Historically, the notion that a residual alpha of only 0.1% could be the central evidence of a performance restriction due to size, as is the case with Berkshire Hathaway, diverges from our precedent.
The regulatory playbook has long shown that such marginal fluctuations can be transient and reversible, often influenced by specific market conditions or strategic adjustments.
For example, a change in leadership or a new share buyback policy could easily alter these figures.
Considering this figure as definitive proof of a structural constraint would impose a burden of proof that we have historically not required for such fundamental conclusions.