Also, that's the lower bound by what people estimated she had when she entered congress and close to the upper bound of what she would be worth today.
But it's entirely possible that someone in the SF area with a SV husband beat the S&P without resorting to insider trading on public markets. Heck, the house she bought has probably beaten the S&P.
To reiterate, I always assumed she was insider trading. These numbers are making me question that.
Most people don't lump sum in the market like that, it probably ignores the taxes she would have to pay if she took the money out now, and most people use some of the money in the meantime.
I'm just saying if you lived a good lifestyle, the money is already mostly taxed, and you didn't invest everything all-at-once, and you still have the amount of money you would get with lump-sum and never touch S&P, you're doing far far better than the market.
Didn't she touch it though? A lot of people would be multimillionaires if they only put money in and never took money out.
The question is, with what she did invest, and the money she did take out, would she still be that wealthy.