5 ms·
I feel like this doesn’t lend itself well to that graph style, hard to interpret. Maybe some log scale needs to be applied to the y axis first to point out the
by verelo 8y ago
I feel like this doesn’t lend itself well to that graph style, hard to interpret. Maybe some log scale needs to be applied to the y axis first to point out the differences.
- statguy 8y agoOne way to show the difference would be to sort one of the graphs - though it would mix up the years.
- no_gravity 8y agoAgree that it is not easy to interpret. I could add a log scale chart, but since the value is the annual percentage change of market value, I think a linear scale is the right choice. But I'm not 100% sure. Would like to hear some opinions on this.
- dajohnson89 8y agoA line connecting the points would be very helpful.
- nostrademons 8y agoIt's more interesting as log-scale cumulative returns. The fact that Buffett dramatically outperformed the S&P 500 in...uh, I think it was 1976, but it's hard to read on the chart...is mildly interesting, but the really striking figure would be "Given $1000 invested in Berkshire Hathaway in 1966 vs. $1000 invested in the S&P 500, where would you be now?"
- pmart123 8y agoIt doesn’t have to be log scale, but you should use cumulative returns, ie add 1 to each number and calculate a cumulative product.