Earlier in this thread you claimed:
Fair enough. He's underperformed the S&P by 100% in the last decade. I know plenty of peole who wouldn't tolerate that.
And now as evidence you provide a graph where the ending balances are $34,060 and $26,309 :
June 2010-May 2020 (EXACTLY the last 120 months):
Next month wil look even worse for BRK.
No Aplogy Necessary if I'm right (and I am).
I'm getting Dejavu here with your ongoing math errors: Where's the 100% under performance?
26309 / 34060 = .772 which is roughly 23% under performance.
Or to paraphrase your arrogant attitude towards me: "23% isn't 100%? Clear?"
In the thread about compounding interest, after insulting me by saying "This is high school maths", you screwed up the math. And this is interesting - both times, you had no idea you made a mistake. Others had to quote where you make the math error, because you weren't able to see it.
So here we are again, you haven't shown 100% under performance, and you think you have. You're wrong, refusing to admit it, and not seeing your own math errors.
In another argument we haven't resolved, you claimed the book "Global Asset Allocation" fairly represented the "Buffet Portfolio" as 90% S&P 500 and 10% bonds.
I highly doubt Faber is trying to mislead anyone or somehow deny Buffett his stock picking kudos. That is not my impression at all. He doesn’t call it the S&P portfolio because guess what? It’s not 100% S&P, it’s 90% with 10% bonds. Call it the Buffett portfolio, the 90/10, Brian or whatever else you want.. it doesn’t change the message that is being conveyed.
In that thread, I never got you to agree a "Buffet Portfolio" should be 100% Berkshire stock. In this thread, you assume it's true without saying a word! So are you wrong here to represent Buffet with 100% Berkshire, or were you wrong in the other thread to defend representing Buffet with 90% S&P 500 and 10% bonds? Does anyone but you have two definitions for a Buffet portfolio?