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

Governance foiled by human folly at NY state fund

The third largest fund in the US, the $122 billion New York state pension fund, has recently been embroiled in a tale of greed, fraud, bribery and corruption, with a number of its alternative investment funds allegedly tainted by the wrong-doing of former employees of the state comptroller’s officer, including its former CIO. In this

Maybe it’s time to get back into the water, with a life jacket

Institutional investors have never been market timers, but in this editorial, publisher of conexust1f.flywheelstaging.com, Greg Bright, argues maybe now is the time for pension plans to take a bet. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Volatility sparks complete risk management review at CalPERS

Turmoil in financial markets and the need for greater transparency has triggered a review of the $174 billion CalPERS’ existing governance and risk management framework, with a new ad hoc committee tasked with reviewing the risk management framework across the entire business. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

AustralianSuper aims for beta returns after big cuts to active equities

The A$28billion (US$20 billion) AustralianSuper terminated several mandates with active equities managers last week and directed most of the freed-up capital to passive exposures bringing its passive management in equities to more than 50 per cent, in an effort to simplify its portfolio by trimming excess managers. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Embrace risk in asset allocation

Investors should be wary of “new paradigm” arguments, according to the latest research by consulting firm Wurts & Associates, which reminds investors the forces driving capital markets rarely change, but the position within market cycles is ever changing. Wurts & Associates’ philosophy on strategic asset allocation is that static portfolio structure is an ineffective means

Index composition changes create opportunities for bond managers

Drastic changes to the composition of the US bond index, the Barclay’s Capital Aggregate Index, will create opportunities for active bond managers and provide rationale for institutional investors concerned about active management in the sector to adhere to their long-term asset allocation. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Previous