Berkshire Hathaway 2006 Annual Report Download - page 3

Note: The following table appears in the printed Annual Report on the facing page of the Chairman's Letter
and is referred to in that letter.
2
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
1997 .................................................. 34.1 33.4 .7
1998 .................................................. 48.3 28.6 19.7
1999 .................................................. .5 21.0 (20.5)
2000 .................................................. 6.5 (9.1) 15.6
2001 .................................................. (6.2) (11.9) 5.7
2002 .................................................. 10.0 (22.1) 32.1
2003 .................................................. 21.0 28.7 (7.7)
2004 .................................................. 10.5 10.9 (.4)
2005 .................................................. 6.4 4.9 1.5
2006 .................................................. 18.4 15.8 2.6
Compounded Annual Gain – 1965-2006 21.4% 10.4% 11.0
Overall Gain – 1964-2006 361,156% 6,479%
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 500 in years when the index
showed a negative return. Over the years, the tax costs would have caused the aggregate lag to be substantial.