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

…as executives take pay-cut

The board of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board will not award the individual component of executive’s short term incentive plans, due to current economic circumstances, however the chief executive and the three key investment professionals still earned a combined C$8.6 million in total compensation in the fiscal year to March. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1

CPPIB changes asset weights, expands risk management…

The C$105 billion Canada Public Pension Investment Board (CPPIB) has adjusted the investment allocations in its reference portfolio, including an increased foreign exposure, and made significant risk management enhancements, as a response to the volatile economic environment and its long-term asset-liability matching. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

What investors lose to their fiduciary ‘agents’

The flow of capital absorbed by Australia’s superannuation industry is something that irritates academics Ron Bird and Jack Gray, who just received research funding from the ICPM, particularly since super fund members are forced by law to put their money into the hands of their fiduciary ‘agents’, writes Simon Mumme. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2

Norwegian SWF pushes equity exposure beyond 50pc amid Q1 losses

The $US 324 billion Government Pension Fund – Global (NBIM) of Norway pushed its allocation to equities beyond 50 per cent in the course of Q1 2009 at the expense of its fixed income portfolio, maintaining a strategic bent towards a higher exposure to growth assets. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Another big equity manager calls the bottom

The US$13 billion global equities manager Trilogy Global Advisors has joined the growing list of funds managers prepared to call the bottom for equity markets, and is already overweighting stocks leveraged to global economic recovery such as technology and consumer discretionaries. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

French SWF picks Mubadala for first co-investment pact

The French economy will be the target of future co-investments by the nation’s $US28 billion sovereign wealth fund, the Fonds Strategique d’ Investissement (FSI), and the $US10 billion Mubadala Development of Abu Dhabi, after the two investors forged a strategic partnership this week. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Previous