Do you get what you pay for?

A pay-for-performance measure of chief investment officers in the US has revealed paying more for an executive does not translate to better performance.

Developed by executive recruitment firm, Charles Skorina & Company, the index is calculated by assessing an institution’s investment returns over the past five years, and measuring it against the salary of the CIO.

A basis points earned per $100,000 of compensation is derived and then the CIO’s are ranked by this measure of “performance for pay”.

By this calculation, John Hull, chief investment officer of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation was the highest performing CIO, with 105 basis points per $100,000 of salary.

Hull manages $5.1 billion and earns $620,000, ranking him 46 out of 50 on Skorina’s list of highest paid CIOs in the US.

The highest paid CIO on this top 50 list is Harvard endowment’s Jane Mendillo earning around $4.7 million in total compensation, followed by Yale’s David Swensen with around $3.7 million.

Sponsored Content

Endowments dominate the list, with Texas Teachers’ CIO, Britt Harris the only pension fund chief investment officer featuring on the list, earning just over $1 million according to the Skorina data.

Applying the performance for pay calculation reveals Harris generated 29 basis points per $100,000 of salary; Swensen 16, and Mendillo 10.

Skorina says institutional investment boards have been asking him for years to develop a measure of performance for pay and so his aim was to develop a basic, objective and consistent measure.

“Chief investment officers and asset managers measure their service providers every day, but have excuses for why it doesn’t apply to them,” he says. “We wanted to create a simple measure, to create an MER for CIOs. If they think a measure such as basis points per dollar of their salary shouldn’t be used then earnings per share shouldn’t be used, and the S&P and Dow Jones would be defunct.

“You can say that each fund has different benchmarks and measures, but what it gets down to is how much money was made for the institution. An institution will forget about all the other things if you have a negative return.”

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE CIO PERFORMANCE-FOR-PAY TABLE

2 responses to “Do you get what you pay for?”

  1. Chris Ailman

    David Villa and Charles Cary are both with Public Funds.

    While you point out people will always disagree, one does have to ask if the CIO had full discretion over Asset Allocation and risk appetite. It certainly isn’t level across these funds. I realize it’s the most recent time period, but would you ever use the data from 1928 to 1932 to measure someone’s performance?

    1. AMANDA WHITE

      Thanks for your comment Chris.
      Clearly it is more complicated than a simple basis points/$ figure, particularly at fiduciaries where the board sets strategy and the role of the investment team is to implement.
      I also take your point about time frames. One of the enduring challenges for the industry across the globe is to think, and act, with only long term goals in mind. I’d welcome ideas on how we can challenge the industry, in particular service providers and stakeholders, to think like that – long-term mandates perhaps?

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Experts mull strategies in slow growth climate

Speaking at the Fiduciary Investors Symposium at Oxford University’s Rhodes House Fiona Trafford-Walker, director of consulting at Frontier Advisors argues that Australian investors are operating in a changed environment and need to “get used to slower economic growth.” Speaking as part of an expert panel on how the continued environment of slow growth and low

Macro diversification: How do investors diversify risk?

“Geopolitics does matter and how to navigate geopolitical events on a portfolio is challenging,” argues Tom Clarke, partner and portfolio manager at William Blair speaking at the Fiduciary Investors Symposium at Rhodes House, Oxford University. In a session dedicated to macro strategies for investors to best navigate today’s complex investment universe and diversify risk, Clarke argues that “hiding” from

Oxford Professor urges urgent European reform

The University of Oxford’s distinguished Professor of Economics David Vines predicted the ongoing crisis in Europe will turn into a “train wreck with implications for investors” unless governments undertake significant reforms. He urges for large write downs of the sovereign debt of southern European countries, a loosening of austerity in those countries and a significant

Indexing pressure improves active management

A new study of active and indexed-based mutual funds shows the impact of different countries’ regulatory and financial market environments. The study finds that the average alpha generated by active management is higher in countries with more explicit indexing and lower in countries with more closet indexing. The evidence suggests that explicit indexing improves competition in the mutual fund

Investors need to revamp portfolio construction

Investors should re-consider their investment processes in order to achieve the needed “step-change in efficient portfolio construction” in a low return environment, the chief executive of the A$109 billion ($83 billion) Future Fund, David Neal, says. “It is the investment process that turns the universe of opportunities into a portfolio, and right now that process

Investors need to rethink operating model

A neat little story of investment flows, asset allocation changes, and relationship and service demands is emerging from the third annual Top1000funds.com/Casey Quirk Global Fiduciary CIO Survey. If you’re a CIO of an asset owner what that means is more control but also more responsibilities and the demands of more internal resources. For managers it

Previous