Subject: Re: OT-Guy Spier’s Aquamarine Fund
In totally agree with your comment regarding the starting & ending points being carefully chosen to make one’s point.
However…. I still feel that over a long term, the 1,3,5,& especially the 10,15,20 Yr relative comparisons are of value

Wouldn't it make more sense to avoid start/end point effects by using one of those metrics, like 1-year-performance, or a few of them (1, 2, and 3 years) and to look at the average relative performance in ALL intervals during a long enough timeframe?

Kind of "In how many of all 2 year intervals '1.1.xxxx - 1.1.xxxx +2' between 2000 and now did BRK under/overperform and by how much on average?" With eventually even using a smaller timeframe than 2000 and now, maybe 10 years only, and shifting that 1 year at a time forward/backward, each time repeating this evaluation? Wouldn't the results be much much informative?

Just a spontaneous thought, not really thought through.