Berkshire's Corporate Performance vs. the S&P 500
Annual Percentage Change
------------------------------
in Per-Share in S&P 500
Book Value of with Dividends Relative
Berkshire Included Results
Year (1) (2) (1)-(2)
---- ------------- -------------- -------
1965........... 23.8 10.0 13.8
1966........... 20.3 (11.7) 32.0
1967........... 11.0 30.9 (19.9)
1968........... 19.0 11.0 8.0
1969........... 16.2 (8.4) 24.6
1970........... 12.0 3.9 8.1
1971........... 16.4 14.6 1.8
1972........... 21.7 18.9 2.8
1973........... 4.7 (14.8) 19.5
1974........... 5.5 (26.4) 31.9
1975........... 21.9 37.2 (15.3)
1976........... 59.3 23.6 35.7
1977........... 31.9 (7.4) 39.3
1978........... 24.0 6.4 17.6
1979........... 35.7 18.2 17.5
1980........... 19.3 32.3 (13.0)
1981........... 31.4 (5.0) 36.4
1982........... 40.0 21.4 18.6
1983........... 32.3 22.4 9.9
1984........... 13.6 6.1 7.5
1985........... 48.2 31.6 16.6
1986........... 26.1 18.6 7.5
1987........... 19.5 5.1 14.4
1988........... 20.1 16.6 3.5
1989........... 44.4 31.7 12.7
1990........... 7.4 (3.1) 10.5
1991........... 39.6 30.5 9.1
1992........... 20.3 7.6 12.7
1993........... 14.3 10.1 4.2
1994........... 13.9 1.3 12.6
1995........... 43.1 37.6 5.5
1996........... 31.8 23.0 8.8
Notes: Data are for calendar years with these exceptions: 1965 and 1966,
year ended 9/30; 1967, 15 months ended 12/31.
Starting in 1979, accounting rules required insurance companies to
value the equity securities they hold at market rather than at the
lower of cost or market, which was previously the requirement. In
this table, Berkshire's results through 1978 have been restated to
conform to the changed rules. In all other respects, the results
are calculated using the numbers originally reported.
The S&P 500 numbers are pre-tax whereas the Berkshire numbers are
after-tax. If a corporation such as Berkshire were simply to have
owned the S&P 500 and accrued the appropriate taxes, its results
would have lagged the S&P 500 in years when that index showed a
positive return, but would have exceeded the S&P in years when the
index showed a negative return. Over the years, the tax costs
would have caused the aggregate lag to be substantial.