Compounding means your returns start earning returns. The reason it feels underwhelming is that it does almost nothing for years and then does almost everything at the end — the growth is exponential, so the largest absolute gains arrive last. Someone who invests for 40 years doesn't get twice the outcome of someone who invests for 20; they can get several times as much, because the final years operate on a much larger base.
This has one dominant practical implication: time in the market beats timing the market, and starting early beats starting big. A person who invests a modest amount from age 25 to 35 and then stops can end up ahead of someone who invests more from 35 to 65, purely because the early money had more time to compound. It also means the biggest financial mistake is usually not a bad investment — it's a late start, or interrupting the compounding by selling in a panic.
Warren Buffett's net worth is often attributed to stock-picking genius, but Morgan Housel points at a different variable. Buffett's net worth at age 30 was roughly $1 million; the overwhelming majority of his fortune — well over 90% — was accumulated after his 60th birthday. He didn't get dramatically better at investing in his sixties. What changed is that compounding had been running for over half a century by then, on a base that had grown enormous. Housel's thought experiment makes the point sharper: if Buffett had started investing at 30 instead of 10, and retired at 60 like a normal person, applying the exact same returns, his net worth would be roughly $12 million instead of tens of billions — about 99.9% less. His skill produces the rate; his 80-year time horizon produces the result.