I am curious how things change if you used BRK earnings instead of BV.
...
What I do have handy is the after-tax "steady things" per-share earnings figures (rails, utilities, MS&A, and cyclically adjusted underwriting profit), and investments per share. I could do a graph of those, similarly scaled to the same baseline. It will be a bit depressing, as it will really show how weak the operating earnings have been in the last few years.

That graph. Operating earnings look even more depressing than I anticipated
https://www.stonewellfunds.com/BerkshireTwoColumnR...

The earnings on non-subsidiary earnings are the sum of [rails, utilities, manufacturing/sales/retail, and a cyclically adjusted estimate of underwriting profits] adjusted for inflation each quarter, trailing four quarters figure, log.
The investments per share are pretty simple. It does include my "haircuts": large positions at high valuation multiples are valued based on a (high) multiple of earnings, not market value, most notably Apple.
Both series are rescaled to the same level at the arbitrary start date of mid 2013, since that's how long I've been doing the valuation this way.

The main lesson from this graph is that it makes clear why my valuation metric, based largely on these two figures, shows considerably slower growth in observable value than a multiple of book does in the last few years. The assets in the operating divisions as counted in book are doing fine, they just aren't earning as much. So valuation methods based on their earnings rather than assets give a more stagnant number lately.

Jim