I guess that's my point of bringing up the S&P. There are plenty of funds that beat the S&P for any given year. Almost none can do it consistently. That's what made Buffet and Berkshire notable-- the long term performance.

I would imagine that if you plot the distribution of returns for all the funds, it would approach a normal distribution. For the top performers (eg >3 sigma), what is their performance the next year? My gut feeling us that risky investments will increase the variance in returns-- those in the highest returns and highest losses will have risky strategies. So does past performance inform future performance? Maybe? All the commercials for investments want you to think so but explicitly say they don't.

So during the period in question, did Berkshire do better than the S&P?