I think the current amount is 115m, so she became ~74m richer, so her returns are even worse.
On the flip side, it's impossible to say there was no conflict of interest, even she made 0 dollars. Decision makers should fave stricter limits on trading, e.g. be restricted to index funds. In Australia, public servants have to follow rules around this, for example logging all trades above a minimum and bans on trades related to companies involved in procurement/tenders (e.g. billion dollar defence contracts).
I think your broader point still stands, but they undoubtedly were not able to invest their entire $41M net worth in 2004.
I think the current amount is 115m, so she became ~74m richer, so her returns are even worse.
On the flip side, it's impossible to say there was no conflict of interest, even she made 0 dollars. Decision makers should fave stricter limits on trading, e.g. be restricted to index funds. In Australia, public servants have to follow rules around this, for example logging all trades above a minimum and bans on trades related to companies involved in procurement/tenders (e.g. billion dollar defence contracts).