 02:32 The only reason I attended this lunch was to express my gratitude to Mr. Buffett in person. I did not expect to gain anything more. However, Mr. Buffett had different expectations for these lunches.At that lunch, what did he bring?Pablor 02:50 His expectation is that everyone who wins the chance for lunch should feel like they got an incredible deal. So even if the other person paid $26 million, he would do everything he can to ensure they feel the money was well spent by the end of the meal.Paboli 03:06 When Mr. Buffett came to lunch, his goal was to create sufficient value for us. Before the lunch began, his assistant collected everyone’s resumes and personal profiles, and he had researched each attendee in advance, thoroughly understanding everyone’s background.At the start of lunch, he told us there was no time limit. Lunch began around 1 p.m., and he said, "I have no other commitments this afternoon; I'll stay here until you're done talking—just let me know, and I'll leave."Pablor 03:42 I also attended another charity lunch with Eric Schmidt, then CEO of Google. That lunch was completely different. Schmidt’s lunch took place in the cafeteria at Google’s campus, and he checked his watch every 15 minutes. The lunch was scheduled for one hour, and as soon as the time was up, he immediately got up and left.If I were to rate these two lunches, I’d give Schmidt’s a 2 out of 10—I’m being fairly generous, maybe it deserves only 1, because I can barely remember what he said—not a single sentence made me think, “That changed my life.”Host 04:19 What about Buffett’s dinner?Pabole 04:21 Buffett's meal? 15 minutes.Host 04:23 15 minutes?Parbale 04:25 Yes, 15 out of 10. There are several reasons why it exceeds the maximum score.At lunch, my wife was present, and I told Mr. Buffett that she is a devoted fan of his, but her true "dream man" is Charlie Munger, not him. Mr. Buffett immediately became competitive, saying: "My partner Charlie Munger is a very boring person; having dinner with him is pointless. I'm the interesting one, not Charlie. It's only because you don't know him that you find him interesting—I'll arrange for you to have dinner with Charlie."Host 05:03 Oh my!Pabore: 05:03 "After that meal, you'll realize I'm the better dining companion." I thought he was just joking, but two days after lunch, I received an email from his assistant to Charlie’s assistant, copied to me, arranging lunch with Charlie. The email also told Charlie: "This couple also lives in California, and they think you're more interesting than me. Charlie, you know I'm the fun one, but go meet them and let them decide for themselves."Later, I had lunch with Charlie, and to be honest, I enjoyed that lunch with Charlie more than the one with Buffett.Host 05:39 This is probably not the result Buffett wanted to hear.Parbale 05:42His plan backfired completely. Another positive outcome of that lunch was the deep friendship I formed with Charlie. Since then, I’ve visited his home for dinner with my family or wife roughly every three or four months.As I mentioned before, my original intention wasn’t any of this—I just wanted to use this tuition money to thank my hero in person. But in the end, I gained all of this—it was such a beautiful and heartwarming experience.Parble 06:26The Korean market is currently heavily skewed, primarily due to the influence of SK Hynix and Samsung.Host 06:32 Yes, that's true for the semiconductor industry.Parbile 06:35 Yes. The good news is that South Korea is benefiting from a strong tailwind—in this gold rush led by SK Hynix, South Korea is the one selling the pickaxes.I’ve visited Samsung multiple times and once held shares in SK Hynix. Unfortunately, I violated my own principles by selling those stocks, when they should have been held forever.Parble 07:01SK Hynix and Samsung's memory businesses are highly barrier-intensive. For a long time, the memory business had little value—up to 20 memory companies once competed fiercely, continuously lowering prices and fighting for production capacity, leaving none profitable until companies gradually went bankrupt, leaving only three players in the market: Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron.Parbleu 07:31Today, it’s nearly impossible for a fourth new player to enter this market—a point confirmed by my conversations with Micron executives.For new entrants: First, they must overcome a vast array of patent barriers; second, they need to recruit a large number of experienced engineers and management talent, which is extremely difficult; third, due to the extremely high chip density and highly complex manufacturing processes, building a new fab is equally complex, and the entire process could take 10, 15, or even 20 years.Therefore, these existing companies simply cannot meet current market demand. If you own a Samsung phone or an iPhone, you’ll notice prices have risen—this is directly due to rising storage costs, and this trend will extend to all next-generation electronics.In countries like Korea, these two companies dominate the entire index and make up a large portion of the KOSPI. Investors holding these two stocks have seen substantial gains during this period. My advice: if you already own them, don’t sell. The party has just begun.Host 08:43 Do you think the KOSPI will continue to rise?Park Bae 08:45 Regarding the rest of the KOSPI, I feel there is still some degree of undervaluation. However, the KOSPI faces a major headwind—South Korea’s population is declining at a very rapid pace, even faster than Japan’s. In the long term, any civilization with a continuously shrinking population will face serious challenges in overall output, which will ultimately be reflected in the stock market.For countries like South Korea and Japan with declining populations, the only path to significant GDP growth is to become a strong export nation—and South Korea indeed is a strong export nation.Pabole 09:26 But there are two issues here.First, countries such as the United States have begun to respond with tariff measures, which is a negative factor. Second, population decline has led to a sharp rise in labor costs. As a result, Korean companies without an export orientation will face real operational pressures; while export-oriented companies, although benefiting from favorable tailwinds, must still consider their specific circumstances.For example, Hyundai, despite being an excellent company, faces the same challenge—producing a car in Alabama is now cheaper than in South Korea, leading to a gradual shift of manufacturing bases to China, India, Alabama, and other locations. This trend has already occurred and serves as a negative signal for South Korea. Ideally, South Korea needs to achieve population growth.Parbleu 10:24I essentially follow Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger’s investment philosophy—we view stocks as partial ownership in businesses, not pieces of paper. When we’re ready to buy a stock, we think as if we’re acquiring the entire company. Therefore, we seek investments that, ideally, we can hold forever.Host: 10:48 Hold forever, right?Pabole 10:49 Any time we have to sell, it means we made a mistake. More broadly, any time most participants in the market are selling anything, they are making a mistake.Host 11:00 Understood. So according to your investment philosophy, we need to truly hold for the long term.Pabole 11:04 My investment checklist, inspired by the aviation industry. In the United States, the agency that regulates commercial aviation is the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). Whenever an airplane crash occurs, they send out a large team of investigators to determine the cause. If they identify issues related to the aircraft’s design or engineering, they assess the consequences with a highly pragmatic approach—estimating how many crashes and how many fatalities would occur over the next 10 or 20 years if no changes were made.Parker 11:51 The FAA has a clearly defined value for a human life, currently around $5 million. For example, suppose an investigation into a plane crash determines that, without fixing this issue, 500 people will die over the next 10 years—then 500 multiplied by $5 million equals $2.5 billion. Therefore, any required fix from the aviation industry must cost less than $2.5 billion. If the cost of the fix were as high as $20 billion, the FAA would not mandate it, as they take a pragmatic approach.Parkbale 12:29: The aviation industry achieved two things as a result: first, flying became extremely safe; second, flying became extremely cheap. If the FAA had priced human life as infinite, a ticket from Los Angeles to Seoul might cost as much as $250,000. They chose a middle ground, and all safety improvements in the aviation industry have always occurred only after crashes— they never sat in laboratories discussing, "Let’s proactively make this or that improvement"; every improvement has been forced by accidents.So I thought: applying aviation thinking to investing, what is the "crash" in investing? It’s losing stocks—those that go to zero, or those sold during a decline; the latter is a "survivor’s crash." So I decided to update and adjust my investment approach solely based on these "crashes." I studied the mistakes made by the world’s greatest investors to see whether these errors were predictable before they lost money.Host 13:38 So you're looking for some kind of warning signal?Pabole 13:41 Yes, what I mean to say is: before the plane takes off, can we determine whether it will crash?For example, decades ago, Buffett invested in a company called Dexter Shoe, which manufactured shoes in the United States. Buffett acquired it using 2% of Berkshire’s shares. Almost immediately after the acquisition, the shoe industry faced intense foreign competition from China, Vietnam, and other regions; U.S. manufacturing costs were too high, and Dexter eventually went bankrupt—a “no survivors” crash.Parker 14:19 So I asked myself: Is this a business that could be negatively impacted by cheap foreign labor or foreign competition? When I evaluate a company, I ask this question. For example, a U.S. bank wouldn’t be affected by foreign labor, so this question doesn’t apply; but if I’m looking at a U.S. bicycle manufacturer, the situation might be different.Pareek at 14:40: The checklist prompts me: "Monish, don't touch this—look at what happened to Dexter." I started building this checklist about 16 or 17 years ago, originally with七八十个 questions, and it has since expanded to 213.Running the checklist doesn’t take long, but during the first run, I often can’t answer some questions—this indicates I haven’t done enough homework and need to dig deeper, find the answers, and then return to identify all the "fail" items. Afterward, I synthesize these issues to determine: should we "take off"? The checklist is truly an excellent tool.Host 15:19 So when you research a new company, do you go through all 213 questions every time?Pabole 15:24 Of course. Pilots must complete a pre-flight checklist before takeoff. For individual investors, there are three most important items to check before investing.Host, 15:37 Please tell us.Parbleu 15:38The number one reason investors lose money is leverage—either the company itself has too much debt, or investors borrow money to buy stocks. Therefore, the most important thing when investing is to尽量 invest in companies with no leverage.Pabole 15:59 Are you familiar with IKEA? Of course. IKEA is a private company that has never gone public. Its founder passed away several years ago, and during his more than 70 years of running IKEA, he never borrowed a single euro or considered raising capital through an IPO. Each new store was funded using profits retained from previous stores.Ingvar did this because he wanted IKEA to last 1,000 years—"because we owe no one money, and no one can stop us from running our business the way we want."Parble 16:42It is an essential principle for investors to avoid borrowing money and to avoid investing in companies with debt. The world’s best companies do not need to take on debt to grow, because their businesses are simply strong enough on their own.The second biggest reason for poor investment performance is investors misjudging a company's competitive advantage, which Buffett calls the "moat."For example, AmorePacific—you might be a customer of theirs?Host 17:13 Yes, it's AmorePacific.Pabole 17:16 Are you its customer?Host: 17:17 A very loyal customer.Park Bae 17:19 Very faithful, excellent. Women around the world aspire to have skin like Korean women and are deeply envious. But I believe that despite AmorePacific’s strong performance, this remains a highly challenging business—there are too many competitors vying for a share of the market, and female consumers are continuously seeking better skincare solutions. As a result, companies like AmorePacific may maintain their leadership for a while, but will always face ongoing pressure.In particular, companies without strong brands but only high-quality products may not survive long in such a fiercely competitive market. Therefore, the second key is: understanding the durability of a company’s moat.The third key is the quality and integrity of management and shareholders.In short, it's corporate governance.Parker 18:15 Yes, corporate governance. Do the people running this company genuinely care about shareholder interests, or are they just focused on getting rich? Of course, there’s nothing wrong with liking money—but not at the expense of the business. Do they love money, or do they love the business?Host 18:32 That's a great question.Parbleu 18:33Even if you forget the 213 questions, as long as you remember these three points—no leverage, the quality of the moat, and the quality of management—investors can avoid a lot of trouble.Host 18:53 So, regarding index investing...Parble 19:01For over 99% of investors, they should directly buy index funds.Host 19:06 Why say that?Park Bae, 19:07: Because when investors want to buy SK Hynix, they say, "I don't want to buy an index; I understand semiconductors, I understand AI, and I believe this company will rise." But I ask them: What will SK Hynix's cash flows be in 10 or 20 years? If an investor cannot answer this question with a high degree of certainty, they shouldn't buy this stock.Park Bae 19:33 For certain businesses, the answer to this question can be very clear. For example, suppose there is a power company in South Korea—users cannot switch providers at will each year, and regulators allow this power company to earn a specific rate of return; it is a well-understood and well-regulated business.Suppose this power company earns 100 million annually, and you can buy the entire company for 300 million—if it distributes 100% of its profits as dividends, you would recover your entire principal within three years. This becomes a mindless, nearly risk-free investment. This is the type of investment we’re interested in.Pabole 20:10 Typically, these "risk-free" investment opportunities arise in industries that the market has rejected and overlooked. If something is currently being hyped, don’t buy it. What we look for in investing are irrational anomalies—things that don’t make sense.Host 20:34 But how can this approach be applied in the field of AI?Pabole 20:38 In the field of AI, my approach is: not participating.Host 20:42 What does it mean?Pabole 20:43 I've already said—Host 20:46 Things that are rejected and neglected, okay.Pablo 20:48: You can't chase what everyone else is obsessed with. AI is hot right now. Do you know what was equally hot before? Bitcoin. Then AI came along and became the next "shiny toy," so those holding Bitcoin sold all of it to buy AI—Bitcoin dropped from $100,000 to $70,000. Now, those holding AI will soon sell it too, chasing the next "shiny toy." Do you know what the next "shiny toy" is? SpaceX's IPO.Host: 21:26 That would be the largest IPO ever, right?Pabore 21:28 That will be a very dazzling "shiny toy." People will sell AI—first selling Bitcoin to buy AI, then selling AI to buy SpaceX. Please don't chase "shiny toys."Host: 21:42 Very practical advice.Pabole 21:44 But it's sad that...Host 21:46 What?Pabore 21:47 It's sad that people who hear this find my beard interesting—Host 21:53 That’s quite a beard, but…Pabole 21:56 Then they will still buy.Parbale 22:06I don’t really care about money because once wealth surpasses a certain level, it no longer holds practical meaning for me. I’m playing a game, and to play it well, I need to know when I’ll die. Fortunately, now we have AI.I asked "Google God," and Google told me: "Monish, you will pass away on June 11, 2054." I said: "Thank you so much, Google—you’ve made my life so simple."Pabale, 22:28, June 11, 2054: On the day I leave this world, I want one "compounding engine" still running, and another "giving engine"—my charitable foundation supporting quality education for children in India, an investment that yields extremely high social returns.So, while compounding, I also need to keep giving away, and the pace of giving must accelerate. For me, this entire process is a game, with the goal of giving everything away by June 10, 2054. If I succeed, it will have been a beautiful game.Host 23:02 That’s beautiful. So the more you earn, the more you can give back and contribute to society.Park Bae, 23:07: In the meantime, I also hope to eat more Korean food—I have a deep fondness for Korean cuisine.Host: 23:15 What is your favorite Korean dish?Pabore 23:16 Sundubu-jjigae (Soft Tofu Stew)!Host: 23:18 The plain tofu soup is great.Pabole 23:19 And some roast beef. I'm a simple person—just give me plain tofu soup and roast beef. Add a few eggs, and it's perfect.Host 23:28 Okay, last question—what motto would you like to leave everyone with if you want to build wealth?Parbleu 23:35 I’d like to end with this:Loss of wealth means losing only material possessions; loss of health means losing something far more important; loss of character means losing everything. Therefore, don’t overly worry about wealth, pay more attention to your health, and fiercely protect your character.