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

European funds start rebalancing process

Pension funds in Europe are rebalancing their portfolios to reflect huge falls in equity markets as the financial crisis forces them to re-evaluate the relevance of their strategic asset allocation in the new market environment. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

European asset allocators fall short of academic best practice

Investment managers in Europe fail to employ techniques that avoid generating overly-concentrated portfolios because of poor input estimation, and do not fully take into account extreme risks when constructing portfolios, according to research by the EDHEC Risk and Management Research Centre. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

…as Government quantitative measures push up liabilities

Quantitative easing measures introduced by the UK’s Bank of England aimed at kick-starting the local economy have had the unintended consequence of pushing up UK pension scheme liabilities. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

New Jersey winds back alternatives program

The $59 billion New Jersey Division of Investment, has made several changes to its alternatives investment portfolio including a slowdown in new commitments, on the back of a belief that large institutions with high allocations to alternatives will be forced to sell portions of their portfolios in order to raise liquidity and rebalance their overall

Record losses for UK DB plans underscored by reliance on markets…

Five consecutive days leading into March were the most volatile on record for UK final salary pension schemes since accounting standards were changed in 2001, reflecting the risks associated with funding dependence on investment markets. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Private equity NAVs to fall further, but 80% discounts are unjustified

While the net asset values (NAVs) of private equity funds have been spared the steep declines taken by major indexes, the reporting lags inherent in private equity fund valuations should unveil double-digit losses for the first half of 2009. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Previous