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

Does your portfolio have bad breadth? Choosing essential betas

In this article, Ed Peters, co-director of global macro at First Quadrant, Ed Peters, examines what markets, or betas, are essential to fully diversitfy a global portfolio, while still achieving long-term goals; and how breadth is often confused with diversification. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Control shift in GP/LP dynamic: Cambridge Associates

In the headiness of the bull market, institutional investors generally took on more risk and enjoyed fewer rewards than alternatives managers. But the crisis has provided an opportunity for both counterparties to redefine the balance in the LP/GP relationship, in which institutions are entitled to demand a true alignment of interests on returns, lock-ups and

CalSTRS makes allocation changes at expense of equities

In the nine months to March 2009, the $111.6 billion US fund, CalSTRS has vastly altered its asset allocation, decreasing its equities allocation, with global equities now 6.8 per cent underweight the target allocation. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

$100b mismatch in private equity secondaries demand and supply

Recessions are traditionally considered a good time to invest in private equity, but liquidity constraints and the growth of unlisted assets within portfolios is causing pension funds to sit on the sideline. Sally Collier, London-based partner at global private equity fund of funds Pantheon Ventures, said there was a US$100 billion “mismatch” between the funds

Managing opportunities and risks: insights from the world’s largest institutional manager

Richard Lacaille, chief investment officer of the world’s largest institutional investment manager, State Street Global Advisors, spoke with Amanda White about the economy, when markets will turn and the asset allocation and strategies that will best take advantage of that. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Dynamic AA helps underfunded plans curb risk

Last week Russell Investments released new research arguing some pension plans should consider liability-responsive asset allocation – asset allocation that changes depending on the plan’s funded status. In this in-depth interview Amanda White explores the concept with one of the report’s authors, director of investment strategy, Bob Collie, including why until now such dynamic asset

Previous